Iran Lashing Out Randomly At World - A Dark Scenario

[jordan179]

Has anyone noticed yet that Iran recently seems to have launched a series of terrorist attacks against a widely disparate group of countries? Iran has attacked (Asian) Georgia, India

Comments

[polaris93]

Obama's too busy dismantling our military and other agencies to bother worrying about Iran. The outcome of this could be even worse than you portray -- a world gone mad with nuclear war, raining nukes indiscriminately upon cities nearly everywhere. One nation, watching the carnage, would decide to get back at some other nation under cover of "well, Iran did it," and it would escalate, and you can guess the outcome. Obama's "stance," such as it is, would feed right into that (assuming he was left alive to give orders at all), and as Biden's no better, if he took over the office because of Obama's death, he'd be just as inept at doing what had to be done. (Will Obama be re-elected? With all the leftist bastards out there so eager to help stuff ballot boxes come November, that's quite possible.) We may be looking at the approach of the all-out thermonuclear global war all of us dreaded during the Cold War.

[kalance]

Should things with Iran escalate to full scale war, most of our greater problems would probably show up in the long term, rather than immediately.

The cold fact is that the US can take Iran, militarily, on our own. We wouldn't need a lot of foreign support, aside from that of places like Kuwait and Bahrain to serve as staging areas and lines of supply. Both of whom I think would be just as happy to be rid of Iran as well. So that's pretty cut and dry. Iran would probably hold up little better than Iraq did in '91, and for much the same reasons.

On the other hand, the long term is much bleaker. Our manpower is stretched well beyond the breaking point as it is. The US simply wouldn't be able to properly occupy Iran when they capitulated. Not while we are holding onto Iraq and Afghanistan as well. Even the forces we had during the peak of the "Coalition of the Willing" contributions wouldn't suffice. Not when toppling Iran would undoubtedly make countries like Pakistan and others tenser, and perhaps push them, if not to war,

[gothelittle]

Could do the old Persian method, take down North Korea and Iran at the same time, shuttle all Iranians to North Korea and all North Koreans to Iran...

[jordan179]

On the other hand, the long term is much bleaker. Our manpower is stretched well beyond the breaking point as it is. The US simply wouldn't be able to properly occupy Iran when they capitulated.

A protracted occupation of Iran is not necessary to achieve our ends. Preferable, but hardly necessary. We need to let go of this notion that we must reconstruct a country to win the war. Leaving it in smoking ruins, a constant reminder to other would-be aggressor states of the fate they may suffer should they challenge America, is acceptable.

Not while we are holding onto Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

The only real threat to Iraq is Iran: defeat Iran, and Iraq requires little or no occupation. The real threat to Afghanistan is the Pakistani-backed Al Qaeda and Taliban, and we would be in a much stronger postion to deter Pakistan with the Iranian regime out of the equation.

Not when toppling Iran would undoubtedly make countries like Pakistan and others tenser, and perhaps push them, if not to war, at least to hostility.I seriously

[kalance]

"Leaving it in smoking ruins, a constant reminder to other would-be aggressor states of the fate they may suffer should they challenge America, is acceptable

[whitetail]

My bet is still on Iran pulling off a surprise, first-strike nuclear EMP attack on the US via missiles launched from Venezuela. They would only need two strategically-positioned high-altitude airbursts to take out 99% of our electronics - military and civilian - and if they did this, they would have succeeded in destroying us on Day 1. By Day +10, our civilization would be in its death throes, and we'd be butchering and eating our neighbors en masse just to stay alive for what little time we all had left

[gothelittle]

This will only destroy us if the rest of the country are *nothing* like New Englanders.. and I'm not too convinced that's the case. Maybe the most liberal cities may break down, but they're on the brink anyways. The heartland should be able to adapt.

[whitetail]

Post-EMP, under ideal circumstances, the farmers in the heartland might be able to adapt short-term, but anyone, anywhere, who depends upon supermarkets for food will be doomed. After all the trucks have their electronics fried by the EMP and the markets stop being restocked and everything edible has been looted, the only significant source of food left will be that walking around on two legs. And the farmers had better have machine gun batteries at the ready to prepare for the hungry hordes who will pour out of the cities by the millions in search of any food they can find. And even if the hordes don't come, the farmers won't survive for very long themselves, because their farm equipment won't work anymore. How many farmers do you know who still use oxen to plow their fields and harvest their crops with scythes

[gothelittle]

I encourage you to look up the term "Faraday Cage".

Then consider how many electronic devices in the average household are partly or fully surrounded by any sort of metal, including aluminum.

There are a lot of websites out there suggesting that every single piece of powered equipment will die a horrible death in the case of an EMP. Back in 1999, there were also a lot of websites out there suggesting that every single piece of electronics was going to fail at Y2K, even microwaves and washing machines.

If a device isn't shielded (like pretty much all cars are), then you may have to change out some fuses.

But if you're really, really, *really* worried about something in particular, cover it in aluminum foil. Problem solved.

[galadrion]

The good news (if any part of this can really be called good) is that Iran has also targeted India, another nuclear power, with some of these terrorist attacks. And while India has long held to a pacifistic stance in international dealings, there is also a strong streak of practicality and realism in the Indian mentality... which means that the real decision- and policy-makers in New Delhi aren't buying any of this "Religion of Peace" hokum. And, if they can gather enough cassus belli to feel covered on the world realpolitik stage, they won't hesitate to use any means at all to put a stop to the fun 'n' games coming out of Tehran. This means that, should Khamenei keep up his current puppet games, he's going to succeed in uniting India and Israel, two nuclear powers, against himself - and neither one is likely to have enough regret about what will happen to stay their hands.

[jordan179]

We seriously need to ally with India against China, Iran and Pakistan. It's a natural alliance -- the only thing keeping us from it is our memories of the last decade of the Cold War, in which China and Pakistan were our allies against the Soviet Union and therefore we could not attempt to ally with India.

[kitten_goddess]

This would make sense economically as well....

[pasquin]

Iran is investing in nukes like a gangster invests in a gatt, to be a player in the game.

If they think that'll make them invulnerable, well, were we on 9/11? Israel on any given Tuesday? No.

Just means tanks will never roll on Tehran. But their patrol boats will still be sunk.

[jordan179]

Just means tanks will never roll on Tehran. But their patrol boats will still be sunk.

It does not mean that "tanks will never roll on Tehran." You're assuming that the Iranians would be as rational as the Soviets and avoid starting conventional wars because they would be afraid they would escalate into atomic wars, while feeling secure that we would not start conventional wars against us. The whole reason we are trying to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons is that the Iranians are not rational in that fashion, as they are demonstrating RIGHT NOW by randomly attacking other Powers.

What is extremely likely is that a nuclear-armed Iran would become even more aggressive in terms of terrorist attacks, to the point that other Powers would feel they had no choice but to go to war against Iran despite an Iranian nuclear arsenal. The result would be an atomic war in which the initial objective was a disarming first strike against the Iranian nuclear arsenal, with the first-striker considering Iran the aggressor and hence