Tehran's vow to stop US warships crossing international waters in the strait of Hormuz, following 10 days of provocative Iranian missile tests and naval exercises, is seen in Washington as evidence that ramped-up western sanctions are finally beginning to bite.
While this conclusion may be correct, there is always the danger of a disastrous miscalculation. Iran could be merely sabre rattling, as American analysts suggest. But what if it is not?
Seen from Tehran, the most serious threat to the survival of the regime led by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei comes from within, not without – a consideration not sufficiently understood in the west. The political establishment is riven by deep divisions, principally between economic reformers loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and clerical arch-conservatives backed by the Revolutionary Guards and a wealthy, corrupt merchant class that has grown fat on the 1979 revolution.
Khamenei appears to be trying to hold the line between the two factions. What worries him more than the movements of the USS John C Stennis aircraft carrier group in the Gulf, or even US and EU oil sanctions, is the thought that crucial parliamentary elections due in March could produce a permanent rupture within the Islamic Republic. Such a split could open the way to a second Iranian revolution.
Memories of the mass demonstrations that shook Tehran and other cities in 2009 after rigged presidential elections have not faded. The Green movement's leaders are dispersed, in jail or under house arrest. But their demands for transparent democracy, freedom of expression and an end to misrule by mullahs have not been forgotten. Millions of young Iranians have been watching the Arab spring unfold and they believe Iran's turn will come.
Khamenei is running scared. As Yasmin Alem noted in a recent commentary, the supreme leader views the coming election as a potential "security challenge". The minister of intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, says the polls will be the "most sensitive elections in the history of the Islamic Republic".
Alem continued: "The regime is now in a quandary. While it has traditionally boasted about high voter participation as the symbol of its legitimacy, Tehran is increasingly concerned that an election boycott or turmoil could adversely affect its standing. In the wake of the Arab uprisings the clerical regime is seeking to project an image of its power and popularity. If the election becomes a dismal affair, however, it will have the reverse effect."
There can be little doubt that new US sanctions penalising dealings with Iran's central bank, announced by Barack Obama last month, and a prospective EU ban on Iranian oil, are adding to the internal pressures – even if habitual Iranian customers such as Japan and Turkey succeed in obtaining waivers.
Food prices are soaring, dollars are being hoarded, and Iran's currency, the rial, has fallen in value by 40% in recent weeks. The prospect of sharp falls in oil export earnings – the oil industry accounts for 60% of Iran's economy – is a dire one. Khamenei and other leaders have indicated that such an outcome would amount to a casus belli.
And this is the point that should worry the west's sanctioneers, fixated by Iran's nuclear programme to the exclusion of other considerations. At the moment the regime's deep internal contradictions could be leading towards a revolutionary climax, the US and its allies are giving Khamenei a possible way out by allowing him to externalise the problem and claim that the Iranian nation is under attack from hostile foreign forces, rather than definitively changing from within.
This is the overlooked domestic backdrop to the strait of Hormuz shenanigans and other provocations, such as the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Iran, for all its aggressive rhetoric over the past few years, has studiously avoided military confrontation. In fact, it has studiously eschewed an open conflict that it would probably lose, relying instead on time-consuming diplomacy and occasional publicity stunts. But with the regime's back to the wall at home, that may be changing.
"The latest warning by Iran that a US aircraft carrier that recently transited through the strait of Hormuz should not do so again is a sign to the west that should be well-observed. It tells us the regime in Tehran is ready for a fight," warned Vali Nasr of Tufts University. "It wasn't preordained that Iran would opt for battle. For much of the past year its leaders have debated how best to deal with Western pressure … [but] subsequent events seem to have settled the policy debate in Tehran. They included the accusations by the US in the Washington plot; a UN report critical of Iran's record on human rights; the IAEA report articulating 'serious concerns' about a possible Iranian nuclear-weapons programme; and the ensuing fresh sanctions."
In other words, confident statements by the White House and state department that Iran is buckling under sanctions pressure appear to blithely ignore the possibility that the regime is being pushed into a corner from which it will come out punching, not negotiating. One result may be an acceleration of its nuclear activities – the opposite of what Obama wants. And then there is the unpredictable Gulf tinderbox. Fearing fatal insurrection at home and with their oil exports blocked, Khamenei and the mullahs, egged on by trigger-happy Revolutionary Guards, may choose to export chaos instead.
Brian Whitaker's best blogs and analysis from the Middle East
From The Arabist
From KABOBfest
Comments
5 January 2012 5:11PM
Thousands of US troops being deployed to Israel in readiness for the war against Iran. Not long now people.
5 January 2012 5:14PM
Plus the fact that this is an election year in the US makes for a very frightening possibility. Two world leaders dick waving at the same time.
Insanity beckons.
5 January 2012 5:14PM
Looks very much like the US wants to have a fight anyway.
There will be very little point in Iran attacking the John Stennis, its air-force and ships won't get closer than 50 miles and Iran will get hammered by air-strikes.
However if the US ( and hopefully not us ) act first it will likely unite the Persians and the Arabs. Lets not forget Russia in this either, last thing they want is the US flexing its muscles in the straits of Hormus. Israel of course ( me predicts) will be put on a leash by the US lest the whole thing escalates into a very hot war
That said, this is JUST what the US needs to stimulate its economy. War. Works every time for the Military Industrial Complex
Time to jaw-jaw, not war-war.
5 January 2012 5:15PM
What I thought, Iran's leaders are more worried about their own people than that of the USA. Similar to China and North Korea. That is why these countries are building up their arms, to terrorist their own people. They are wrong. The people of the Middle East have changed that, they are demontrating they can and will get what they are demanding; nothing can stop them.
5 January 2012 5:16PM
It wasn't reported anywhere, not even in Haaretz, and your link doesn't work.
And, it doesn't make much sense, either.
What's your secret source?
5 January 2012 5:17PM
Iran doesn't solely control the Straight it shares it with Oman by making these pronouncements it is anexing that territorial control from Oman. They also have a duty under international law to allow the free flow of passage to the other nations reliant on the Straight Saudi Arabia and Kuwait two clear US allies which the USA can't be scene to abandon in the region. Iran is playing a game that forces the US into a position where it can not back down for fear of loosing its allies in the region or being scene as weak in a strategically vital area. Not to mention the way in which abandoning the area would undermine the supply lines to the Iraqi government and excaserbate issues in the nation. The USA can't afford to backdown there is a fair chance that if Iran doesn't blink it could drive the region into war.
5 January 2012 5:19PM
In other good news, this month China has cut its oil imports from Iran by more than half.
(from Reuters.)
5 January 2012 5:19PM
Whenever there's a conflict in the Mideast, oil prices rise and world economies suffer. Conflicts help the producer nations (mostly in the Mideast) and hurt consumer nations. Oil price has risen from about $3 per barrel to over $100 per barrel in 50 years. Iranians (and other Gulf producers) are laughing at the world over this crisis.
Canada is self sufficient in oil and a large producer. US can also produce more of the oil it needs, and should relax some of its drilling restraints due to the dire current economy. It will help the world by reducing oil prices. The Canada to Texas pipeline won't hurt the environment more than a typical highway, and should be built. Instead, if Canada has to build pipelines to the Oceans to put oil onto tankers that would hurt the environment in the same way. And also when it gets to the oceans on oil tankers there are other potential buyers across the oceans who will be bidding for this oil.
The way the current regime in Iran treats US, Europe and other non-Islamic nations is similar to the ruthless way it has treated its own native Zoroastrian religion people. Shah of Iran was more tolerant of the Zoroastrians, his neighbors and the Western world. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians ......'The 1979 Islamic Revolution was equally traumatic for the remaining Zoroastrians, and their numbers reduced drastically. Immediately after the revolution, during Bazargan's premiership, Muslim revolutionaries "walked into the main Zoroastrian fire temple in Tehran and removed the portrait of the Prophet Zoroaster and replaced it with one of Khomeini."... etc'
5 January 2012 5:20PM
There is a naval manouvre planned for this Thursday in the Ionian sea, but for the real confirmation of the sanctions biting, we must look at South Korea. It has just offered a snub to the warmongering triad of US UK and Israel, they will purchase 10% of their annual oil supplies from Iran.
As for who knew and set it all up, Hmm for that we have to ask our Israeli foreign policy advisors in the Tory and Labour Party, Liam Fox, David Milliband and Ambassador Gould, not to speak of the neocon agent Adam Werritty. They knew and planned an attack without the full knowledge of the MOD.
British interests and foreign policy has been perverted by the influences all three main parties are keeping with Israel and those who would want to find out about it, cannot find it in the collaborating press but here.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/werrittymiliband-they-were-all-in-it/
5 January 2012 5:24PM
it's remarkable, truly remarkable, the case for war is being made already
Someone decided to rachet this up - some one or the MIC, no doubt who would dhave an enormous take in the profits of a new war
Another manufactured crisis, anoither manufactured war. leave the countries that don't even sign up to the IAEA - India, pakistan, israel alone and forge the nasty, nasty government of Saudi with hwom we are very happy to do business with,
This can only indicate that the whole ruthless enterprise was planned - long ago. Now the time is judged right and ripe,
Anyone for reconstruction contracts?
5 January 2012 5:27PM
cbarr- the US has armed its allies - including the disgusting Saudi Arabia - thatgreat champion of demcracy , women's rights - to the teeth
Nothing has been left to chance
But i hope the Iranians give as good as they get
This whole cynical manouevring has been planned for a long time
And of rhtose who long fo rthe return of the Shah - Evin prsion was built under his bengin reign ith the help of the CIA trianed Savak
5 January 2012 5:31PM
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy has no defence and if that is correct, then the US getting a carrier out of harm's way in the Persian Gulf may be a prelude to an attack that would involve Iranian retaliation.
For anyone denigrating the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had five Exocets and sank two ships.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
5 January 2012 5:32PM
Russia may well be our best ally - common cause against the Islamist threat. Conflict between the West and the fascist/ clerical regime in Iran is inevitable and our chances are better if Iran doesn't yet have nuclear missiles - if being the operative word.
5 January 2012 5:38PM
The Iranians are not completely mad. They will not attack a US carrier group in international waters.
5 January 2012 5:40PM
Iran has never backed down one iota from pursuing it's inalienable rights on nuclear energy.
Emphatically this is a threat that will be carried out
Those in the diaspora will neither stand back mutely on the side lines, whatever their religious or antipathy against the government
This is a about the Motherland
This goes domestically as well.
Iran is not short of young people, because of US sanctions and internal mismanagement of the economy, many do not have gainful employment
You can't occupy Iran, and we can go on hitting as hard as we can - potentially forever, unless you want to start dropping nuclear bombs and killing millions of people.
In addition China and Russia will not stand back - They cannot
Too much at stake, and they would be next.
Iran faces a large military disadvantage in a conflict, and everyone prays it does not happen and of course even those sitting in Tunbridge Well will be suicidal if they want a conflict in this scenario.
Iran faces a huge military disadvantage which is balanced out by the state of the economy in the US and it's cowardly hangers on.
This has evened the odds, to a point where there is a more even playing field
Remember the US plays a very rash game of Checkers
Iran is the grand master of chess
How can you survive being the sworn enemy of the greatest military power on earth for 30 odd years otherwise?
5 January 2012 5:44PM
From Russia Today
But it is not all sanction talk for Iran. On Thursday, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his support for Russia’s phased plan to restore confidence in the Iranian nuclear program. The comments were made in a telephone conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Moscow’s plan proposes easing or lifting another set of existing sanctions in response to Tehran replying to questions on its nuclear program. The proposal, which also suggests no new unilateral sanctions should be applied, was first mooted in Washington in July 2011, but has not gained much support in the West.
So Russia want to jaw-jaw
By the way Philip Hammond (UK Defence Sec ) is live on SKY sabre-rattling from Washington
Its getting predictable, we're gearing up for a punch-up on behalf of the US
5 January 2012 5:44PM
Conflict is 'inevitable', you say, between 'the West and the fascist / clerical regime in Iran' (or, as you put it just earlier, 'the Islamist threat'). Why is it inevitable? Because they're oppressive theocrats? Read about our allies, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, if you want to know how sincere U.S. and U.K. leaders are when they speak against anti-democratic, brutal regimes.
If Iran already had nuclear missiles, there'd be no chance of a U.S. attack on it. That's why the Iranians want them - as a 'deterrant', ensuring their safety from attack (see North Korea).
So, what exactly are you saying?
5 January 2012 5:50PM
Year after year of talks, Obama's outstretched hand rebuffed and it's all the fault of the USA, Britain, Israel.
If only you know who would settle the Palestinian issue; the Mullahs could then cancel their nuclear ambitions, develop a decent economy befitting their people, build themselves a refinery or two, stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, stop meddling in Iraq. If only the USA pulled out of Iraq (they have) If only they pulled out of Afghanistan (they are)
Seriously How does Mr Tisdall believe allowing the Iranian regime to even give the impression to their sycophants they can humiliate the USA, be of any advantage whatsoever to the opposition parties in Iran?
Now is the time to turn the screws even harder on these tinpot fascists and we'll see their whole pack of cards crumble BEFORE they can build a nuclear bomb.
5 January 2012 5:51PM
MahanAir - I seriously hope that your just repeating rhetoric and that your views don't represent the Iranian governments line. The USA and the other Western powers will protect the territoria integrity of their gulg allies and the free flow of trade. It may be up to the Iranians to diffuse the situation having ratcheted up the tension because the USA and other Western nations can't abandon the gulf region not when it has proved itself so instable recently to maintain friendly governments in the region it won't allow support of those governments to seem weak Saudi Arabia and Kuwait won't be abandoned Western powers already fought one major conflict specifically to maintain Kuwaiti soverignty do you honestly beleive they won't fight another?
1. Of course they won't be next they are now key trading partners and very much part of the global capitalist fold.
2. They have their own concerns and issues with Irans behaviour and the potential harm to shipping. Especially China and the free flow of goods to their western customer base.
If Iran thinks it has a nuclear and millitary shield in China and Russia they are playing in a fantasy world and that is trully terrifying because they will not act as rational actors making the calls being made in Washington and elsewhere more guesswork then a rational analysis.
5 January 2012 5:51PM
Nothing secret about it and the link works for me. Heres another report which shows sources including the Jerusalem post.
5 January 2012 5:56PM
Sounds like fightin' talk to me MuhanAir!
Problem is when you start talking about the diaspora not standing back it implies that Iran might use terrorism as a weapon.
EXACTLY the sort of talk that encourages (and ultimately justifies) the US/UK lobbing a few Tomahawks . Start hinting a diaspora threat and ...boom!... the hawks win. This is getting too macho. Time to calm down.
At the moment I wouldn't think more than even 10% of the UK want a punch-up with Iran... Why would they?.
Hands of the sabres that are a rattling my friend.
5 January 2012 5:56PM
what a bunch of WARMONGERS replying here. Haven't you guys had enough of Amerikas shit!!!! The US is still pissed that the Iranians took their country back in 1979!!! Took all their oil away!!! Same as most of the mid east took Britain and US control away. SO how to get it back? WAR continuous WAR on the MUSLIM world. And the UK is in LOCKSTEP with THE US WAR MACHINE> only the GOVTS are involved none of the people want WAR . People want PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PEACE!!!!!!!!!! Stop the STUPIDITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 January 2012 5:57PM
You're not really interested in facts, are you?
5 January 2012 5:59PM
Not much blithe ignorance there, I fear.
5 January 2012 6:00PM
Iran will be the USA's new Vietnam and make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a Sunday school outing.
We all seem to be forgetting Russia in this, an old ally of Iran, and Putin lookig to deflate the US paper tigers. All sounds very familiar?
5 January 2012 6:00PM
Leo999, I think you are way off mark. with the China oil cuts. All this has done is allow South Korea to buy up 10% of it's total oil requirement.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219297.html
But you should be ashamed of yourself wanting sanctions against Iran. It is not naturally a belligerent country (it is the UK and US that are belligerent in their oil piracy). Iran has attacked no other country in recent years but NATO countries have shown themselves to be aggressive bullies with deplorable records on human rights. They bring shame on my good name.
5 January 2012 6:02PM
Leo999, I think you are way off mark. with the China oil cuts. All this has done is allow South Korea to buy up 10% of it's total oil requirement.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219297.html
But you should be ashamed of yourself wanting sanctions against Iran. It is not naturally a belligerent country (it is the UK and US that are belligerent in their oil piracy). Iran has attacked no other country in recent years but NATO countries have shown themselves to be aggressive bullies with deplorable records on human rights. They bring shame on my good name.
5 January 2012 6:03PM
Iran carries out naval exercises off its coast : sabre rattling
The US carries out naval exercises about 7,000 miles off its coast : not sabre rattling?
5 January 2012 6:04PM
If Iran (whatever that means), decides to try to play Russia off against the US then they're making a huge mistake. Not risking war with each other is far more important to both than Iran or its oil.
Despite Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the US still considers its military to be masters of the Universe, and the US carrier fleet are probably only looking for an excuse.
So, Outrage's advice to Iran is that this would be a really bad time to push it.
5 January 2012 6:07PM
I agree, I'd put a tenner on it, but not my house. As I said earlier, they wouldn't get within 50 miles.
This reminds me of the scene in Shane when Jack Palance, playing Jonny Ringo, goads Stonewall into drawing first, then guns him down in the mud. The US , metaphorically speaking, is playing Jonny Ringo with Iran.
Advice to Iran, don't draw first, or I'll lose my tenner.
5 January 2012 6:07PM
Look on the bright side, at least the UK will not be involved, since we have no money and have to make massive cuts, not waste money on international conflicts.
Did I get that right, Gideon?
5 January 2012 6:08PM
Try this link, Leo 999, which has been available since last night though not reported in our media.
http://roynelson.blog.co.uk/2012/01/04/usa-deploying-troops-in-israel-12392484/#comments
5 January 2012 6:09PM
Vietnam
.
.
.
Afghanistan
.
.
.
Iraq
.
.
.
Are we really stupid enough to fall for this FOUR times?
Seems so.
How sad.
Consequences of lemming-like behavior.
5 January 2012 6:10PM
Korea
.
,
Vietnam
.
.
.
Afghanistan
.
.
.
Iraq
5 times and counting!
5 January 2012 6:11PM
Press TV is a cheap Iranian propaganda stooge, not a serious news source.
You should check the article in Reuters.
As for Iran not being a belligerent country, well, you're just ignorant on this point.
Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for decades. It is responsible for targeting and murdering hundreds of civilians in Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.
5 January 2012 6:13PM
Here's a link to a relevant article on the Craig Murray blog. Remember Werrity? Perhaps D Milliband does ...
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/werrittymiliband-they-were-all-in-it/
How soon will the war start? And yes, we'll be involved, even if only as the US fixed aircraft-carrier.
5 January 2012 6:14PM
All this brouhaha about Iran.
And yet not a word on its next door neighbour, Pakistan, which has long had nuclear weapons. The head of its nuclear program was even arrested for illegally selling nuclear technology and equipment. Yet Pakistan remains a staunch US ally, even after the whole Bin Laden fiasco.
Strange.
5 January 2012 6:15PM
Prove It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4qQtWjXPv4&feature=related
5 January 2012 6:15PM
I just got word from an Iranian software engineer on another forum that they've been given two weeks' notice that Iran is cutting off the entire world wide web. A few bloggers over the last 24 hours are saying similar things.
Sinister.
5 January 2012 6:19PM
Simon Tisdall
This analysis is all fine but does the author propose a (viable) solution? If the West climbs down then the Iranian regime can also claim victory which will help it consolidate power. Externalizing the internal conflict offers no guarantees to the Iranian regime. In fact, I would predict the opposite. Any Iranian attempt to close the Hormuz would lead to a devastating military defeat – likely leading to partial (perhaps UN authorized) loss of sovereignty over the Hormuz coast. The Iranian navy would be gone and its air force wiped out. Military defeats have never helped any regime consolidate power. Anybody remember what happened to the Argentine junta after 1982?
5 January 2012 6:23PM
You make it sound like they are going to cut off all of us all over the world! I think you mean they are planning on isolating their own people. Still not good by any means!
5 January 2012 6:25PM
The Americans are in an unusual position: they can't afford a conflict, and they can't afford to look like they can't afford a conflict. I don't agree with you about AIPAC - I think the power of the so-called 'Israel lobby' is over-estimated, and nothing compared to the oil companies and other corporate lobbies. It just happens that Israel's interests dovetail here with the USA's (as is often the case).
Iran broke the rules of the US's Middle East strategy in 1979, and that's where you can trace this to. War, also, is increasingly controversial - just look at the popular reactions to Iraq. It's a dangerous, expensive tactic, and US foreign policy has been more cautious in recent years (though no more moral). Something big would have to happen for a full-blown war to break out - it's not impossible, but I reckon it's quite unlikely right now.
P.S. Great name! If only there were a new Victor Jara (or, no U.S.-sponsored coup in Chile to kill the old one)
5 January 2012 6:28PM
"In other words, confident statements by the White House and state department that Iran is buckling under sanctions pressure appear to blithely ignore the possibility that the regime is being pushed into a corner from which it will come out punching, not negotiating. "
Seriously Mr. Tisdall, you should read up on the history of "negotiations" with Iran vis a vis the US White House and State Department.
- 1979: US - "give us our hostages back", Iran - "no"
- 1980 US - "we'll send you weapons to fight Iraq, give us our hostages being held in Lebanon by your supporters back to us" - Iran "thanks for the weapons, no, you can't get your hostages in Lebanon back"
- 1986 US - "Iran stop egging us on or we'll start bombing some oil fields". Iran- "bring it on baby"
- 1988 US "we're sorry we shot down your commercial airliner, we thought it was a hostile warplane"
- 1988 US "Iran, please don't put mines in the gulf". Iran - "yeh, whatever"
- 1992 US "Clinton here. I understand you're building nukes. Let's talk and see if we can get you to stop". Iran - "yeh whatever"
- 1996 US - "Iran is behind the bombing of Kohbar Towers, but we're looking for improved relations with Iran and Khatami, so we'll not call you out on it" Iran - "we didn't bomb Kohbar towers, our operatives, Hizbollah did. Sure we might have egged them on but so what?"
-1998 Iran - "Hello, US? Khatamei here. Let's start improving relations."
-1998 Iran two weeks later. "Khatamei here. I changed my mind. You're an oppressive regime".
-2000 US lifts some export sanctions against Iran as a goodwill gesture. Iran: "Too belated."
-2001 US "We're telling the world you're behind the Kohbar tower bombings". Iran - "So what? We'll deny it."
- 2002 George Bush: "Iran is part of an Axis of Evil"
- 2003 US "MIlitary option to take out Iran's nukes is an option"
- 2006 Condi Rice: "No greater challange to US than Iran's nuke programme"
- 2007 US calls Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. Iran: "That statement is worthless"
- 2008 Iran: "Congrats Obama" - US: "Obama here, I'm sorry for 1953, let's talk"
-2010 US "Obama still here, when do you guys want to talk?"
-2011 US "Obama here, you guys appear to be making a nuke and don't want to talk?"
- 2011 US - "Let's pass biting sanctions" Iran: "Don't you dare or we'll close the Straight of Hormuz to shipping"
- 2012 Iran - "We had war games in the Persian Gulf. Better keep your ships away from the Straight US. We don't repeat ourselves on such matters"
1979 - 2012: Every Friday in Iran after prayers: "Death to the US"
---------
So Mr Tisdall, how does the US get Iran to come back to negotiations based on past history?
5 January 2012 6:29PM
common knowledge
5 January 2012 6:33PM
Lets hope Iran quickly develops nuclear detterrent as that's probably the only way they can stop this madness talk about being attacked by Israel, USA, UK, and other extremist government from attacking them!!
I don't really care if Iran doesn't have democracy, or run by religious people, or that it doesn't give freedom to its people, etc as thats got nothing to do with me!! Iran is for Iranians and how they want to live is their business as long as they don't bother me, AND I DON'T CARE IF ISRAEL FEELS THREATENDED BY IRAN - maybe that'll teach them to get along with its neighbours!! If the Iranians wants to live like us then let the Iranians decide this and not us!!
I am fed up with innocent people suffering all the time, whilst the people in power are enjoying all the luxury!! If those people in power wants to fight then i'll be more than happy for them to send their children, relatives, friends, wife, husband, brothers, etc as long as they don't ask me to fight!! I don't care if people think i'm a "coward" as I rather be a coward than a "fool"!!
5 January 2012 6:34PM
For all its bluster the last thing Iran wants is a direct military confrontation against the US.
I doubt Iran will interfere with American naval patrols in the straight of Hormuz.
5 January 2012 6:34PM
Tisdall's anti-American bias has led him down a most peculiar path here which apparently leads to a conclusion that it is the USA that should be concerned about Iran's power, not the other way around.
I suggest the following:
The mullahs are crazy religious fanatics, but not irrational in the world of power and politics. In typical ME shuk behavior, they will push to the limit before backing down since they know what will happen if they take on America. The bravado is for home consumption, not to be taken seriously by the US or others.
5 January 2012 6:36PM
The US can't beat a bunch of farmers in sandals, never mind a professional army of almost 1 million.
5 January 2012 6:39PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
5 January 2012 6:39PM
The Iranian army consists of 465,000 regular soldiers. The Republican guard has another 120,000 troops, the navy 28,000 sailors, airforce 52,000 airmen. There are also an indeterminate number of special forces personnel.
The Iranian Reserve force is numbered at 12.5 million, of which 3 million are considered available for active service. These are divided into 2500 batallions situated throughout Iran. 90,000 are in uniform at any one time, rotating out of a group of 300,000 fulltime reservists (globalsecurity.com)
The Iranian military was recently called the Middle East's most powerful army by the US Chief in the region John Abizaid.
Iran has several thousand operational short and medium range missles with a range of 2100 kilometres as well as unknown number of Intermediate ballistic missiles with a range as far as Moscow, Greece and China. It has recently added Cruise missles to its armoury.
The Iranian navy focuses on fast corvette sized ships equipped with precision anti-ship missle technology and also several utra-quiet Russian Kilo attack submarines.
Anyone out there that thinks Iran will be a walk over may get a big shock. Iran will not be like Iraq, which degraded by a long war, by 10 years of sanctions and the first American invasion.
Iran, as they say, is "combat ready".
Not only is an attack on Iran an immoral act, it is also a very foolish move. Add to this the reaction from Russia and the strong possibility that Iran has a lot of weapons-grade Uranium already.........
I wouldn't put any money on the US coming out of a conflict with Iran, without a VERY bloody nose indeed.