1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still havn't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We have recently started the 16th edition of the Mini Mapping Contest. The theme is mini RPG. Do check it out and have fun.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Dismiss Notice
  5. The Highway to Hell has been laid open. Come along and participate in the 5th Special Effect Contest.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Third World War!

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by matin45, Jan 5, 2020.

?

It's going to start?

Poll closed Feb 5, 2020.
  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    18 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. matin45

    matin45

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Messages:
    306
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    What do you think about current state of Iran and USA, and it's start of WWIII or not?
     
  2. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    If anything, it's gonna be a Middle Eastern war.
     
  3. matin45

    matin45

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Messages:
    306
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I think a World War focused in middle east.
     
  4. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
  5. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    That's going to be a very strong "no" from me, dawg.

    First of all, in order for a war to reach a "world war" status, you have to have a lot of countries involved, especially huge global powers, so even if we assume that USA and Iran engage in an official war, that's not even close to being enough to justify calling that conflict a "world" war. In truth, looking at the modern global landscape, it's hard to imagine a proper "world" war without at least 2 out of these 3 - USA, China, Russia - being involved. And:

    1. While I'm sure that Russia would love to screw with USA, I very much doubt that they'd openly declare war over Iran. Diplomatic threats and supplying arms to Iran? Sure, that I can see, but no matter what you think about Putin - he's not a complete idiot. He's not going to engage in a very costly war over some Middle-Eastern nation, especially when he can score a lot of political points and strengthen his position by acting from behind the scenes. The same can be said about China.

    2. So, what powers can realistically get involved? NATO as a whole is pretty much out and that includes the strongest European countries like UK, Germany or France. I just can't see any of them wanting to go to war over Iran - not when their governments have a lot of internal or EU-related issues to deal with already and their votes would most certainly not react positively to getting mixed up in another USA war. Canada? Brazil? India? Japan? I don't really see any strategic interest in joining a war.

    Realistically, the only nations that MIGHT get involved are - Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and any of the other Middle-Eastern Arabic countries. Perhaps Turkey, but rather unlikely. Plus, of course, USA and Iran. And... that's just about it. This is not enough to call it a "world war" - it's "just" your "typical" regional conflict, nothing more.

    ---

    Not to mention that there's a very big chance that if there was a full blown war, USA and Iran would face a massive pressure from Europe, China, Russia and United Nations as a whole to sit the fuck down and solve the problem diplomatically. And that there's a big chance that by that time Trump would already be impeached or blocked by the US Congress. And let's not forget that Iran doesn't have a particularly stable government either.

    ---

    My prediction? There won't be any "war" at all, at least not an open one.

    First of all - ever wondered why Iran hasn't retaliated yet? I mean, it's been way more than enough time for Iran to either openly declare war or even take some action against US forces in Iraq or whatever, so... why haven't they? It's because as much as Iranian leaders might want to do something, they realize that they can't stand up to the US alone (and chances are no one will really back them), especially with their military mastermind Suleimani dead and Trump who is capable of retaliating. That's just too much risk. Then there's also the fact that US Congress is already moving to limit Trump's control over the US military and Iraq is in the process of expelling the international forces from their territory - both of which benefit Iran a lot and it makes sense to wait and see how they play out.

    And yes - what I'm trying to say is that regimes aren't what many people think they are, i.e. a bunch of fanatics and idiots who can do just about anything. Regimes care first and foremost about staying in power, their people or ideologies are secondary to that. North Korea has shown that, now Iran is showing that too. And the fact to the matter is that going against the US in an open war would most likely result in the Iran regime being overthrown, either by the US or their own internal factions. That's enough of a reason to doubt that Iran will go to war.

    That said, they need to retaliate somehow and they will. Iran is capable of waging cybernetic warfare and has a bunch of militias in Iraq and other muslim countries that could act as their proxies. That's what they're going to use, but they will also try to cover their tracks so that the US doesn't have a valid reason to strike at them or wait until Trump's administration is limited in the response that it can offer. Meanwhile we'll get more of what we have now, i.e. threats and flexing muscles, mostly done for each side's internal purposes.

    So no, I don't think there will even be a "war", let alone a "world" one - what we'll get instead is a much more unstable Midde-East and a solid increase in terrorist activity in the region and perhaps worldwide. There might also be some more minor missile attacks on both sides. And that's it. US won't invade Iran, Iran won't openly attack US - they will just keep biting at each other until there's a feasible way for both to declare some sort of "victory" or the international community pressures them into stopping.

    In short, it will be North Korea 2.0, with the main difference being that the Middle East will end up even more unstable and the terrorism threat will increase. And yes, what I'm trying to say here is that I can totally see US losing more on this whole affair than what they've gained from killing Suleimani.

    ---

    As for the whole "World War III" thing - I think this is just a bunch of Twitter sensationalists trying to spin up drama. Nothing more, because at this point there is absolutely zero reason to suspect that this situation will escalate into a massive conflict. And that's not just me saying this - read what any of the experts on Middle East has to say about the topic and you'll notice that the overwhelmingly majority of them dismiss the threat of a "World War".

    Thus - nope, no World War III.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  6. matin45

    matin45

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Messages:
    306
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Really thanks for replay to thread.
    I have a question from you: As you said, it's better for Iran to doesn't anything, but their people want a revenge. You wrote they want to stay in power so doesn't anything, but how can they answer people's asks?
     
  7. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    They use their militias (e.g. Hezbollah - not officially affiliated with Iran, but controlled or sponsored by it from behind the scenes) to wage a proxy war, i.e. harass US troops in Iraq, and then spin this internally as "the people claiming revenge for the beloved patriot!" - people feel like the US is getting what they deserve (and get the revenge they want), Iran has an excuse that "these attacks wasn't their doing" internationally.

    Alternatively, Iran can also try to shut down the Hormuz strait - complicates life for the US, but isn't really a classic open act of war.
     
  8. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I really don't see this ending with the US losing more than Iran especially if remarks like a bounty on president Trump becomes official.
     
  9. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I can.

    As I've said - I don't think there will be an open war. If we assume that I'm correct then:

    1. The death of Suleimani has unified Iran people, a decent chunk of which was protesting against the regime before the attack.

    2. Iraq is already severely pissed at the US, which might result in US getting expelled from the Middle-East or be forced to relocate. It's either that or US will effectively occupy a part of Iraqi soil, which will hurt them diplomatically. No matter which way it goes - this might be huge and can totally result in US losing most of the gains it made within the region during and after the Iraqi war.

    3. Let's face it, taking out Suleimani won't make the region more stable or safe - in fact, it probably will only further destabilize it. Terrorism, proxy war, cyber attacks - those things will most likely happen and due to US internal politics there is a decent chance that Trump's administration will clash with the Congress and thus US will no longer be as decisive in their response, effectively allowing the region to descend into chaos.

    4. You know that Russia, China and other not really US-friendly nations will try to use this situation to further their interests. It remains to see how it will play out, but I highly doubt that killing Suleimani will make US stronger diplomatically or politically.

    All of these are completely valid gains for Iran - and not insignificant ones, mind you - but... it remains to be seen if Teheran manages to capitalize on them and more importantly, whether Iran is capable of sating the people's thirst for vengeance without actually plunging into a war that they'd lose.

    And what is US gaining? They've killed a very influential and important general, who was the mastermind of Iran's operations in the region. That's a massive blow to Teheran, but... it depends to be seen what Suleimani's replacement is like and whether US hasn't traded a know evil for an even worse one. The only other thing that comes to mind is sending a message that the US won't tolerate getting attacked, but... if the Congress ultimately ends up screwing Trump then that message will no longer hold any meaning.

    ---

    In short - there was a reason why no previous US administration hunted Suleimani - they knew that it's risky and considered the potential cost to be too great.

    Now we'll see whether they were right.

    P.S. Also, I don't really get an impression that Trump knows what he's doing or has a concrete plan how to handle the situation. To me this whole attack looked more like acting on impulse rather than on some real strategy. And that doesn't bode well for the US.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  10. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Iraq can do little since they invited the US there and they knew it meant business by doing so. The US doesn't take death of their own soldiers lightly as seen recently.

    President Trump said the US won't be heading out without making sure their investment there pays off.

    What was an Iranian military leader doing in Irak right after the attack on the US there? I'm not an Amurica fan but Mr. Soleimani had no business there unless he was actually planning something against the US, moment which gave the US green light to take care of him for an advantage against Iran and as precaution in Irak.

    Mr. Trump has high chances of remaining in office after signing the antisemitism fight document and especially since the left doesn't have a majority in the congress.

    Russia has things like Russia Today with less influence than the US has fake news all over the world.

    Getting rid of Qasem Soleimani gave the USA and Israel military advantage because as far as the news is concerned, it was Iran's fault for having their military leader in Irak at such an inopportune moment.

    The people's thirst is indoctrinated. Iran was doing fine as a society before it was "re-Islamized".
    Here's your civilized people
    NPR Choice page
    Don't tell me "but things like these happen", it's normal.

    Anyways, Iran said they have 32 strategies against America and even the worst of them would be tragic while Donald Trump said the US will bomb Iran's cultural sites.

    The left had more interest in the Middle East than pres. Trump or so it seems and the same interest is still going on, meaning, what affects that zone, little to at all affects the US. Public image is unimportant when such an imperialist giant is the one pulling the strings anyway.
     
  11. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Iraq is still a sovereign country and under internation law, US troops don't have the right to station there if the Iraqi government doesn't want them to.

    I've heard. Doesn't change a thing. If Iraq tells US forces to leave and they don't then that means that US will effectively occupy Iraq - getting branded as an occupant isn't going to help US in their politics in the Middle East or anywhere else really. Plus, it will only help push Iraq out of US sphere of influence.

    I'm not saying that Suleimani was a "good man" - he deserved to be killed, sure, but the way US handled that doesn't look like a part of some plan, but as if Trump just acted on impulse or worse, used this attack as a distraction from his impeachment proceedings or as an argument in the upcoming presidential election.

    You're wrong - the Democratic party currently holds the Congress and they're not going to go easy on a Republican president, especially in the year of the presidential election in the US.

    Yes, it gave USA and Israel a military advantage - taking out a high ranking enemy general always does. And yes, it threw a wrench into Iran's operations in the region, but it didn't make the region safer or more stable due to how badly Iran and their militias are now pissed off.

    And as far as "news" go - yes, it's very likely that Suleimani was up to no good in Iraq, but... To be fair - he was a free man plus Iraq and Iran are sovereign contries, so USA doesn't have the right to decide who can visit Iraq or question why anyone did so. Thus it is US - not Iran - who technically stepped out of line with the attack and who should justify their actions by for instance providing the evidence of Suleimani's involvement in the embassy attack. Until that happens, Iran doesn't have to justify anything.

    Also, if we're talking about "being right" - USA doesn't have the right to do whatever they want on Iraqi territory. It's not their country. How would you like if your country invited some US troops and they started shooting people or launching missiles on your territory without your nation's government even knowing about it? Would you say that's fair? I wouldn't. As I've said, Iraq is a sovereign state and any foreign military operation on their territory has to either be allowed by the treaty that facilitates the presence of said force in the first place or gain the approval of the Iraqi government. And as far as I'm aware - neither of these was true for this attack.

    That's just... irrelevant. What matters is that Iran's government faced some pretty serious unrest in recent months due to rising oil prices. The US attack took people's attention away from that. And indoctrinated or not, the fact to the matter is that Iran's population wants revenge on USA and if Iran's government doesn't oblige (or make the people feel like it did) then they might face more internal issues.

    And? Remember Kim's threats when the US-NK thing was going on? How many of them came true? Zero. Just because Iran or USA claim that they have some targets that they might attack, doesn't mean that they actually will.

    That's where you're dead wrong. Public image is everything in diplomacy.

    First of all, we have the presidential election in USA coming this Novemeber and how Trump handles this "crisis" might have a key role to play in whether or not he gets a second term at the office. That's huge. Then there's the international image. US acting on impulse and doing whatever they want with no regard to international laws won't inspire confidence in US allies or partners. And it's not going to help keep or bring more nations into the US sphere of influence.
     
  12. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Can't wait to see how they'll cry for them back once the Taliban-like forces start imposing their reign. Maybe, they'll live in peace once more as during Saddam Hussein's rule?
    It does not matter what conspirational context you put to it, the fact is that dude had no military business in Iraq. If America felt threatened or saw an opportune moment to eliminate him, then they didn't fail. I guess the Americans wanted to show they can also play the terrorist game if forced to.
    only in the House of Representatives as seen below:

    congressus.png


    My dude, that was never the idea otherwise the Arab Spring wouldn't have started at all or at least the way it did.
    Tell that to the Russian military base in Transnistria.
    We had worse, like NATO officers drunk driving killing people from here and getting away with it.
    At least, in Iraq they killed a valid threat.

    But you can't just bring Americans get armed and stuff with their help then vote for them to get out just like that and expect for it to be called fair because it's legal.
    Doesn't sound at all maniacal? The whole USA is at fault?
    I'm saying if Iran's gonna start terrorism near America, the latter will answer in a mafia manner as well from what we have read and heard.

    Anyways, the US pretty much proved no one is safe with this drone attack.
    My friend, who cares about diplomacy when you have the power to control almost the whole world?
    Diplomacy is null when people are made to want the circus of "Yeah, get those awful Muslim terrorists! Oh, and while you're at it, take their oil as well because we deserve it!"

    Realize that pres. Trump doesn't act like Kim Jong-un. He has military leaders behind him. He's an entrepreneur, not a tactician.

    We shall see if this has any negative FX on his second and last election.
    I'm not sure how much having Israel as an ally will affect that either. Also, it remains to be seen what the relations with Moscow will be.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  13. Feng Shui

    Feng Shui

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2019
    Messages:
    112
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Not every military conflict the US is involved with is WW3.

    Korea wasn't it in the fifties, and neither Cuba nor Vietnam was it in the sixties and seventies.

    Since then there's been Gulf, Kuwait, Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, etc, etc.

    None of them were it.

    Iran won't be either.
     
  14. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Well, Iran has just hit US bases in Iraq - I guess we're about to find out how Trump responds to a direct attack.

    And yes, at this point I'm starting to reconsider my previous optimism about there being no war at all.
     
  15. deepstrasz

    deepstrasz

    Map Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    12,617
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Well, Iran tried hitting, more like it.

    No World War.

    Funnier thing is, Volodîmîr Zelenski in Oman and an Ukrainian airplane crashing in Tehran.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2020
  16. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Yeah, it does seem like Iran tried to hit the bases, but not actually do any real damage, so that they can spin this internally as getting revenge, all the while maintaining a chance that US won't choose to escalate further.

    UPDATE - Trump just said they're going to impose new economic sanctions on Iran. Considering that Iran officials stated earlier that if US doesn't respond, there won't be any more attacks, I guess that the threat of was is pretty much gone. For now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  17. tulee

    tulee

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    889
    Resources:
    7
    Maps:
    7
    Resources:
    7
    It is hard to take Iran seriously. Soleimani, the general who was killed, had been playing a part in a multi-decade long repression of Iranian people, likely having killed far more Iranians than the U.S ever did. But despite his hand in the oppression of Iran's general public and very likely the death of many members of Iran's general public (note: in fact Iran's general public = poor people. I see plenty of rich Iranians in their mid-late 20s studying where I live who describe how Iran's rules/regulations rarely apply to them/they are free from persecution from militia/security forces when they are back home), the Iranian people want revenge after his death?

    And how is Iran supposed to start a war with U.S when they let 56 + people die at a funeral?

    Actually, Iranian media has just started stating that their latest rocket attack killed "80 American terorrists", which has been shown to not be true.
    Iranian state TV says 80 'American terrorists' killed in Iran missile strikes

    So actually Iran's monopoly over the flow of information/media has provided an exit from a potential war, since Iranians will think they have had their revenge, despite it just being a lie from their government.

    Of course, if anything I wrote above is incorrect, I would like people to point it out. Who knows, maybe I have been "brainwashed" by "Western media"? :S
     
  18. matin45

    matin45

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Messages:
    306
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Why you say it's not true? Do you have aby reason
    We want, really.
    I'm agree with you, but this show the love they have to the general.
    The government said: our revenge is "USA's exit" and you say they think took their revenge?
    And maybe I've been "brainwashed" by "Iranian media" :D
     
  19. MasterBlaster

    MasterBlaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    811
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    You seem surprised by that - why?

    Every regime that ever existed operated by spreading propaganda - this alone is enough to explain why Iranian people might see Suleimani as some sort of a patriot hero, but wait... there's more. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but from what I know Iranian people are very religious, heck, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole Iranian revolution that established the modern government heavily based on religious ideas?

    Once again, I do not want to insult anyone's religious feelings, but it's generally much easier to manipulate people if you not only feed them with state propaganda, but also utilize religion. And finally, there's common human psychology - if you have a well-known figure that dies or better yet gets killed by "outsiders" or "enemies" then people have the tendency to see that person as a martyr and thus idealize him.

    Combine all of these things and it's not really surprising that Iranian people want revenge for Suleimani, regardless of whether or not he was a national hero or not. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't.

    Apples and oranges.

    Yes, not being able to organize a safe funeral doesn't really inspire confidence in Iranian authorities, but it has nothing to do with their military capabilities. And yes, from what we know Iranian army isn't really that strong, but they do have a lot of missiles, experience in cyber-warfare and foreign militias that are well-versed in terrorism. Plus Iran is a pretty big country with a lot of mountains, so while US would probably bomb the living hell out of Iran with little resistance, taking and holding it on the ground would have surely been a very expensive operation.

    A great example of how propaganda operates.

    Exactly - after all, it's most likely what this attack was meant to do.

    Because as messed up as US media are, I find them to generally be a lot more trustworthy than Iranian ones. Why? Because US citizens have a lot more freedom and if someone actually died in that attack, the officials would have to notify that person's family (they'd find out sooner or later anyway) and that information would very quickly leak to the media (many of which are private and would happily jump on that news), exposing the government as liars (which Trump doesn't want, especially not in the year of presidential elections in the US).

    And as much as US government probably has means to cover things up, I'm guessing it would be harder for them to do so, thus they are more likely to be telling the truth.

    It doesn't really matter.

    What matters are feelings. You said "we want revenge", so I'm guessing you're Iranian and you want revenge for Suleimani too. Fair enough, but tell me - didn't it feel "good" when you heard that your nation attacked these US bases? Didn't it feel like the Americans are getting what they deserve? I bet it did. And that's what matters - you and other Iranian people feeling like your government is giving you what you want. Whether they actually do it is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2020
  20. matin45

    matin45

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Messages:
    306
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I didn't feel, cause at least I want a diplomatic victory, not a brutal attack, and what is let me think I took my revenge is "USA's exit"