Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[King Arts]

Iran had claimed they want to kill Isreal and genocide them

Just like America said that Japanese will only be spoken in hell.
"You Nazi American fuck how could you genocide the Japanese people!"
Iran if it won this hypothetical would probably create a new Persian Empire. FYI that empire treated Jews very nicely in history. Sure the nation of Israel would not longer be independent. But again, that is not our problem. As long as neither side uses WMD's or destroys historical artifacts or buildings that are hundreds of years old we should stay out of it. Which probably means we'd need to watch Israel more than Iran since they already have nukes while the Iranians don't. And Iran is unlikely to destroy historical artifacts in Israel since they are Muslim and that means that Christian and Jewish religious sites would also be important for them.

 

[Marduk]

Just like America said that Japanese will only be spoken in hell.
"You Nazi American fuck how could you genocide the Japanese people!"
Iran if it won this hypothetical would probably create a new Persian Empire. FYI that empire treated Jews very nicely in history. Sure the nation of Israel would not longer be independent. But again, that is not our problem. As long as neither side uses WMD's or destroys historical artifacts or buildings that are hundreds of years old we should stay out of it. Which probably means we'd need to watch Israel more than Iran since they already have nukes while the Iranians don't. And Iran is unlikely to destroy historical artifacts in Israel since they are Muslim and that means that Christian and Jewish religious sites would also be important for them.

Don't forget that historically (until the Islamic Revolution) Iran was a great ally of Israel and USA too, so the "historically" argument has to be taken with a shovelful of salt when it comes to such ideologically revolutionary governments.
Its as if 60 years ago someone went "Come on, China is a very traditional country that is very proud of its culture and would never destroy its historical sites, so don't worry about that Mao guy and his student revolutionaries, they are just trying to look scary."
Or in other words, what part of "Islamic Revolution" do you not understand?
The ayatollahs do work with local nationalists, but they will never let them to gain an upper hand in that relationship, at least not without lots of bloodshed, so no Persian Empire within foreseeable future, sorry. If they make an empire, it will be Islamic Shia Empire.

 

[Zachowon]

Just like America said that Japanese will only be spoken in hell.
"You Nazi American fuck how could you genocide the Japanese people!"
Iran if it won this hypothetical would probably create a new Persian Empire. FYI that empire treated Jews very nicely in history. Sure the nation of Israel would not longer be independent. But again, that is not our problem. As long as neither side uses WMD's or destroys historical artifacts or buildings that are hundreds of years old we should stay out of it. Which probably means we'd need to watch Israel more than Iran since they already have nukes while the Iranians don't. And Iran is unlikely to destroy historical artifacts in Israel since they are Muslim and that means that Christian and Jewish religious sites would also be important for them.

We were at war and they attacked us. We responded in kind by decimating thier navy and instead of invading thier homeland and facing millions of casualties, we said fuck it and nuked them.
We didn't genocide them.
Diffrence here is the Ayatollah is the head figure of Iran, he is also a super Islamic person and would rather the Persian empire burn as long as Shia Islamic empire can rule the middle east at least. SA would burn, Isreal, Turkey...

 

[King Arts]

Don't forget that historically (until the Islamic Revolution) Iran was a great ally of Israel and USA too, so the "historically" argument has to be taken with a shovelful of salt when it comes to such ideologically revolutionary governments.
Its as if 60 years ago someone went "Come on, China is a very traditional country that is very proud of its culture and would never destroy its historical sites, so don't worry about that Mao guy and his student revolutionaries, they are just trying to look scary."
Or in other words, what part of "Islamic Revolution" do you not understand?
The ayatollahs do work with local nationalists, but they will never let them to gain an upper hand in that relationship, at least not without lots of bloodshed, so no Persian Empire within foreseeable future, sorry. If they make an empire, it will be Islamic Shia Empire.

Yes, because Iran is Muslim it makes them be rivals of Israel when it makes more sense for them to ally with Israel to oppose the Arab muslim nations. But any Iran that wants an empire would be an enemy of America. Iran's interests and America's are at odds. As for a Persian Empire it would be a Persian empire that is Shia Muslim. Those aren't incompatible, regardless of how silly Islam is and their stupid split between Sunni or Shia. If Iran won everything it wanted it would be a new Persian empire. Just because the state religion of that empire is Islam doesen't mean it's not Persian. I mean are you saying that Persia durring the middle ages was not Persian because they weren't Zorastrians anymore? But even if it is a theocracy that doesen't prove it will do genocide since again it does allow Christians and Jews to live in it's state.

We were at war and they attacked us. We responded in kind by decimating thier navy and instead of invading thier homeland and facing millions of casualties, we said fuck it and nuked them.
We didn't genocide them.
Diffrence here is the Ayatollah is the head figure of Iran, he is also a super Islamic person and would rather the Persian empire burn as long as Shia Islamic empire can rule the middle east at least. SA would burn, Isreal, Turkey...

Do you not understand sarcasm anymore? I did not say America genocided Japan seriously, but the chances of Iran genociding Jews if they do conquer Israel is just as likely as America genociding Japanese after it conqured Japan. They are a hated enemy created by their own stupidity, but the chance of genocide is ridiculously small.
As for Shia Islamic empire and Persian empire. Any Shia Islamic empire would probably also have to be Persian, since most other Muslims aka Sunni are Arab, or Turkish. Most Shia are Iranian. Any Persian empire would need to burn the Arabs and the Turks. If they were not Muslims but Zoroastrians or Christians though they could ally with Israel in the short and medium term.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, because Iran is Muslim it makes them be rivals of Israel when it makes more sense for them to ally with Israel to oppose the Arab muslim nations.

But this is exactly why you are stuck in pre-revolutionary Iran mindset.
Iran cannot oppose Arab nations and rule them at the same time, it is not that powerful and the PR looks bad.
Iran used to oppose Arab nations before the revolution, hence it was allied with Israel and USA.
Now it wants to build an empire, so it needs to somehow appeal to the Arab nations so at least some of them will cooperate with rather than oppose the upstart Shia Empire, because if they have to do it purely by force, the empire will just simply choke on what it bites off.
Meanwhile, there is no more obvious uniting cause to set up between the Shia Empire and Arabs than calling upon Muslim unity against the Great Satan and the Small Satan.
So that's what they do.
Remember, the only thing the Shia islamists would love more than removing the Sunnis, is converting the Sunnis.

But any Iran that wants an empire would be an enemy of America. Iran's interests and America's are at odds. As for a Persian Empire it would be a Persian empire that is Shia Muslim.

Does it? How much does USA care about Arab countries being ruled over Arab strongmen of all stripes, as opposed to a Iranian Empire, provided it would not be overtly hostile to USA or its allies?

Those aren't incompatible, regardless of how silly Islam is and their stupid split between Sunni or Shia. If Iran won everything it wanted it would be a new Persian empire. Just because the state religion of that empire is Islam doesen't mean it's not Persian. I mean are you saying that Persia durring the middle ages was not Persian because they weren't Zorastrians anymore?

What are you even trying to say here? Are you trying to handwave away all the significance of Iran's Islamic Revolution? Yes, Iran is Shia. It was also Shia under the Shah, and even before the Shah.
But it wasn't a Shia theocracy then. It is one now. That's a qualitative difference.
Get it?

But even if it is a theocracy that doesen't prove it will do genocide since again it does allow Christians and Jews to live in it's state.

No one can "PROOOOV" what will happen in the future. On the other hand, it is also an interesting choice of line at "genocide", as opposed to, say, being third rate citizens.
Fuck, even the Nazis weren't intending to genocide Slavs alltogether, just kill off a good chunk of them and effectively enslave the rest.

Do you not understand sarcasm anymore? I did not say America genocided Japan seriously, but the chances of Iran genociding Jews if they do conquer Israel is just as likely as America genociding Japanese after it conqured Japan. They are a hated enemy created by their own stupidity, but the chance of genocide is ridiculously small.

Welp, lucky for Japan, America was not an imperialistic theocracy.
And then there is the elephant in the room that this is a lot more complicated situation.
Of course there is no reason for Shia to go out of their way to genocide Jews. They don't need to.
All it would take for Jews to disappear is wink to the local Arab subjects and look away.

As for Shia Islamic empire and Persian empire. Any Shia Islamic empire would probably also have to be Persian, since most other Muslims aka Sunni are Arab, or Turkish. Most Shia are Iranian. Any Persian empire would need to burn the Arabs and the Turks. If they were not Muslims but Zoroastrians or Christians though they could ally with Israel in the short and medium term.

What good is an empire without subjects? Do they want an empire, or just a big wasteland to call their own? They don't want to burn Arabs and Turks, just break them and rule over them.

 

[Zachowon]

Yes, because Iran is Muslim it makes them be rivals of Israel when it makes more sense for them to ally with Israel to oppose the Arab muslim nations. But any Iran that wants an empire would be an enemy of America. Iran's interests and America's are at odds. As for a Persian Empire it would be a Persian empire that is Shia Muslim. Those aren't incompatible, regardless of how silly Islam is and their stupid split between Sunni or Shia. If Iran won everything it wanted it would be a new Persian empire. Just because the state religion of that empire is Islam doesen't mean it's not Persian. I mean are you saying that Persia durring the middle ages was not Persian because they weren't Zorastrians anymore? But even if it is a theocracy that doesen't prove it will do genocide since again it does allow Christians and Jews to live in it's state.



Do you not understand sarcasm anymore? I did not say America genocided Japan seriously, but the chances of Iran genociding Jews if they do conquer Israel is just as likely as America genociding Japanese after it conqured Japan. They are a hated enemy created by their own stupidity, but the chance of genocide is ridiculously small.
As for Shia Islamic empire and Persian empire. Any Shia Islamic empire would probably also have to be Persian, since most other Muslims aka Sunni are Arab, or Turkish. Most Shia are Iranian. Any Persian empire would need to burn the Arabs and the Turks. If they were not Muslims but Zoroastrians or Christians though they could ally with Israel in the short and medium term.

Why is Iran funding ev3ry group that attacks Isreal?
Why does Iran support Palestinian independence?
Do you honestly think jews in Iran live better then jews in every other country in the world?

 

[King Arts]

But this is exactly why you are stuck in pre-revolutionary Iran mindset.
Iran cannot oppose Arab nations and rule them at the same time, it is not that powerful and the PR looks bad.
Iran used to oppose Arab nations before the revolution, hence it was allied with Israel and USA.
Now it wants to build an empire, so it needs to somehow appeal to the Arab nations so at least some of them will cooperate with rather than oppose the upstart Shia Empire, because if they have to do it purely by force, the empire will just simply choke on what it bites off.
Meanwhile, there is no more obvious uniting cause to set up between the Shia Empire and Arabs than calling upon Muslim unity against the Great Satan and the Small Satan.
So that's what they do.
Remember, the only thing the Shia islamists would love more than removing the Sunnis, is converting the Sunnis.

Realistically they can't conquer the whole Arab world yes. But they can conquer some parts and oppress or ethnically cleanse some parts of it. And fuck PR the whole reason we have to worry about the slow spread of Islam is that the US spread shitty memes to the rest of the world to prevent everyone else from removing kebab when it's neccesary.

Does it? How much does USA care about Arab countries being ruled over Arab strongmen of all stripes, as opposed to a Iranian Empire, provided it would not be overtly hostile to USA or its allies?

The U.S. interfered when Sadam tried to take Kuwait. They also got involved in Serbia when it tried to take out the Islamists in the area. They also opposed Assad when he was fighting ISIS.

What are you even trying to say here? Are you trying to handwave away all the significance of Iran's Islamic Revolution? Yes, Iran is Shia. It was also Shia under the Shah, and even before the Shah.
But it wasn't a Shia theocracy then. It is one now. That's a qualitative difference.
Get it?

Not too much, being a theocracy or not does not matter. What matters is the head Ayatollah is unreasonable. The form of government rarely matters. Russia for example will still act expansionist whether under Tsar, Stalin, or democracy under Putin.

No one can "PROOOOV" what will happen in the future. On the other hand, it is also an interesting choice of line at "genocide", as opposed to, say, being third rate citizens.
Fuck, even the Nazis weren't intending to genocide Slavs alltogether, just kill off a good chunk of them and effectively enslave the rest.

I never said Christians and Jews aren't second class citizen's in Iran. But that's the same in almost every Islamic country except maybe the more secular parts of Turkey. But again why should we care, Israel can take care of itself.

Welp, lucky for Japan, America was not an imperialistic theocracy.
And then there is the elephant in the room that this is a lot more complicated situation.
Of course there is no reason for Shia to go out of their way to genocide Jews. They don't need to.
All it would take for Jews to disappear is wink to the local Arab subjects and look away.

No it's not a theocracy but America is most definitely imperialistic.

What good is an empire without subjects? Do they want an empire, or just a big wasteland to call their own? They don't want to burn Arabs and Turks, just break them and rule over them.

This is just plain old stupidity. Land by itself is valuable. People are also valuable, however if they are too much of a problem they can be removed and you can bring in your own settlers. At first the land won't be as productive but eventually it will come back and the people won't be as rebellious if they know being massacred completely is an option.

Why is Iran funding ev3ry group that attacks Isreal?
Why does Iran support Palestinian independence?
Do you honestly think jews in Iran live better then jews in every other country in the world?

Because they are stupid Muslims, who want land that was formerly Muslim back.
There isn't anything wrong with Palestinian independence, in fact the current ideal situation is a two state solution.
As for the last one no, are you retarded. Jews live better in Israel, and America, and other western nations. But Iran is also not the worst place in the world for Jews to live in. So why should we allow neocon talking points to flare up and trick the people into giving aid to a foreign nation, and getting involved in a foreign region.

 

[Marduk]

Realistically they can't conquer the whole Arab world yes. But they can conquer some parts and oppress or ethnically cleanse some parts of it. And fuck PR the whole reason we have to worry about the slow spread of Islam is that the US spread shitty memes to the rest of the world to prevent everyone else from removing kebab when it's neccesary.

Its most of the western world by now, hell, it was visible enough even in the 90's.

The U.S. interfered when Sadam tried to take Kuwait. They also got involved in Serbia when it tried to take out the Islamists in the area. They also opposed Assad when he was fighting ISIS.

Saddam was not taking out Islamists, just plain ol' grab for resources, so that could be justified under hegemon politics of slapping the hand of greedy local strongman.
Its not just Islam either, it is the same impulse that is behind the bleeding heart's reaction to and preferred ways of dealing with the drug cartels and gang warfare in the Americas.

Not too much, being a theocracy or not does not matter. What matters is the head Ayatollah is unreasonable. The form of government rarely matters. Russia for example will still act expansionist whether under Tsar, Stalin, or democracy under Putin.

And as usual, the devil is in the details.
For one Ayatollah and his Revolutionary Guard do not seem to give much priority the contentment and well being of Iran's own population, and the latter doesn't seem able to do much about it, which in grand scheme of things will dictate where their attention, funding and priorities will go.

I never said Christians and Jews aren't second class citizen's in Iran. But that's the same in almost every Islamic country except maybe the more secular parts of Turkey. But again why should we care, Israel can take care of itself.

Because Russia and China also care, and the region still makes plenty of oil.

No it's not a theocracy but America is most definitely imperialistic.

Also very bad at it.

This is just plain old stupidity. Land by itself is valuable. People are also valuable, however if they are too much of a problem they can be removed and you can bring in your own settlers. At first the land won't be as productive but eventually it will come back and the people won't be as rebellious if they know being massacred completely is an option.

Only in long term, and if somehow you arrange for other people to settle the land - Iran is not exactly in a population boom, and local migrant populations surely won't rush to migrate there to be replacement second class citizens when the previous ones got massacred.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

America does not want one power dominating the Middle East because that one power would have waaaaaay too much influence over Oil Prices and even a US that is energy independent can't allow that. Tanks aren't gonna run on batteries in the foreseeable future.

 

[King Arts]

America does not want one power dominating the Middle East because that one power would have waaaaaay too much influence over Oil Prices and even a US that is energy independent can't allow that. Tanks aren't gonna run on batteries in the foreseeable future.

Yes, I know, which is why I said any nationalist Iran that wants a renewed Persian empire would do similar things that piss off America building nukes and helping our enemies. Iran may not be an enemy of Israel (if they were not Muslim) but the current interests of Iran and America are opposed. So Iran would naturally ally with Russia or China against America, because America is sticking itself in those areas.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, I know, which is why I said any nationalist Iran that wants a renewed Persian empire would do similar things that piss off America building nukes and helping our enemies. Iran may not be an enemy of Israel (if they were not Muslim) but the current interests of Iran and America are opposed. So Iran would naturally ally with Russia or China against America, because America is sticking itself in those areas.

As hinted already, it would all depend on what kind of oil deal this empire would be willing to make with USA. That's about it. If USA likes their offer, and on top of that they can competently handle the region, i think USA would be willing to cut them a whole lot of slack on everything else (like they do to Saudis, who can't do the latter).

 

[King Arts]

As hinted already, it would all depend on what kind of oil deal this empire would be willing to make with USA. That's about it. If USA likes their offer, and on top of that they can competently handle the region, i think USA would be willing to cut them a whole lot of slack on everything else (like they do to Saudis, who can't do the latter).

Again just look at Sadam he tried to get a bigger slice of the oil pie and the US slapped him down. No it won't work like that unless they can get a friendly president in charge of America.

 

[Marduk]

Again just look at Sadam he tried to get a bigger slice of the oil pie and the US slapped him down. No it won't work like that unless they can get a friendly president in charge of America.

Saddam was a worse failure on the "can competently handle the region" metric than the Saudis are, and that says something (while Iran and USA big buddies before the revolution, that also says something, you don't sell F-14's to just anyone), not to mention constantly picking fights with Israel for no good reason since decades, yet he still was left alone until the last straw was broken with the Kuwait invasion.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Just like America said that Japanese will only be spoken in hell.
"You Nazi American fuck how could you genocide the Japanese people!"

Actually there was significant debate leading up to and after the atomic bomb dropped, and before it was even announced, that put a great deal into consideration for the welfare of the Japanese people, especially in the case of not wanting to kill them all. Obviously partly because they wanted to mitigate casualties, but also because by and large Americans even back then weren't all that particularly desirable to execute excessive amounts of mass murder, even in the upper leadership unlike many of the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese leadership. There was even debate over which would be harsher to the Japanese people, an actual invasion or enacting a blockade... or a blockade or dropping the atomic bombs.

Of course on the internet forums, like on SB, the arguments consist of posting the same f'ing letter of a veteran sending back a Japanese skull and random quotes like "Japanese will only be spoken in Hell!" hurr durr, attributing it to "America" and then somehow extrapolating from that a supposedly dominant viewpoint of the entire country.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Of course on the internet forums, like on SB, the arguments consist of posting the same f'ing letter of a veteran sending back a Japanese skull and random quotes like "Japanese will only be spoken in Hell!" hurr durr, attributing it to "America" and then somehow extrapolating from that a supposedly dominant viewpoint of the entire country.

There's a book that almost sells this idea, War Without Mercy(I forget the author)... the problem is, even the author of that book has to admit, the American's didn't start it.

Disrespect of the dead? The Japanese booby trapped their own dead and wounded first.

Literally everything else? Fake Surrenders, Booby Trapping the Dead, and a bunch of other literal warcrimes first.

Eastern Front was bad, sure, but nowhere were the fucking NAZI'S doing fake surrenders and booby trapping dead and wounded.

I just, want that to sink in, in battle, the Japanese were worse than the freakin Nazi's.

So yeah, some soldiers got freakin macabre and some magazines ran with it, frankly, a lot of people would when dealing with people where your medics can't go treat wounded because they'd rather blow themselves up.

 

[Zachowon]

Actually there was significant debate leading up to and after the atomic bomb dropped, and before it was even announced, that put a great deal into consideration for the welfare of the Japanese people, especially in the case of not wanting to kill them all. Obviously partly because they wanted to mitigate casualties, but also because by and large Americans even back then weren't all that particularly desirable to execute excessive amounts of mass murder, even in the upper leadership unlike many of the Nazi German and Imperial Japanese leadership. There was even debate over which would be harsher to the Japanese people, an actual invasion or enacting a blockade... or a blockade or dropping the atomic bombs.

Of course on the internet forums, like on SB, the arguments consist of posting the same f'ing letter of a veteran sending back a Japanese skull and random quotes like "Japanese will only be spoken in Hell!" hurr durr, attributing it to "America" and then somehow extrapolating from that a supposedly dominant viewpoint of the entire country.

Ya see, people point out that yes there were racists at the time, kinda normal. Japanese people attacked US Ships, brought us into the war, and the only option was invasion of Japan or a way that would end things woth the least amount of deaths.
The Japanese were known to not war fairly snd the US Army and Marines knew this well so we didn't fight fair either

 

[Bacle]

Ya see, people point out that yes there were racists at the time, kinda normal. Japanese people attacked US Ships, brought us into the war, and the only option was invasion of Japan or a way that would end things woth the least amount of deaths.
The Japanese were known to not war fairly snd the US Army and Marines knew this well so we didn't fight fair either

That racism existed as far back as the end of the First World War, which is why Japan got stiffed at Versailles compared to European/Western powers.

Resentment from said stiffing is part of why they went colonial in Asia and ended up attacking the US.

Japan shouldn't have been fucking around in China or struck Pearl, however Woodrow Wilson shouldn't have stiffed them for helping during WW1.

 

[Zachowon]

That racism existed as far back as the end of the First World War, which is why Japan got stiffed at Versailles compared to European/Western powers.

Resentment from said stiffing is part of why they went colonial in Asia and ended up attacking the US.

Japan shouldn't have been fucking around in China or struck Pearl, however Woodrow Wilson shouldn't have stiffed them for helping during WW1.

It wasn't just Wilson.
Remeber most of the western World didn't pay attention to Japan until the Russo-Japanesen war

 

[Cherico]

That racism existed as far back as the end of the First World War, which is why Japan got stiffed at Versailles compared to European/Western powers.

Resentment from said stiffing is part of why they went colonial in Asia and ended up attacking the US.

Japan shouldn't have been fucking around in China or struck Pearl, however Woodrow Wilson shouldn't have stiffed them for helping during WW1.

Objectively speaking Japan contributed very little to the conflict and mainly focused on picking off what little there was of Germany's colonial empire. In cases where their desires clashed with the security concerns of great powers who contributed more to the war then they did.

They made gains in asia and in the south pacific and their economy benifited from the war.

As for woodrow wilson, the japanese were asking a known racist asshole a man who plunged race relations in his own country back 30 fucking years to legally reconize every country in the league of nations as equal to his own.....

If they had just asked for japan that might have been diplomatically doable, but with wilson every country....that just wasnt going to happen.

 

[GoldRanger]

This Japan thing is becoming a massive derail.