Help support TMP


"Is A War With Iran Over Nuclear Weapons Inevitable?" Topic


19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Action Log

24 Dec 2021 4:29 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Crossposted to TMP Poll Suggestions board

15 Sep 2022 8:46 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Battlefield in a Box European Farmhouse

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian expands his 15mm modern building collection.


Featured Profile Article

Checking Out a Boardgame, Episode II

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian looks for scenario material in a World War IV boardgame.


Featured Movie Review


791 hits since 24 Dec 2021
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP24 Dec 2021 4:26 p.m. PST

"The operative reality of Iran's relations with the P5+1 nations stopped being the JCPOA a number of years ago. That's true in two ways, the most obvious being that the deal was only ever limited to slowing a nuclear weapons breakout. It didn't address so many other facets of interaction or Iran's other malevolent behavior. And, nearly as obvious, because the deal was effectively canceled in mid-2018. Since then, it has simply not been that big a factor in Iran's relations, even if the deal consumed much of the talking time of diplomats. For evidence of this, consider China's illicit purchases of oil from Iran, providing the regime much needed cash; Russia's cooperation with Iran in Syria; and Germany's rejection of the ‘maximum pressure' approach and heralding of a "fundamentally different Iran policy" than the United States…"
Main page
link


Armand

torokchar Supporting Member of TMP24 Dec 2021 4:37 p.m. PST

Sooner rather than later!

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP24 Dec 2021 5:25 p.m. PST

I have said for a decade that this is how it goes:

We should not have a war with Iran because they don't yet have nuclear weapons and we need to give peace and diplomacy a chance to work.

Then it will switch to:

We can't go to war with Iraq because they have nuclear weapons and it would be too costly.

The same game the international community is playing with North Korea.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Andrew Walters24 Dec 2021 6:15 p.m. PST

Congress would never declare that war. Congress won't declare war unless it's popular, and that's usually after the fighting has started. This is why this power was given to congress, so we wouldn't get in a lot of wars. Well, the founding fathers tried.

I would vote for the option where the Israelis perpetually kick Iran's success down the road two to five years at a time. Blow this up, hack that, expose something else, assassinate this guy, bribe that guy. A war with Iran would be a problem for the US, but it's a matter of survival for Israel. So they will literally do anything to prevent a nuclear bomb falling on Israel. They will spend anything, risk anything. They are competent and reasonably wealthy. As long as the US doesn't let the world hobble Israel, Israel will take care of Iran. And Israel is making a lot of friends in the Arab world right now.

phssthpok24 Dec 2021 7:34 p.m. PST

Bleeped text I said that back in '79! Predicted the current state of the world regarding Iran and Islamic extremism and they called me the crazy war monger.

Thresher0124 Dec 2021 10:54 p.m. PST

It should be, since they should never be permitted to get nukes, and they have been permitted to progress much too far along that path already.

We should stop their uranium enrichment AND ballistic missile programs, before they can be developed further.

Doug MSC Supporting Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 8:30 a.m. PST

Israel will take care of them but we must stand behind them in their effort.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 11:45 a.m. PST

I agree with Doug … If need be, the USA using, USN and USAF assets could take out all of Iran's key/critical targets. With just the use of conventional weapons.

And Iran's leadership knows it …

JimSelzer25 Dec 2021 1:38 p.m. PST

unfortunately yes

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 3:15 p.m. PST

Thanks

Armand

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 3:42 p.m. PST

Well, to put it another way, the Mullahs aren't going to give up on the wet dream of an Islamic Bomb just because we ask them pretty please, with sugar on it.

WHEN it comes to direct action, I agree with Doug, too: Israel will do the heavy lifting, but will require our support and back up.

Mind, the Mossad are already running rings around them now, with massive acts of sabotage almost monthly. Most of these are actually being carried out by Iranians wanting to end the current regime, but the Israelis may have some really Sunday Punches just waiting for the moment that the Mullahs are on the point of having enough nukes to strike.

And that's when--the West having failed to prevent that moment and necessity--that sky will fall on Tehran.

But with the current personalities in control Over Here, I fear the crucial US support--political and otherwise--will not be forthcoming. And that's when a "merely" dangerous moment can turn into an "actually" catastrophic one.

And, once again, 2022 looks really good for it.

Happy New Year.

TVAG

Thresher0125 Dec 2021 5:09 p.m. PST

Of course, they've claimed and continue to claim that their uranium enrichment is not about nukes, so REALLY, they have NO need for such an enrichment program.

Then of course, there is their ballistic missile program, and in virtually ALL cases, those are really only for the delivery of nukes, and/or other WMDs, and NOT for the delivery of Christmas cheer.

Sadly, we've nixed an early delivery of aerial refueling jets to the Israelis, so looks like they'll be dependent upon the Saudis to help with that, should an immediate strike be deemed necessary.

On the plus side of the ledger, I believe Israel already has a bunch of those deep, bunker-busting bombs, in addition to other more powerful ordnance, which can be called up for use, if/when needed.

I have visions of Israelis fighters riding herd off the wings/tails of the Saudi aerial refuelers in order to ensure that they provide the necessary and timely delivery of fuel to the Israeli fighter-bombers, should a strike on Iran be conducted with their assistance, in order to ensure there is no double cross by their "ally".

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 6:12 p.m. PST

Nope. It doesn't benefit either party.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP25 Dec 2021 10:00 p.m. PST

Israel Debates The Pluses And Negatives Tp Launch A Military Strike Against Iran


link

Armand

mildbill26 Dec 2021 5:46 a.m. PST

All it takes is one leader to miscalculate and at least dirty bomb will hit.

Tortorella Supporting Member of TMP26 Dec 2021 8:05 a.m. PST

Hey Thresher this works for me. The states in the region taking care of this instead of us? What a great idea! Of course they benefit from all the sssistance and stuff we have provided. But they have what they need and they are more than capable.
+1 Andrew Walters

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP26 Dec 2021 10:46 a.m. PST

If Iran gets nukes … the KSA will buy some from Pakistan … then Iran & the KSA, both archenemies, could trigger "Armageddon" …

"Game Over, Man !!!"

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP27 Dec 2021 6:22 p.m. PST

And we saw how well that turned out …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.