Trump ally Giuliani says end is near for Iran's rulers

[Morch]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

I have to disagree with you on some points.

 

The Iranian people may well have a problem internally but I really believe that they will be united against an "outside' country like the USA.

 

Nuclear weapons, well Israel has plenty and though not willing to use them they still have that option as their military, whilst effective is still quite small in numbers and has not really been tested for a few years.

 

The problem with an aerial war is that you can win a battle but you cannot hold what you have won without boots on the ground. Two prime examples are Iraq 1 and 2 and Afghanistan. In Iraq 1 the west were united and wiped out most of the Iraqi forces with air power but still had to use tens of thousands of troops. That was back in the 1990s and Iraq is still rumbling on.

 

Afghanistan is pretty much the same and both of them suck in troops and material.

 

IMHO Trump will have NO support from the west or the UN if he attacks Iran, not even overflight permission from the EU and the UK.

 

I am sure that he will supported by his followers though I am not sure if the House and the Senate will back him. I am also not sure if all the military will support him either even though as POTUS he does have the authority to do so.

 

To be truthful IMHO, Trump is a disaster on legs for the USA and the world.

 

Your post alleged that the "they"  - not clear if you mean leadership or people, not quite the same thing. That an outside attack can unify people against "outsiders", yes. That under current conditions this is a given, maybe not. Quite a bit of the anti-regime sentiment is related to what is seen as over-investment in regional affairs. Same goes for elements associated with hardliners (like the IRGC).

 

Other than saying this country or that possess nuclear weapons, what makes their use anywhere likely?

 

There is no "problem" with "aerial war". More an issue of defining goals. A better way of framing it would be asking what are the goals (or realistic goals, to be exact) - and whether they can be achieved without massive presence of "boots on the ground". As said, doubt anyone seriously envisages conquering Iran, occupying it or having a mass of "boots on the ground". On this front, the examples cited serve as a good lesson, which I don't think is completely ignored (note pattern of later involvement vs. ISIS in Iraq and Syria).

 

There wasn't anything said about Trump initially getting Western support. The comment referred to the possibility of this changing under a scenario in which Iran tries to block the Strait of Hormuz. Somehow doubt overflight permissions are an issue, or that they will be refused, if it comes to that.

[Hummin]

On 7/3/2018 at 3:22 AM, bushdoctor said:

I was responding to your false claim that everything is normal in Iran. 

And everything is Normal i USA? 

 

?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about a trade war have been removed, there is a new topic about that now running here: