US vs Iran bookmaker

[Idaho]

Ok - I'm running a book on the US/Iran nonsense that is gumming up our beloved news networks.

Come on bring your money.

[KukriKhan]

"... within the year" being operative, I think. "Within 2 years (i.e. the next presidential election cycle)" if all stays the same, more likely one of the options higher up on your list.

I bet 1 Euro.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would expect the Iranians to find a way out after establishing their 'leadership' credentials for the Muslim world. President Ahmadinejad is already on shaky ground with reformers, and the poor who voted for him are becoming disenchanted. He will need to turn inward soon and leave off the rhetoric. Conversely, any overt action from the US will cement his position as surely as any national leader, however incompetent, when a country is threatened. (I know it happened before, quite recently, just can't put my finger on where...)

I doubt if even the current US administration is dumb enough to engage Iran in any sort of hostilities. They are dumb enough to escalate this, however, so anything's possible - after all, they have pretty much guaranteed that Iran's old enemy Iraq will be an obedient puppet state -for the Iranians. (Shia controlled governments for the foreseeable, in case anyone is unsure).

There was a reason why previous US administrations installed Saddam Hussein as dictator and kept him there until he believed in his ability to get away with anything. He was a minority Sunni, and made war on Iran.

[JAG]

Id put a fiver on the war of words continuing then a US back down - after all what the hell else can they do? No resources to fight - militarily more so than economically - and no diplomatic pressure to bear.

[Kralizec]

There was a reason why previous US administrations installed Saddam Hussein as dictator and kept him there until he believed in his ability to get away with anything. He was a minority Sunni, and made war on Iran.

Except that Saddam wasn't installed by the USA.

I voted for the bottom option. I can see how another president then Bush (who wouldn't dare such a move right now) would pull of a Clintonite strategy by tomahawking their nuclear plants from a safe distance and then leaving, but I find it far more likely that a compromise will be reached, or that the whole issue will simply fade from the news.

[rory_20_uk]

Not installed, merely supported.

[yesdachi]

Iran's bark is worse than it's bite. Unless something crazy happens there will be a long term pissing match between Iran and several other countries. But the US is the only country with the stones to be really aggressive with them and because the US is in no position to make any other mistakes in the middle east i dont think there will be any serious conflict in the next year.

[Vladimir]

I would expect the Iranians to find a way out after establishing their 'leadership' credentials for the Muslim world. President Ahmadinejad is already on shaky ground with reformers, and the poor who voted for him are becoming disenchanted. He will need to turn inward soon and leave off the rhetoric. Conversely, any overt action from the US will cement his position as surely as any national leader, however incompetent, when a country is threatened. (I know it happened before, quite recently, just can't put my finger on where...)

I doubt if even the current US administration is dumb enough to engage Iran in any sort of hostilities. They are dumb enough to escalate this, however, so anything's possible - after all, they have pretty much guaranteed that Iran's old enemy Iraq will be an obedient puppet state -for the Iranians. (Shia controlled governments for the foreseeable, in case anyone is unsure).

There was a reason why previous US administrations installed Saddam Hussein as dictator and kept him there until he believed in his ability to get away with anything. He was a minority Sunni, and made war on Iran.

What a mystical, wonderful world you must live in. President? Do you think he cares about "reformers" or the "poor" voters? Here's how it works: the ruling clerical elites select several candidates and say, "Here's the list of people we want in, you get to choose which one." I don't see how the poor, downtrodden, sensible, reform minded people of the world benefit from threat of war and the funding of terrorism. If people protest, they’ll just be beaten down like the recent women’s rights protest.

The US, UK, and France are, as you put it, dumb enough to escalate this because they are. The Russians are also dumb enough to give them not only the ability to create nuclear weapons but advanced air defense systems to defend their production. Remember that it was the past administration that gave North Korea the ability to produce plutonium. If anyone does "escalate" this situation will be the US because no one else has the capability to. A couple IDF fighters won't work this time.

Where's Redleg when you need him? You've created a wonderful strawman and I brought the match (well close enough, you get the point) . You might want to look at British involvement in Iraq at the time of Saddam's ascension as they founded the previous Monarchy and were the dominant Western power in the region.

I seriously hope this is just a game between states and this 12th Imam Apocalyptic mantra, death to Israel, death to America, death to Denmark, death to the infidel, death to [fill in the blank] is just positioning. I don't think that's the case but it remains to be seen. Just remember they are developing nuclear capable missiles that are able to reach Europe and they have no problem killing Westerners.

If North Korea is any indication I don't believe any action will be taken in less they either test a nuke or actually use one (and then it's too late).

10 USD on it being nothing more than positioning.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What a mystical, wonderful world you must live in. President? Do you think he cares about "reformers" or the "poor" voters? Here's how it works: the ruling clerical elites select several candidates and say, "Here's the list of people we want in, you get to choose which one." I don't see how the poor, downtrodden, sensible, reform minded people of the world benefit from threat of war and the funding of terrorism. If people protest, they’ll just be beaten down like the recent women’s rights protest.

Well, my world, mystical or otherwise, doesn't require the blinkers that seem to be mandatory in yours. Your characterisation of the Iranian system has some elements of truth, but the will of the people actually does have some weight. For many years now, the Iranians were reforming towards a much more Western viewpoint. You are correct to assert that Ahmadinejad was selected by the mullahs to put a stop to this, but a large part of his election win was made possible by the excluded and the poor who the reformist movement had ignored. He promised employment for all, and they expect him to make good.

Most ordinary Iranians admire the US and loathe their new president's attitude. (Yes, I have worked there and visited and have both pro and anti- reform friends). However, they are also a very proud people, just like Americans, and don't like to be bullied. A sensible adminstration would know that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs can be isolated, not by threats but by careful diplomacy. The EU was trying that until the stakes were raised - yes, by the Iranians, but Ahmadinejad is a populist and full of hot air. They are a long way from a bomb.

You talk about a straw man, but this is exactly what the administration is hoisting - trying the same old fear tactics on its populace. Isn't the American people tired to exhaustion of being scared? Note the similarities to their rhetoric before the Iraq invasion. Why do you trust Rumsfeld's assertions on the immediate danger of Iran's bomb when he was proven to have faulty intelligence on Saddam's WMD?

You might want to look at British involvement in Iraq at the time of Saddam's ascension as they founded the previous Monarchy and were the dominant Western power in the region.

I agree. As an Irishman, I hold no brief for the British Empire. Iraq's problems are very largely a result of the old imperial game of 'draw a new map with straight lines'. It's just sad to see the US take up the imperial baton and compound the errors.

I seriously hope this is just a game between states and this 12th Imam Apocalyptic mantra, death to Israel, death to America, death to Denmark, death to the infidel, death to [fill in the blank] is just positioning.

It is just positioning. Even the mullahs know that.

Just remember they are developing nuclear capable missiles that are able to reach Europe and they have no problem killing Westerners.

You ought to work for Tony Blair. Don't worry, your tin-foil hat will protect you. Heck, if you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell ye.

[Vladimir]

You ought to work for Tony Blair. Don't worry, your tin-foil hat will protect you. Heck, if you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell ye.

For brevity sake I'll just mention this one. It's called the Shihab missle and yes it's real. Besides, even if it is just a game you need a long range delivery system or your threat isn't credible. It's not paranoia, it's common sense.

Good observation on the Iranians, I very much agree. As I said somewhere else they are very much a modern, cosmopolitan people.

Edit: It should be the Shihab 5, the 3 can only reach from Israel to Afganistan.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For brevity sake I'll just mention this one. It's called the Shihab missle and yes it's real. Besides, even if it is just a game you need a long range delivery system or your threat isn't credible. It's not paranoia, it's common sense.
Edit: It should be the Shihab 5, the 3 can only reach from Israel to Afganistan.

Indeed, and the Shihab 4 also, which has a theoretical range of 2800 km (enough to reach Europe).

However, having a prototype (which is all these are) and being able to use it effectively are two very different things. Being able to fit a nuclear warhead to one of these Soviet-era designs and make it work is yet another thing. Being able to get past modern-era defenses is close to impossible unless you have overwhelming numbers - not possible for Iran.

The Israelis have publically noted that their Arrow 2 systems can take care of Shihabs. Europe could easily do the same, as could the States.

The leaders of Iran are pragmatic. The extent of US power in nuclear arms means that no state is going to seriously consider use of any nuclear attack - they'd never get through, and their country would be instantly vapourised. Having a nuclear weapon is all about dick-measuring, and should be treated with the same disdain. You don't get into a fight with every insecure bar-room bully just to prove him foolish.

Iran is a very long way from marrying their missile and a nuclear technology. They want to be recognised as a regional power. The US could make this very easy by flattery and appropriate bribes. Pander to their vanities, not their fears. Charm, don't threaten. You used to be really good at this.

You might find a lot of Middle Eastern problems get easier fast.

[Idaho]

Iran isn't after nukes for offensive capabilities. They want them because the world's superpower keeps making threats. If I was the Iranians and playing there hand, I would be getting a nuke together asap.

[Goofball]

Ok - I'm running a book on the US/Iran nonsense that is gumming up our beloved news networks.

Come on bring your money.

What does "climb down" mean?

[yesdachi]

Iran isn't after nukes for offensive capabilities. They want them because the world's superpower keeps making threats. If I was the Iranians and playing there hand, I would be getting a nuke together asap.

I wonder if that is the same reason the US originally developed their Nuke program. the one they are constantly being criticized about.

[KukriKhan]

What does "climb down" mean?

I took it as "back down" in NorthAmerican-ese. As in: 'slowly recede in intensity'. Let me know if I was wrong there. Please.

Idaho: Iran isn't after nukes for offensive capabilities...

Isn't that the entire issue? They say that. Others say they lie.

[Redleg]

Most of what is going on in is pure posturing by both sides.

I am still awaiting the news report on the matter being brought before International Atomic Engery Commission (or whatever the hell the UN body is called) and the Security Council. This type of language coming out of Iran is similiar to the language that used to come out of North Korea until about 1995.

Best thing for the United States to do IMO is to refer the matter to the Security Council for decision, with some poltical rethoric stating that development of nuclear weapons by Iran is in violation of the treaties that Iran agreed to.

Besides there are other powers very near to Iran that do not want to see a Nuclear weapon in their hands besides the United States and Western Europe.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

'Ye' for rockets...

[solypsist]

meanwhile our old friend Bill O'Reilly says Blowing Iran "off the face of the earth ... would be the sane thing to do".

I think it's amazing we live in a time where a major media figure can seriously suggest nuking a whole country & still hold his job.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

meanwhile our old friend Bill O'Reilly says Blowing Iran "off the face of the earth ... would be the sane thing to do".

I think it's amazing we live in a time where a major media figure can seriously suggest nuking a whole country & still hold his job.

I bet Fox Security could handle it, they'll just pay Iran a little visit. They'll hold them accountable

[Divinus Arma]

You left out the single most probable event, though unlikely by the end of the year:











Yaaaaay!!!!

[Tribesman]

You left out the single most probable event, though unlikely by the end of the year:

An Israeli airstrike ? yeah right , they lack the capability . If they were to strike it would be by using the submarines , but even Israel is not that stupid/desperate .

[Paul Peru]

I was thinking of Israel as well...
I'd guess they'd be able to launch a strike or two and live to celebrate, but that's just a guess.

I was thinking they'd be able to get a nice deal with the US: Israel takes out a couple of Iranian facilities, US gives them full support for their "final solution" to the Palestinian problem.

[Fragony]

You left out the single most probable event, though unlikely by the end of the year:

Probably. I am a bit amazed by the role the US has given Europe with Iran, the only possible explanation is that they expect Israel to attack as well. And I wouldn't blame Israel if they did, and I wouldn't be the guy who did it so shalom mia muca's and have fun.

[Viking]

My bets on Israel.

[Kralizec]

Does Iran's powerplants fall in the striking range of the Israeli airforce though? And even if so, they'd have to cross Iraqi airspace, something they wouldn't appreciate and wouldn't be to eager to allow I think.

[The Black Ship]

Iran doesn't have to deliver a nuclear attack, it can use a proxy (preferably one without borders ala a terrorist group). The question then becomes who do you strike back at? The creator of the device?

I believe I was reading something about this in Janes's Defence Weekly(?). The authors' premise was that Iran, in a nuclear exchange with Israel, feels it can win. Only one device needs to get through in order to destroy Israel. However, Iran is a large country with numerous strategic sites, surely Israel and the US wouldn't destroy everything.

I apologize to the unknown author for doubtlessly butchering his theory with my simplifications.

[Kralizec]

Yes, the situation is such that the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't really apply anymore.

Israel has a high tech arsenal of relatively small size. While being capable of destroying Moscow with the push of a button did force off some respect in the Cold War, I doubt it would stop Irans government (consisting of fanatical madmen) from attacking by any means available should things escalate. Iran is a big country with spreadout population and infrastructure, Israel is small with the bulk of its population cropped on a small spot. Israel would be in a hazardous position if Iran would get a nuclear arsenal.

[Patricius]

The Iranian Pres seems skilled at shooting himself in the foot, uniting states otherwise divided and distracted by Iraq. Perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan on his part.

[Ice]

I believe I was reading something about this in Janes's Defence Weekly(?). The authors' premise was that Iran, in a nuclear exchange with Israel, feels it can win. Only one device needs to get through in order to destroy Israel. However, Iran is a large country with numerous strategic sites, surely Israel and the US wouldn't destroy everything.

Isreal has an enitre arsenal of nukes at their disposal, which, if they wanted to, could flaten every Iranian city to the ground. One nuke wouldnt destroy Isreal, it would just kill and piss a ton of people off.

[Papewaio]

If Iran started a nuclear war with Israel then I would hope to see USA flatten Iran to a glass sheet... and to be safe France as well.


Seriously, it is all posturing like models on a cat walk. They play the rattle the sabers game and distract the people from how poor the country is doing, that things are not getting better as fast as they should, that the leaders are doing dodgy things... and that is just the US... Iran is even worse.