War Between the Us & Iran-- Any Historic Precedent for What it would look like?

>Check your facts before posting.
Another genius who doesn't understand the idea of realpolitik. Has never read a book, but her knows everything.

Before you post another word, go order and read "confront and Conceal" by David Sanger. Any candidate can say anything they want, but want to understand some realities? Let's take one. Chicago.
The city of Chicago has ~15 days of choline for water on hand. After that, the city of chicago would have no more potable water. You have riots. Now true, the U has built built up a larger totemic reserve of oil since 9/11. During wartime, just where do you think that oil is earmarked for? You guessed, the military.

Now, let's say in theit favor, as in 1967 when they took the Wailing Wall in East Jerusalem, thsi time they take the Dome of the Rock. Given Merkel's genius in letting in MILLIONS of Muslims, seeing and 3rd holiest site in Islam (where muslim claim Mohammed made his night flight, and where Usama bin Laden's father would sometimes structure his day around being abe to pray first at Mecca, then Medin, then Jerusalem, it's a MASSIVE deal for them. It's a Koranic predict for a massive Jihad on all fronts. And not just from Saudi paid clerics, this would be from ALL OF THEM.
Now, thanks to the insanity of immigration polices, we have open rebellion by Muslims all over the West, including the US. Is this fantasy? Go read some of the far-right Likud politicians on Israeli websites. Even Liberman has spoken of demolishing the 3rd holiest in their religion.
Are you really that goddam dumb you don't know what this would lead to? Would make Paris and Nice look like a fay at the beach. And if they move the U embassy to Jerusalem, if they are that dumb, mark my words, this WILL begin.

lmao

>oh i doubt that
It's not a matter for doubt. Over 20 different red teams have been done it. The Iranians have the missiles capable of doing it. It's a fact. I'm to trying to sound condescending, but this isn't even up for debate. No missile defense system on earth-- Aegis cruise, patriot battery, etc....can protect these Saudi refineries from the newest generation of Iranian, Russian-made cruise mollies.

i hope you are right, and i hope those refineries are deterrent enough

you have to be crazy to want a war in iran

Has trump ever openly said he wants to destroy it?

If he did I didn't saw it. And I don't know why he would need to in order to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

I don't see the joke. Again, someone pretending to be believer because he doesn't understand the ramifications of what would actually happen. There are literally hundreds of papers I read on this while that was part of my my job.

But you know more than I? Please, explain where I am miscalculating. You apparently know more than the nation's foremost experts on Iranian policy and weaponry. Please, give us your synopsis of the first 72 hours After Israel hits Natanz or Fordo. You imply you know more, but in actuality you don't know a goddam thing. I sent 2 years of my life getting paid to study tis issue. What's your experience sir?

dude, trump is like the smartest man alive. Even his 10 year old is smart enough to know all about the cyber.

>I don't see the joke.
The joke is you, sir, roflmao

Seriously though, it seems a little weird to me as a story. What has Usama have to do with anything here, really, or his father. I understand people give a shit about Jerusalem etc. but if muslims wanted a koranic predict for "a massive jihad on all fronts" they already have plenty motivation for that, I doubt they need some symbolic event to "push them over the edge"

That said I bet people(muslims and some in the west) will shout from the rooftops about muh embassy being moved to muh Jerusalem so it might have a big effect in the end.

Those are all my speculations, if you've actually analyzed this in detail then obviously you are right and i need to think about these things a little more.

Also I think you confused my 'lmao' as directed to another one of your posts, which makes no difference.

>Has trump ever openly said he wants to destroy it?
No. It's largely behind the scenes, Israel has been threatening do it by themselves? They was why the entire "Olympic Games" operation was launched-- a cyber attack to take down Iran's nuclear facilities.

The problem for the US is that every Red Team shows that even if Israel does this on their own, the US ends up getting dragged up simply because access to the straight of Hormuz is crucial to US energy supplies. It's a fucking nightmare for the U perspective, because if the Israelis bomb, not matter badly the president may want to say out, there is simply no way for the US to stay out.
Never especially liked Obama, but quietly this issue and the prospect of the Paks losing their nuclear arsenal have ben essentially the two biggest of the last 6 years. In one attack in 2011, the only thing that kept Islamists in pakistan from getting their hands on a nuke (even if they could not detonate it properly, could just use it as a "dirty bomb"if they had a basic knowledge).

>What has Usama have to do with anything here
I..don't know how to respond. In plain truth, I sometimes co,e here to see if people will recognize the truth even if thrown in their face by someone who has the credentials to do it. Rarely is it recognized.

the point? the point of the story id that for wealthy, pious muslims being able to access all 3 of the holiest sites in their religion is very important to them.
If you'd like to know where the billions in support of ISIS and other Islamic terr groups come from, you need like no further than men like Mohammed bin laden, who can no longer attend their prayer services at dome o the Rock and take deep offensive to do it.

You are obviously a fedora-tipping pagan who is so enthralled with the cult of material well-being that you not imagine the thought of people willing to fight and die for the cause of something substantial, something spiritual, something greater than themselves.

you are on the board /his trying to act intelligent when you are the furtherest thing from. Why visit Malta and the burial place of Jean de Valette? He was just some Old white White guy!"

"SWAG" and "YOLO" my friend. I could only hope to have someone of your caliber in my section this year....I just LOVE teaching your type (luckily I get almost none of your ilk since I at a very selective uni...but undoubtedly some thing like you).

Ok, I see what you're saying.
You can consider my horizons widened.

>The joke is you, sir, roflmao
I have to admit, I'm still shocked that you still, after reading this thread, think you are sit to even shine my shoes in regards to this topic. Wild guess-- if you've ever been to uni at all, it's a community college?

You have someone here on a Sunday morning who has studied these matters in depth, and is willing to answer questions. If you want to screw around, why not go to /b/?

You say you are "laughing," et you understand NOTHING of the topic at hand, and have NEVER made any sort of in-depth study of it. You don't provide a single name, detail, book, journal, author....NOTHING, and yet you claim to be "rolling around laughing." At what exactly? Someone who takes this matters seriously? You haven't presented a single counterpoint to anything I've said.

I don't care about you user, the only time I'd ever even encounter you is maybe in a state that does not allow me to fill my gas tank on my own. You're not a "threat" to me, you have no knowledge, no intellectual vigor, nothing. Why you are here pretending to be intelligent, I don't know.
You don't understand Iran, Persia, or the geo-strategic status quo. Which is fine with me, the world needs ditch diggers too. But why congregate in a place where people DO take history seriously? Does it somehow make you feel better for poor SAT, MCAT, LSAT performance or whatever you failed at?

Entire scene is bizarre.

>>The joke is you, sir, roflmao
>I have to admit, I'm still shocked that you still, after reading this thread, think you are sit to even shine my shoes in regards to this topic. Wild guess-- if you've ever been to uni at all, it's a community college?
I just made an joke.

Also, I enjoy reading long BTFO posts by people who pretend to be autistic and overly outraged. It's one of my favorite memes, because it's creative.

>dey want freedumbs

The national guard seems to be deployed to disrupt a protest in a mid sized in the USA about once a month now, looks like we need freedumbs too

Bush ran on a similar platform the first time, criticizing Clinton for excessive foreign intervention.

Then he started the longest war in American history.

Would probably last like 3 months.

>sandniggerland
>bumfuckinstan country

Iran isn't even mostly desert. Iran is mostly Zagros Mountains, which are forest and forest steppe areas with a semi-arid climate, but it also has Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests in the North in provinces such as Mazandaran.

Iran does have some deserts in the South, but the land is not mostly comprised of desert, as I've explained.

>implying Vietnam wasn't longer

Americans don't really understand geography, especially when it comes to the Middle East.

This is why they lose wars over there.

As if the people here have any knowledge about geography or history.

We Europeans aren't any better in that regard. Or are we doing any better over there?

It's very hard to predict how war with Iran would go. Russia, in all likelihood, would most like assist Iran, but it is debatable whether China would help or not. Furthermore, it is difficult to say how many NATO countries would support USA's invasion of Iran, though it is certain KSA and Israel would back them.

It all depends on who joins who, really. If Russia, China, Syria, and Armenia were to back Iran, then I do not think America will win. It will be one of the most devastating losses for this country. In some sense, it may be necessary in order to curb the growing hubris of the Americans, which has gotten out of hand lately given the incompetence of the leaders in Syria.

>would most like assist
would assist*

>Armenia

really?

The fact Israel has been sending arms to Azerbaijan is pissing off Armenia, and furthermore, Iran has defended Armenia from Azerbaijan's aggression much to the chagrin of the Azeris. Moreover, I have even seen some media begin demonizing Armenia.

So yes, Azerbaijan would be on Israel, USA, and KSA's side.

Iran's real threat would come from Azerbaijan, and I won't be surprised if Iran attacks and annexes Azerbaijan in the upcoming month. The pretext for war from USA will come from Iran's justified invasion of Azerbaijan, which is by no means a "secular country" as the media lies.

Iran has closer relationships with Armenia rather than Azerbaijan, regardless of the latter being Shiite***

The best historical precedent is Caracalla promising to marry a Parthian queen in order to promote better relations between Rome and Persia, but in fact, he merely looted and burned the villages. It was a pretext to wreak havoc.

The Romans thought they won, but Caracalla was later assassinated and it continued until the Persians pushed the Romans out of their land.

I think Americans may become too cocky in the beginning and then later on they are pushed out and humiliated. This is what happens to a nation that becomes full of itself.

>month
meant to say year

that was before 9/11

russia is not a superpower. it's an ailing petrostate with imperial ambitions.

WW3 began on 11 Sep 01. This would be just an escalation.

i don't get why the us still holds onto the notion that iran is the enemy and saudi arabia is an ally when salafi jihadism, the biggest threat to american interests that currently exists, ideologically sprung directly from saudi culture.

if the us had to get into a major war in the middle east, iran would actually be the natural ally if everyone involved could get over the cold war for once.

It has to do with the deal William E. Simon made with Saudi Arabia in 1974.

bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret

The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide them military aid and equipment. In return, Saudi Arabia would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

Originally, William E. Simon brought this deal to the Shah, but he disagreed with it, indicating he was starting to act independently from US' interests. However, Saudi Arabia agreed, hence why Iran is enemies with the West now. It's all about economics and pretexts.

The Carter administration and Britain were both starting to encourage the fall of the Shah. BBC, for example, gave Khomeini a platform to preach his extremism and Carter called Khomeini a saint.

Also, this is why the USA, France, and Israel have begun supporting National Council of Iranian Resistance (NCRI) and People's Mujaheddin of Iran (MKO), which are actually the same thing, because they would be puppets for US' interests. They were Islamists inspired by Marxism that gassed our own people during Iran-Iraq War and were originally designated as terrorists.

Also, here's my own controversial view: I think Khomeini was a British spy trained in Persian mannerism. His children do not look Persian at all, especially Seyyed Hassan Khomeini.

>and finance America’s spending.
to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth***

It has to do with trading oil exclusively in petrodollars versus other currency. I think the dollar may be backed by OPEC's oil or somehow tied to trading oil exclusively in petrodollars.

Yeah we just spend billions of dollars on military satellites and then never look at any of the data they collect

It wouldn't be easy for all the reasons people have listed above, but the biggest problem is it would cost the US all credibility and trust it has left as I don't think NATO would fall behind it. Then the UN would become China's playground. If you don't believe NATO would mutiny like that just look at the mess Iraqi Freedom was and why nobody rose their hand when Obama was basically begging them to go into Syria with the US.

>hurr durr we dont need the eurfags usa strong low energy cucks
That's true, but you don't want them against you either, or worse, forced to become independet of your protection.

Get the fuck out of here, Chomsky.

>Get the fuck out of here, Chomsky.
How else do you explain USA's allying with Saudi Arabia yet vilifying Iran?

>Carter in charge of not fucking up

>Iranians are going to let the US take control of their country

Yeah, no. Even the liberal Iranians hate the US.

Nice to see a thread by someone knowledgeable about the subject matter.
I don't really know enough to add anything to the thread, but I have trouble believing that Iran could trigger ww3 simply because it doesn't seem like they have enough support. Sure, maybe Russia backs them, but who else?

Unless of course China decides to grab a chunk of the pacific in the hubbub, or otherwise uses the confusion to cause an economic crisis in the US and take their place as top dog. Otherwise it seems like it will be just another case of the US fucking with other countries and getting away with it.

Iran has a lot to give China and both have been increasing ties. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has also begun increasing ties with the Eurasian Economic Council, which Iran was invited to join.

BRICS includes China, Russia, Brazil, India, and South Africa, and it is highly likely that Iran would join too in the near future (making it BRIICS). They have created their own currency which threatens the dollar, given they have been growing tremendously. I am pretty sure they would give support to Iran in some shape or form in case of American aggression, which is simply covering economic motives.

America will not win the next war. Western European countries have become demoralized and only Saudi Arabia plus Israel show any real incentive to attack Iran alongside USA. They cannot take on BRICS/EEU countries and Iran.

>Eurasian Economic Council
Eurasian Economic Union*

If Chinese support Iran in any way not covertly, wouldn't NATO fall in line? As much as they don't like US hegemony it's a helluva lot better than the whatever the Chinese have to offer

You can't possible say "bush did it" as some sort of serious point. The two aren't even comparable.

>Bush started the longest war in American history
That would be Truman

The BRICS are a joke, senpai. They're just Russia pretending to be relevant and China learning how to lead an alliance they don't really care about but they hope will give them hints on how to lead their own NATO one day. Call me when they unify their currency and have actual cooperation
>Chinese and Indian militaries working together

Still, ignoring BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been increasing ties with Eurasian Economic Union, which Iran was invited to join.

Bump

its not up for discussion, go look up the war games done on this very scenario

armenia is iran's closest ally after syria

BRICS is a meme, congrats you fell for it

>iranian rial threatens the dollar

If you don't get what I'm saying, it's this: If Iran joins EEU, then it will gain greater defense. Iran cannot easily be attacked then since SCO is increasing ties with EEU.

Forget about BRICS. I'm mainly focused on EEU and SCO now

The war would be mainly between USA, Israel, and KSA versus EEU and SCO.

You're that same muslim faggot from the other thread that thinks he's going to get a global caliphate or some dumb shit like that.

The first thing you need to understand here, Islam is weak, Islamic countries are even weaker. You literally exist for the west to push around and use. If Israel takes the dome there will be no global Jihad and no war. They'll just take it, you'll bitch and moans and probabaly plan a few more terrorist attacks like you usually do anyway and at the end of the day nothing will have really changed. If you think you can resist the forces of modernization, you have another thing coming.

But why tho, assuming that's truth, what reason could they possibly have to do that?

Israel has a muslim population living inside it.

I never said otherwise, none of those words were used to refer to Iran specifically, altough it might not have come across very well on the second post.

Not even American.

China literally doesn't give a fuck about any of the people they call allies. They don't want friends, they want puppets, and they have them all over the world, and they wouldn't lift a finger for any of them, Iran included.

>They don't want friends, they want puppets, and they have them all over the world, and they wouldn't lift a finger for any of them, Iran included.
No, I didn't explain well before, but I'm saying if Iran joins the EEU, then the SCO would protect them given economic benefits or what have you.

SCO has been increasing ties with the EEU.

in.rbth.com/economics/finance/2016/03/03/eeu-sco-preparing-most-ambitious-trade-agreement_572685

Its really strange than still no revenge for arrest of US ambassadors. It was huge insult, and there no problems to fuck Iran into debris.

No one died, and Iran was largely a puppet state for US interests. How could Iranians not get pissed off at ambassadors that indirectly support their exploitation?

reason is ambassadors were hostages not killed, if they had been you bet the americans would have attacked. in the end they were let go unharmed and it would have been extremely shitty for the US to attack after a (relatively) peaceful release.

This thread is all over the place, what the fuck.

What does Trump stand to gain from cooperating with Israel? Or by offering complicit support by non-interference?

Iraq 1.0 if smart, which is to say that you go and smash their military might, and leave.

Iraq 2.0 if you are a moron, because Iran is a vastly more populous country which has taken the time to study the lessons of Iraq 2.0

>Where does this idea that a superpower like Russia is going to (directly) come to aid a bumfuckinstan country come from?

Syria

>The people leading these superpowers might seem dumb but trust me, they are very much aware of what's a stake, even if they aren't the smartest people around, you don't need a lot of brain power to realize that having the cold war go hot is a terrible idea.

The Iraq war was also a terrible idea, but here we are.

>The iranian government has suppressed a lot of people since the 70s who would like freedom back.

The 2009 Iranian presidential election protests went absolutely nowhere.

You do realize that foreign sponsorship delegitimizes political opposition movements that the US/West might want to succeed, right?

Any alternative to invading Afghanistan would have made the US look like complete spineless pussies, unwilling to defend themselves even when confronted with the largest foreign attack in their history.

Best way to get an idea of what it looks like is to get the book "Confront and Conceal" about Obongo's foreign policy in his first term It gives the results of the red teams:
within 72 hours:
>Saudi refineries hit
>Strait of hormuz is mined
>Hezbollah begins launching t the Jews in telaviv and haifa
>at least one Aegis destroyer is sunk

No matter how many times the ran its there was no way for US to stay out. also, the concrete around the bike installation is so thick, a decent chance the "Bunker buster" just bounces off.

which then means they have to bring in part of navy sec team 6 (who re responsible for WMD) but also Delta force (since they are responsible for heavy breaching). Even if they ARE successful, they would have to then hold the position for 48=72 hours. And, keep in mind, Persians are not Arabs. They know how to fight.

it would be a ethnical clusterfuck of endless warfare and different global players supporting their own proxy-faction to gain power/territory while hizbolla/shia arabs would leak in from allover to support the ayatoilets

and considering 5 ethnic minorities in this picture has already tried to create their own "autonomous states" in the last century with Soviet support, we'd be most likely looking at a repeat