Iran: who's going to shoot first?

[gloomyDAY]

The United States and Britain have staged war games off of Iran's front door. I'm just wondering who's going to be the first one to knock it to the floor. My guess is that the Americans are going to beat Israel to the punch.

Why will America strike first? 1) President Obama can use an attack on Iran for political gain. Most Republicans would not criticize Obama for attacking Iran, especially after the attacks on American consulates. Obama can use this as a pitch to the American people as a trait of leadership and make Americans feel rest-assured of an Iranian nuclear threat, therefore, a re-election. 2) Being the first to attack would show the world that Israel is not unilaterally in charge of diffusing a critical situation in the Middle East. Also, it would disallow America to look weak if Israel took unilateral control of any strikes on Iran.

I don't think Americans want to be embroiled in another war, but if it wins elections then I can see it happening.

[Rollo]

The Middle East is bounded by five territories, India, Afghanistan, Russia, Southern Europe and Egypt.

Depending on what sort of scar the territory has, it's not a bad card factory provided players agree to use it as such. The thing is though as an Asian territory it's kinda vulnerable. I haven't seen anyone hold Asia in any game I've ever played except right near the end, so those 7 men which although seem so nice, remain enigmae.
The fact that you mention both the United States and Britain suggests that Alien Island has already come along and that someone has already won the mission of conquering 7+ islands.
I'd be inclined to attack from the United States, as Europe is generally hard to hold, whereas North America usually only has three entry points. It also depends on who has missiles they can play and/or what sort of scars are on Middle East.

I usually play as Die Mechaniker and the starting power was that the HQ was fortified which adds +1 to both defending dice. Middle East was a great place to start until someone put an Ammo Shortage scar on our board.

[gloomyDAY]

The Middle East is bounded by five territories, India, Afghanistan, Russia, Southern Europe and Egypt.

Depending on what sort of scar the territory has, it's not a bad card factory provided players agree to use it as such. The thing is though as an Asian territory it's kinda vulnerable. I haven't seen anyone hold Asia in any game I've ever played except right near the end, so those 7 men which although seem so nice, remain enigmae.
The fact that you mention both the United States and Britain suggests that Alien Island has already come along and that someone has already won the mission of conquering 7+ islands.
I'd be inclined to attack from the United States, as Europe is generally hard to hold, whereas North America usually only has three entry points. It also depends on who has missiles they can play and/or what sort of scars are on Middle East.

I usually play as Die Mechaniker and the starting power was that the HQ was fortified which adds +1 to both defending dice. Middle East was a great place to start until someone put an Ammo Shortage scar on our board.http://canv.as/ugc/original/32f00f9793f4f885a61794c92fa5b6e3da97e3c7.gif

[ShiftingGears]

The United States and Britain have staged war games off of Iran's front door. I'm just wondering who's going to be the first one to knock it to the floor. My guess is that the Americans are going to beat Israel to the punch.

Why will America strike first? 1) President Obama can use an attack on Iran for political gain. Most Republicans would not criticize Obama for attacking Iran, especially after the attacks on American consulates. Obama can use this as a pitch to the American people as a trait of leadership and make Americans feel rest-assured of an Iranian nuclear threat, therefore, a re-election. 2) Being the first to attack would show the world that Israel is not unilaterally in charge of diffusing a critical situation in the Middle East. Also, it would disallow America to look weak if Israel took unilateral control of any strikes on Iran.

I don't think Americans want to be embroiled in another war, but if it wins elections then I can see it happening.

I think the US should stay out of the Middle East. Israel is capable of holding its own, and I don't think any country will actually attack them anyway. But I think Netanyahu will want to attack Iran only if the US government backs it.

Now on the topic of nukes -
Firstly I think it's suicide for any country to actually initiate conflict against a country with nuclear weapons. But that's the point of nuclear weapons - it's so that an attacking country has an almighty disincentive to actually initiate conflict.

If you were in Iran, and you were feeling threatened by a foreign country (also remembering that their government had been overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in the past) then nuclear weapons starts to look like a pretty good self defense tool.

If the US gets involved in this mess it will create a lot more animosity between the Middle East/Islam and the rest of the Western world, will give great ammunition to jihadists to recruit and convert their followers into committing violence and acts of terrorism, and will do nothing to keep people safer.

ldgbOxDX6DE
History repeating itself and all that.

[Hawkmoon]

The United States and Britain have staged war games off of Iran's front door. I'm just wondering who's going to be the first one to knock it to the floor. My guess is that the Americans are going to beat Israel to the punch.

Why will America strike first? 1) President Obama can use an attack on Iran for political gain. Most Republicans would not criticize Obama for attacking Iran, especially after the attacks on American consulates. Obama can use this as a pitch to the American people as a trait of leadership and make Americans feel rest-assured of an Iranian nuclear threat, therefore, a re-election.

I think your reasoning is a little flawed here. Obama is the darling of the left and the left aren't generally in favour of attacking other nations. Obama has been pulling troops out of the Middle East and I don't think there is much chance he'll decide to send them back in, just in a different place. Obama might gain a few votes from the right by taking a shot at the Iranians but he's likely to loose much more from the left.


2) Being the first to attack would show the world that Israel is not unilaterally in charge of diffusing a critical situation in the Middle East. Also, it would disallow America to look weak if Israel took unilateral control of any strikes on Iran.

I don't think Americans want to be embroiled in another war, but if it wins elections then I can see it happening.

How does attacking Iran "difuse" a critical situation? I would think it would do the exact opposite and fuel the metaphorical fire. Again, I think the opposite is more likely. If the US does want to take a shot at Iran I think it would much rather goad Israel into firing the first shot and then come in on the Israeli side. The US can then plead innocent about starting a war and still take out an antagonistic nation.

If, and it's a big if, someone attacks Iran it will be Israel and I'd put money on it.

[Starter]

It is highly unlikely that ANY country that possesses nuclear weapons would use them in a first strike scenario. That includes Iran. The retaliatory consequences are too great. The real danger with Iran having those weapons is their close relationship with and sponsorship of terrorists. Some of those groups would not hesitate to use such weapons. Should Iran have the capability, the possibility of those weapons getting into the wrong hands is greatly increased. I have the same concern about Pakistan which already has nuclear capability. The current government won't allow that, but it's an unstable situation there and who knows what the future brings.