Will Iran be attacked by March

[Sasquatch]

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=105626

The rumor is that Iran will carry out a nuclear experiment in March...
Published: 1/29/2006

Tehran is getting ready to counter a “preemptive strike” by USA and Israel. The Air Force Command of the Revolutionary Guard has ordered its Shahap-3 Missile Units to keep their mobile missile ramps in motion in preparation for such an attack. Responding to this order, in darkness of the night the primary missile ramps have been moved to Kirmanshah and Hamedan, and the reserve ramps to Isfahan and Fars regions.
The above actions are the basis for the efforts of the USA to attract Russia and China, as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to its side, and for commenting that a military intervention is always on the table. These actions are also the basis for Israel’s overt preparation for a possible offensive action and for making authoritative announcements that it “will not permit Iran” to proceed with its nuclear plans. Suddenly, all these activities have created a renewed global atmosphere of war. They are spreading anxiety and paranoia.

Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has never accepted any international agreement on nuclear weapons, and has never allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities. Yet, it is aggressively beating the war drums as if Iran is the country involved in nuclear development in the area. What kind of innocence is this?

Attacks to selected centers in Iran are foreseen to take place sometime in March-June.

Even the Pope called upon Russia and China, requesting that they reconsider the subject of Iran. Iran can do what the Arab countries cannot: withdrawing its funds deposited at Western banks and moving them to Asian banks.

Somehow, big steps are seemingly being taken toward a war. According to them, just two months remain. Within the next two months, confusing allegations will resonate as to how much of a threat Iran has become.

So, why was the month of March chosen? What is behind the prediction that Iran will carry out a nuclear experiment in March? In other words, why are the USA and Israel drawing global attention to the month of March? Why are Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia being pushed into a race of weapons build-up by bringing up the possibility that they may also acquire nuclear weapons?

Because, there is another event expected to occur in March, which could have an impact on the economy of the USA equivalent to a nuclear attack: in March, Teheran will implement its 2004 decision that it will start using the Euro instead of the Dollar in its petroleum trade, establishing a petroleum market, and breaking the “petrodollar” monopoly. Iran will open its petroleum market in March. Euro will replace Dollar in the petroleum trade. This will constitute a major attack on a vital component of the American Empire. Once the decision is implemented, a real debate will start on this doomsday scenario for the American economy.

Thereafter, the monopoly of USA/United Kingdom in international petroleum trade will collapse. The petroleum markets in New York and London will receive a heavy blow. The International Petroleum Market in London and the New York Mercantile Exchange controlled by the Americans are in a state of panic.

The Iranian position is being supported by the Chinese. The Japanese are also inclined to switch to Euro; this way, they could lower their Dollar reserves.

What are the implications of the widespread switch to the Euro, and the preference of Russia, European Union, Japan and some of the Arab countries to use the Euro in petroleum trade? What would happen if Russia that has major trade relations with Europe, China and Japan were to start using the Euro in the energy market? What would happen if the petroleum-producing Arab countries would also see the Euro as the alternative to compensate for the loss of Dollar’s value? Indeed, loss of Dollar’s value will force many countries to prefer the Euro.

This scenario will progressively lead to a profitable business.

If these issues were to lead to an escape from the Dollar, and dramatically reduce the flow of money to the USA, what will be the shape of the American economy?

There lies the wisdom of the month of March. This danger hides behind the hullabaloo that Iran will conduct a nuclear experiment in March. An Iranian petroleum market that is indexed on the Euro is more dangerous for the USA than any nuclear weapon.

The USA, which is working on controlling global petroleum markets under the label of “fighting terrorism” is actually fighting an economic war. However, as it becomes more and more aggressive, it is sinking deeper and deeper...

Greyhound: Notice the last paragraph about this "War on Terrorism" and what the nuclear test truly is. Israel is no match against Iran so the U.S. may likely get involved. Iran better put up a worthwhile fight against those two. I wonder what Syria and Lebanon will do.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infowarsnews/message/707

[jimmyjude]

Hopefully not.

If the Iranian people are given the chance they will overturn the islamic mutants.

that may mean that the Iranians will get nukes first. We have to be prepared to accept that. An attack will rally the people around this regime and Iran will be lost for another quarter century.

No more overturning of Mossadeghs will work here.

[boedicca]

If Iran is attacked by March, it will be by France.

[Red shine´y]

The immensely popular show "Preemptive Aid" continues its tour through the Middle East. As soon as the tents are rolled and packed, the troop of comediennes are going to Teheran, where all tickets are already sold out in advance. The major attraction of the show is Allawi saying "hallo"...


Brah - vou

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by boedicca

If Iran is attacked by March, it will be by France.

Nah, it would make things harder. Iran could win that war.

[fat mike]

Interesting thread-France,Bo,wtf?
The American economy is very self sufficient and there are investors all over the world banking on it;the chances of them all bear raiding us,in whatever manner, to me,doesn't look real likely.
But if Iran is sufficiently alienated they could cause some problems,for sure-too bad there aren't any diplomats on either side of the aisle here.

[86Dude]

It is very important that Iran be allowed to proceed with it's reckless adventures while public opinion remains in our favour so that when the shit hits the fan we can exercise whatever means necessary to exterminate the Iranian government as violently as possible.

[Betrade]

Ariel Sharon made a staement about israel being ready to attack Iran by late march. ever since, there have been rumors all over the internet that iot's inevitable, and for various reasons.

One theory os that the Iranians will be opening an oil bourse, where international oil buyers can buy the commodity in any currency they choose, whic would have the potential of hurting the dollar in the short term. On the other hand, the currencies don't really matter if thei're exchanged for dollars, or invested in US interests.

There are other theories, but i don't believe that the administartion has any intention of fighting a war on three fronts, and driving gas prices up to 6.00 a gallon overnight. It would be way too big of a hit on the economy, the american way of life, the international oil markets, and the public simply wouldn't stand for it. Even if there's a real and serious threat to Israel, Americans will be very skeptical of any talk about WMD.

I hope and pray that it doesn't happen; ever. I would much rather see change from within in Iran, but that's not going to happen anytime soon either. One of my doctors is Iranian (and she supports the Iraq war wholeheartedly; her father was murdered by Saddams' forces during the Iran, Iraq war ), and she has told me stories that will make anyone's blood run cold.

The regime still rules with an iron fist, there very well entrenched, and they won't step aside without a major fight. The saber rattling we're hearing from over there is directed as much at the fundamentalist element in the country than the rest of the world. They regime needs their support to remain in power, and they know it.

[caddis]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Nah, it would make things harder. Iran could win that war.

Not quite sure about that. You get the entire country of France to raise it's arms in surrender all at the same time and it may have the same effect as chemical warfare

[86Dude]

Dear lord, enough with the surrender monkey jokes already. Had it not been for France we wouldn't have had a country for George Bush and Bill Clinton to wreck.

[Stone]

Originally Posted by Betrade

There are other theories, but i don't believe that the administartion has any intention of fighting a war on three fronts, and driving gas prices up to 6.00 a gallon overnight.

Well, looking at the map it wouldn't be a 3 front war. It would be a large, continuous area effectively controlled by the US military & co. This situation would allow ethnic groups to come together, and could result in a complete re-drawing of borders in the middle east(undoing the blunder of the colonial powers there). Perhaps this was the plan from the beginning. It's not like Bush has to get re-elected anyway...

Even if there were no oil at all in Iran, its location makes it a desirable target for any military power with the means. Jesus look at that! The military would control the entire north shore of the Persian Gulf! With this location under control by any powerful military force, that military could control almost all of the oil leaving the middle east.

http://www.eurasianet.org/maps/sw_asia_map.html

Originally Posted by Betrade

It would be way too big of a hit on the economy, the american way of life, the international oil markets, and the public simply wouldn't stand for it...

I thought the same thing before the Iraq war. As far as a hit on the US economy - the WORLD economy would take a big hit from the invasion of Iran. As usual, the poor countries would bear the brunt of expensive oil prices while the wealthy complain.

All in all, an invasion of Iran would help maintain the status quo for Americans when you look at it from a functional perspective. You can't deny the huge positive economic effect of DIRECTLY controling the #3 and #4 countries for proven oil reserves (not to mention economic control of Canada, Kuwait, & UAE). Even if terrorists disrupt supply while Wall Street cringes, the world will cringe with them; people will hate the terrorists for their lack of economic mercy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_res...stern_reserves

Of course this is all speculation... I guess we'll just have to wait a few months to see how this plays out. I think April - July would be prime time for an invasion.

[fat mike]

interesting argument,Stone, but are you assuming the invasion would be successful?

[Stone]

Originally Posted by fat mike

interesting argument,Stone, but are you assuming the invasion would be successful?

How do you define success?

The US&co. will benefit economically from the invasion of Iran weather or not the military actually controls the population or the government there. Another triumph would be the ability to hold hostage a large amount of world oil; this would be military success for the US military in this region. Both successes would place the US in control of the emerging economies of the world, such as China, India, & Russia - again, economic success for US.

Did you mean would the invasion be tactically successful? The answer is yes, absolutely. They simply dont have the firepower to defeat our conventional military. The flexibility of an insurgency in Iran, however, would make direct occupation unsustainable.

If I remember correctly, Iraq was also invaded as it attempted to convert oil sales to the Euro standard (not that it was THE primary reason for invasion, but im sure it was factored in there somewhere as a benefit of invasion).

With Americans increasingly holding Presidents responsible for the state of the economy it's inevitible that war would be waged for such gains, particularly in these times of increasing scarcity.

[coral100cor]

Iran must be stopped from having nuclear weapons.
And nobody is going to stop it.

[Mandrake]

Originally Posted by 86Dude

It is very important that Iran be allowed to proceed with it's reckless adventures while public opinion remains in our favour so that when the shit hits the fan we can exercise whatever means necessary to exterminate the Iranian government as violently as possible.

good point....I agree.

Fawk Iran- that's one country that SHOULD be taken out.

thanks, BushCo, for blowing our military wad on your costly-yet-worthless fiasco in Iraq. At least you pushed your stock portfolio up a couple points.

[Guido]

Did you mean would the invasion be tactically successful? The answer is yes, absolutely. They simply dont have the firepower to defeat our conventional military. The flexibility of an insurgency in Iran, however, would make direct occupation unsustainable.

If you define "tactically successful" narrowly enough, then success is almost guaranteed, but that analysis remains an academic exercise. It seems that American neoconservative ideologues specialize in academic exercises, which is why they aren't successful.

How might the Bush gang control the Iranian people following a successful tactical invasion, given that most Iranians hate America as shown in the results of their last national election, and given the evidence available from Iraq, where the US military can't even control Baghdad, and the Bush people are unable to install a puppet regime?

[Mandrake]

we could defeat Iran militarily no question, but a lot less US soldiers would die and a lot less money would be wasted if the Apple Dumpling Gang Starring Buckshot Cheney and his Band of Texas Chickenhawks wasn't in charge

See Iraq, 2003-2006

[Mandrake]

*double post*

jesus, for as much as you guys tweak this board it still sucks

[Stone]

Originally Posted by Guido

If you define "tactically successful" narrowly enough, then success is almost guaranteed, but that analysis remains an academic exercise. It seems that American neoconservative ideologues specialize in academic exercises, which is why they aren't successful.

By "tactically successful" i mean the the US would have no problem securing major infrastructure and oil fields. There would be bases from which US forces could stage attacks on the air, ground and sea. The invasion would give the US a significant tactical advantage in the region with respect to its power over foreign governments around the world.

[btw, are you infering that i'm a neocon? For the record I am in fact extremely liberal... i just call it like i see it.]

Originally Posted by Guido

How might the Bush gang control the Iranian people following a successful tactical invasion, given that most Iranians hate America as shown in the results of their last national election, and given the evidence available from Iraq, where the US military can't even control Baghdad, and the Bush people are unable to install a puppet regime?

It doesn't matter if the military directly controls the people after the invasion. Control over the people is irrelevant to the goal of gaining economic and military benefits in Iran. Not only that it's impossible - so why waste time and money trying?

An insurgent movement would be a sticking point for the American people, but the situation in Iraq helps prove the aformentioned points. The Bush admin. has proven that its main initial interests on the ground in Iraq were economic in nature, so why would Iran be any different?

[Guido]

Originally Posted by Stone

By "tactically successful" i mean the the US would have no problem securing major infrastructure and oil fields. There would be bases from which US forces could stage attacks on the air, ground and sea. The invasion would give the US a significant tactical advantage in the region with respect to its power over foreign governments around the world.

[btw, are you infering that i'm a neocon? For the record I am in fact extremely liberal... i just call it like i see it.]

It doesn't matter if the military directly controls the people after the invasion. Control over the people is irrelevant to the goal of gaining economic and military benefits in Iran. Not only that it's impossible - so why waste time and money trying?

An insurgent movement would be a sticking point for the American people, but the situation in Iraq helps prove the aformentioned points. The Bush admin. has proven that its main initial interests on the ground in Iraq were economic in nature, so why would Iran be any different?

Stone, I was not implying that you are a neocon, and I enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. I was simply commenting on the meaning of "success" when it comes to invading middle eastern countries.

I can't really agree that control over the people is "irrelevant to the goal of gaining economic and military benefits in Iran" because of the potentially high economic and military costs of creating a gigantic backlash throughout the world and the muslim world in particular. I don't think anyone can judge what might occur in the wake of Bush invading Iran, and therefore, I don't know how you can be certain of any benefits.