Hezbollah sees U.S. war on Iran as unlikely: report

[snoop1130]

Hezbollah sees U.S. war on Iran as unlikely: report

 

FILE PHOTO: Lebanon's Hezbollah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem casts his vote as he stands next to Hezbollah parliament candidate Amin Sherri at a polling station during the parliamentary election, in Beirut, Lebanon, May 6, 2018. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The Iran-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah believes a U.S. war on Iran is unlikely and U.S. President Donald Trump would not be able to control the results of a conflict that could engulf the region.

 

Sheikh Naim Qassem, in an interview with Lebanon’s al-Joumhouria newspaper, said such a war would be fought on many fronts, not just one, meaning losses would be countless.

 

“At the regional level, we see as unlikely an American war against Iran for many reasons, the most important of them being firstly that Iran is a strong state with important defensive capabilities,” Qassem said.

 

Trump “does not benefit from a war that he can start but whose results he cannot control and which might begin with Iran but may be accompanied by the region being set on fire”, he said.

 

Hezbollah is a heavily armed group founded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982 that has fought more recently in regional conflicts including Syria and Iraq as part of a Tehran-backed alliance.

 

Qassem noted what he described as “the great accomplishments” of the alliance led by Iran over the last two decades in “Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere”.

 

The United States views Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

 

On Wednesday, Trump said any war between Iran and the United States would be swift, but reiterated his desire to avoid a military confrontation even while blasting Tehran’s leaders.

 

The United States has imposed crippling financial sanctions against Iran since last year when Trump withdrew from a 2015 deal between Tehran and world powers under which Iran curbed its nuclear program.

 

Tension has escalated sharply since last month when the Trump administration tightened its sanctions noose, ordering all countries to halt purchases of Iranian oil.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-27

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington still has memory of the disaster back in 2003, when it invaded Iraq.

There's a bunch of war-mongers in the White House right now. They're trying to push for a war with Iran. Let's hope war against Iran will never happen.

[NCC1701A]

 

[from the home of CC]

wouldn't go well in the polls, only an Iranian attack directly on the KSA will spur action..

[tonbridgebrit]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-sanctions-supreme-leader-063236445.html


Okay, from the above article in the Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Hunt has said "The US is our closest ally, we talk to them the whole time, we consider any requests that they say carefully, but I cannot envisage any situation where they request or we agree to any moves to go to war. "

So, Washington, if you fight a war against Iran, Britain will not be part of it. And without Britain alongside you, you cannot fight any war.

Five nations won World War Two. Britain, France, America, Russia and China. These five are the big boys at the United Nations, they control the United Nations. America is just one of the Big Five, America on it's own has no mandate, can do nothing. Preventing a war between America and Iran makes planet earth a far safer place.

[BestB]

Iraq already said it would not allow US to launch any attacks on Iran from

its territory 

 

 

[beechguy]

3 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

 

Yep, I was thinking about this guy the other day. I place the same confidence in anything the Arabs, or Persians say, for that matter.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, beechguy said:

Yep, I was thinking about this guy the other day. I place the same confidence in anything the Arabs, or Persians say, for that matter.

 

4 hours ago, NCC1701A said:

 

In bald-faced lying, I'd say he could nearly give Trump a run for his money, any day. 

[Morch]

I think it's more a case of Hezbollah fervently praying things won't come to an all out war, and that it wouldn't be called upon by Iran do act as diversion.

 

The USA sanctions on Iran, and separate sanctions targeting Hezbollah made the organization's economic reality difficult. 

 

Public opinion in Lebanon wasn't all that supportive with regard to Hezbollah's involvement in the fighting in Syria, and kinda doubtful all Lebanese are up for Hezbollah dragging them (again) into a new conflict.

[Mel52]

Iraq already said it would not allow US to launch any attacks on Iran from
its territory 
 
 

Lmao [emoji23] like Iraq would have any say in the matter [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Mel52]

Washington still has memory of the disaster back in 2003, when it invaded Iraq.

There's a bunch of war-mongers in the White House right now. They're trying to push for a war with Iran. Let's hope war against Iran will never happen.

If you’re ever in Iran as I’ve been and when you see a dead body hanging from a crane in downtown Tehran your opinion might change. And I’ve been to Iraq have you? It was not necessarily what you think just from watching the news. People say education is the biggest problem in that part of the world well it’s a big damn problem for some western people as well. After being in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones myself I get really sick of the armchair quarterbacks sometimes they’re almost comical listening and reading what they say

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

Public opinion in Lebanon wasn't all that supportive with regard to Hezbollah's involvement in the fighting in Syria, and kinda doubtful all Lebanese are up for Hezbollah dragging them (again) into a new conflict.

I haven't been able to find anything about Lebanese opinion concerning Hezbollah's involvement in Syria. We do know that Hezbollah played a very important role in defeating the Jihadis.

 

On the one hand, I doubt there's much love for the Syrian regime amongst Sunni Lebanese.  On the other, Christian Lebanese detest the Jihadi militias in Syria who behaved with great brutality towards Christians there. Surprise, surprise!  Christian Lebanese generally regard Assad as a protector of Christians in Lebanon. And for the same anti-Jihadi reason, the Shiites certainly didn't want the Jihadis to triumph there. So I doubt your claim but can't find anything definitive to contradict it.

On the other hand, the US confronting Iran is very unpopular in Lebanon. We know that from a poll taken in Dec 2018.

Similarly, when asked to pick their top priority for U.S. Middle East policy, opinions cluster to some extent along sectarian lines. Around 30% of each community pick fighting jihadi terrorism as their favorite U.S. policy option. But on the choice of containing Iran, views are starkly divergent: among Sunnis, 45% select Iran as the best American priority; but among Shia, the corresponding figure is precisely zero and is just 12% among Christians

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/doubts-about-hezbollah-emerge-in-lebanon-even-among-shiites

 

 

[beechguy]

4 hours ago, Mel52 said:

 

If you’re ever in Iran as I’ve been and when you see a dead body hanging from a crane in downtown Tehran your opinion might change. And I’ve been to Iraq have you? It was not necessarily what you think just from watching the news. People say education is the biggest problem in that part of the world well it’s a big damn problem for some western people as well. After being in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones myself I get really sick of the armchair quarterbacks sometimes they’re almost comical listening and reading what they say

 

Finally, another poster who knows the real story.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Mel52 said:

 

Lmao like Iraq would have any say in the matter

 

Right, it's not like Iraqis have militarily humiliated the Americans before.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Mel52 said:

 

If you’re ever in Iran as I’ve been and when you see a dead body hanging from a crane in downtown Tehran your opinion might change. And I’ve been to Iraq have you? It was not necessarily what you think just from watching the news. People say education is the biggest problem in that part of the world well it’s a big damn problem for some western people as well. After being in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones myself I get really sick of the armchair quarterbacks sometimes they’re almost comical listening and reading what they say

 

It's not like the Iranians are keeping in check the aspirations of Saudi Arabia whose de facto leader is clearly a psychopath.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, car720 said:

So a corpse hanging in Iran is a cause for the US to wage war?

Is this what they refer to as US interests?

I would like to know the ratio of murders in Iran compared to the USA.

And of course no mention is made of the nightmare of a legal system that exists in one of America's closest allies in the region: Saudi Arabia.

[tonbridgebrit]

11 hours ago, Mel52 said:

 

If you’re ever in Iran as I’ve been and when you see a dead body hanging from a crane in downtown Tehran your opinion might change. And I’ve been to Iraq have you? It was not necessarily what you think just from watching the news. People say education is the biggest problem in that part of the world well it’s a big damn problem for some western people as well. After being in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones myself I get really sick of the armchair quarterbacks sometimes they’re almost comical listening and reading what they say

 

I've never been to Iran, and I've never seen a dead body after the execution. I'm against the death penalty, and I will very likely continue to be against it.
So, America should carry out military strikes against Iran, because Iran does public executions ? Attacking Iran with combat jets and missiles is not going to remove the regime. America will have to send in soldiers onto Iran's soil to carry out a regime change. And basically in America today, hardly anybody in the general public actually wants to see American soldiers in Iran.

And I've never been to Iraq. Was the picture created by the media regarding Iraq after the 2003 invasion, was it not accurate ? The media claimed that after Saddam had been removed by Washington in 2003, Sunni and Shia groups were attacking each other. And that American soldiers became an umpire or referee, in somebody else's conflict. People who say that the media image was not accurate, they're saying the following : Washington removed Saddam in 2003, a new government was installed, the Iraqis were highly against the new Iraqi government, and they didn't like the presence of American soldiers. Basically, Iraqi's with guns were fighting against the new government that was installed by Washington, and they were attacking the American soldiers too. No matter how you see it, Baghdad became a bloodbath after the US-led invasion in 2003.

Surely, nobody is supporting the use of American soldiers to bring about regime change in Iran ?
By the way, I do not wish to criticise the American soldiers who were in Iraq. If there is criticism, it should be for politicians sending the soldiers there. And now that we know about what happened in Iraq after 2003, repeating the same mistake in Iran today, would be insane.  

[tonbridgebrit]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

I think it's more a case of Hezbollah fervently praying things won't come to an all out war, and that it wouldn't be called upon by Iran do act as diversion.

 

I think the vast majority of people are praying and or desperately hoping that there will not be an all out war, and no military strikes.

What on earth will military strikes using American combat jets and missiles achieve ?
Is Washington going to support and back rebels in Iran, after military strikes ?  We will see a repeat of Syria, in Iran ?  Is Washington going to send American soldiers into Iran ?  Surely not ?  Surely, you yourself, are highly against sending US soldiers into Iran ?

[Salerno]

12 hours ago, Mel52 said:

After being in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war zones myself I get really sick of the armchair quarterbacks sometimes they’re almost comical listening and reading what they say

In which case you should know more than most what a clusterfuck this has the potential of becoming.

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I think the vast majority of people are praying and or desperately hoping that there will not be an all out war, and no military strikes.

What on earth will military strikes using American combat jets and missiles achieve ?
Is Washington going to support and back rebels in Iran, after military strikes ?  We will see a repeat of Syria, in Iran ?  Is Washington going to send American soldiers into Iran ?  Surely not ?  Surely, you yourself, are highly against sending US soldiers into Iran ?

 

This topic ain't about "the vast majority of people". It deals with Hezbollah views on a possible conflict.

 

Being supported by Iran comes with a price tag. Whether it's jumping into the fray in Syria, or potentially acting as a distraction through attacking Israel (rather probable in the case of actual conflict between the USA and Iran). The political situation isn't favorable either.

 

The war in Syria took its toll on Hezbollah, and the USA sanctions make things even harder. Regardless of how the Lebanese public (as opposed to solely the Shia factions) sees the situation, I kinda doubt anyone there is interested in acting as a decoy to help out Iran.

 

Surely, you can try and relate to posts rather than hijack them to service your narrative?

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

This topic ain't about "the vast majority of people". It deals with Hezbollah views on a possible conflict.

 

Hezbollah reckons that war between America and Iran is unlikely. Do you reckon that American soldiers on Iranian soil is highly unlikely ? I think that American soldiers on Iranian soil will be catastrophic for both America and Iran. Why do I reckon that ? Well, it's because American soldiers on Iraqi soil, during and after the 2003 invasion, was actually disastrous. I'm convinced that American soldiers in Iran today, will be just as bad as Iraq back in 2003.

And because Washington knows (or is totally convinced that this is, the case) that this is so, well, that's why Washington is certain to NOT send American soldiers into Iran. Do you reckon the same thing ??

[Mel52]

I've never been to Iran, and I've never seen a dead body after the execution. I'm against the death penalty, and I will very likely continue to be against it.
So, America should carry out military strikes against Iran, because Iran does public executions ? Attacking Iran with combat jets and missiles is not going to remove the regime. America will have to send in soldiers onto Iran's soil to carry out a regime change. And basically in America today, hardly anybody in the general public actually wants to see American soldiers in Iran.

And I've never been to Iraq. Was the picture created by the media regarding Iraq after the 2003 invasion, was it not accurate ? The media claimed that after Saddam had been removed by Washington in 2003, Sunni and Shia groups were attacking each other. And that American soldiers became an umpire or referee, in somebody else's conflict. People who say that the media image was not accurate, they're saying the following : Washington removed Saddam in 2003, a new government was installed, the Iraqis were highly against the new Iraqi government, and they didn't like the presence of American soldiers. Basically, Iraqi's with guns were fighting against the new government that was installed by Washington, and they were attacking the American soldiers too. No matter how you see it, Baghdad became a bloodbath after the US-led invasion in 2003.

Surely, nobody is supporting the use of American soldiers to bring about regime change in Iran ?
By the way, I do not wish to criticise the American soldiers who were in Iraq. If there is criticism, it should be for politicians sending the soldiers there. And now that we know about what happened in Iraq after 2003, repeating the same mistake in Iran today, would be insane.  

I think you missed my point but it’s fine I don’t want to see another war anymore than anyone else trust me.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Hezbollah reckons that war between America and Iran is unlikely. Do you reckon that American soldiers on Iranian soil is highly unlikely ? I think that American soldiers on Iranian soil will be catastrophic for both America and Iran. Why do I reckon that ? Well, it's because American soldiers on Iraqi soil, during and after the 2003 invasion, was actually disastrous. I'm convinced that American soldiers in Iran today, will be just as bad as Iraq back in 2003.

And because Washington knows (or is totally convinced that this is, the case) that this is so, well, that's why Washington is certain to NOT send American soldiers into Iran. Do you reckon the same thing ??

 

Repeating the headline, doing the "reckon" waffle thing and asking the sake question over and over again is about the usual fare. My view regarding the likelihood or benefit of such an "invasion" was posted on many posts, some of which you've responded to. Try harder.

[Ozman52]

What do you expect the paid stooges to say? Any open conflict with the US and Hezbollah's regular income stops dead, and probably permanently.