Its been oft stated over the last 10 years that the next strategic war would be about water.
i would recommend reading up on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera"]Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] its almost entirely the same set of circumstances except Iran in place of Iraq
Have a read of the entire thread and the articles linked. Or better yet, do a google around for more information, or watch some documentaries on Iran and the West.
I have actually just started reading up on the matter and watching news clips however they just talk about what their going to do or might doHave a read of the entire thread and the articles linked. Or better yet, do a google around for more information, or watch some documentaries on Iran and the West.
No offence meant by this, but it would be totally unbecoming of the subject matter to attempt to sum it up in three short sentences, it would give you no real appreciation of the topic nor is it the responsibility of members on the board to dumb down information into soundbytes for others. As I said, I don't mean this as an attack because I appreciate you want to understand the topic, but it really isn't something that can be condensed down into three sentences. Nor should it be. Complex topics require effort to appreciate them, the more you put in, the better off you'll be. A little one line summary wouldn't do you any good.
There's a three part documentary on youtube called Iran & the West, covering Iran from the time of the Shah through to post 9/11, each part is an hour long but it couldn't hurt to set some time aside to have a look at it even if just to establish some kind of benchmark for understanding Iran's relationship with the United States. I hope you find the link useful:
Because it wants to ensure that Israel and only Israel has nukes. Though it has never admitted having nukes, knowledge that Israel has nukes gives it a great advantage and plays a big part in how other countries deal with it. It can also be argued that the issue of Iranian nukes is a smokescreen, that the real reason Israel wants to strike at Iran or see it weakened is because this would have a negative effect on Hezbollah and Syria. A weakened Syria would meant that Israel will have more time to avoid handing back the Golan [one of the precondition that Israel placed on returining the Golan is that Syria sever its ties with Hezbollah and downgrade relations with Iran, which Syria can't do as Iran is its only regional ally] and would mean that Syria would have less influence in Lebanese affairs. Though Israel has given up the idea of having a ''friendly'' Christian government in power in Beirut [which was it's prime motive for invading Lebanon in 1982], it still desires a ''stable'' and ''friendly'' Lebanon. Also bear in mind that Iran and Syria are the only 2 countries that continue to defy Uncle Sam - by not playing ball over the Palestine/Israel issue which remains - unlike the Sunni Gulf States who all depend on Uncle Sam for regime survival and are not too vocal over Uncle Sam's policies in the region, as long as those policies are not at odds with their own policies.
I doubt ANY other country wanted Saddam’s Iraq to win the Iran-Iraq war, they just did not want Iran to win by overrunning Iraq after 1982. None of them wanted Iraq to overrun Iran either, if Iraq had ever showed any potential for that all the support would have swung to the Iranians. But let’s face it, the general attitude, north (USSR), south (Gulf states and Africa), east (rest of Asia), and west (the Americas, Europe, and Israel) was best summed up by Henry Kissinger when he said “it's a pity they both can't lose".
If the tide had turned in Iran's favour, which was very unlikely to have happened, given that practically the whole world was behind Iraq, Iran would have been pressured to agree to a cease fire. As to your opinion that no country wanted a total Iraqi victory, this may have been true for the West but not for the Gulf states who were terrified that the Iranians would spread the revolution westwards.The point I was trying to make is that Iran has, just like everyone else, has grievances, it lost hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, in a war that was supported by the West.
This statement is a bit hypocritical given U.S. support to Iran. At one point the U.S. even supplied satellite imagery to the Iraqis and USN ships in the Gulf provided the Iraqis with warning of Iranian air attacks. Not to mention the U.S. governments reaction when the USS Vincennes, which was in Iranian waters, shot down an Iranian Airbus that was in Iranian waters - a late and subdued apology and an attempt to cover up the mistake and shift the blame on Iran. When Americans were killed on the U.SS Stark, Iraq merely got a mild rebuke or ''slap on the wrist'', which would not have happened if the attacker had been an Iranian plane.
True, but Israel was selling hundred of million of dollars of weapons to Iran at this same time. I cannot help but believe that everyone's agenda was to really see them both lose, playing one against the other in that war.
Israel played a role in the Iran-Contra affair by supplying surplus Hawks to Iran. The first shipment became a major problem as the Iranians checked the serials of the missiles and found that they were older models!! The Israelis then sent a new shipment. The details are in 'Every Spy A Prince'' by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman.
If the US were willing to refuel them then the only practical route, and arguably the best anyway, would be down the center of the Red Sea and around Arabian Peninsula, thereby avoiding the need to overfly any countries other than Iran. The US refueling aircraft would be flying out of Diego Garcia or possibly Qeshm.
Thanks for the link! It's very useful.
True but Azerbaijan is Iran's neighbour and letting the Israelis through is not something that Iran will forgive or forget any time soon.The Azeris will also not want to annoy the Iranians too much in case any troubles break out again with Armenia in the future.
Yes but this would also be the longest route and if a 2nd strike was required might not be practical. My guess it that the strike package will overfly an Arab country and will be secretly given permission to do so. It won't be Iraq as that country needs good ties with Iran and has nothing to gain from from letting the Israelis use its airspace. Jordan is extremely unlikely as it has nothing to gain and all to lose politically if it were leaked. Turkey would not be an option
China will definitely use its veto to block any action against Iran in the UN Security Council. China will continue or even expand their regular trade with Iran, including as an alternative banking system, but are expected to demand a steep discount on Iranian oil to do so. China will also provide a source for outside purchases of military and security hardware, software, and support, such as the software used to block internet access.