Three likely scenarios presented for Iran in US

Amid recent developments in the Middle East, relations between the United States and Iran could lead to a “significant conflict”. The US Congress is considering three possible scenarios for the further development of Iran-US relations. Writes about it RT.

The US Congressional Research Service provided three possible scenarios for the development of further relations between Iran and the United States. At the same time, they do not exclude a military invasion of Iranian territory, saying that the United States has a "wide range of capabilities" that can be used against Iran, its allies and representatives.

The first scenario is the most peaceful. It assumes that the parties will take additional steps to de-escalate the conflict, and Iran will accept the US proposal to review and develop a more detailed plan for the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) for the Iranian nuclear program. However, even American analysts admit that the United States has too "extensive requirements" and Iran may require Washington to first return to the implementation of the JCPOA in its existing form.

The second scenario assumes that nothing will change in relations between Iran and the United States - the parties will not negotiate, but there will be no military conflict. The parties "will remain unchanged in their positions."

The third scenario assumes a further escalation of the conflict. Analysts believe that Tehran will take some actions against the interests of the United States, which Washington will need to respond to, including by invading Iran. The choice of combat format will depend on the political goals that the United States wants to achieve.

The United States reserves the right to launch air and rocket attacks, carry out special operations, as well as conduct cyber and electronic warfare against Iran’s targets such as the IRGC ships in the Persian Gulf, and also against nuclear facilities, military bases, ports, and any number of others goals in Iran itself

- the document says.

At the same time, the research service of the American Congress recognizes that any use of force by the United States may lead to retaliatory action by Iran or to an escalation of the conflict.

Earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that an attack by Iran from the United States or Saudi Arabia would lead to the onset of a full-scale military conflict.

Comments

[Sergey39]

The second option is being implemented. When they want to attack, they do not warn in advance.

[Civil]

The second option is with asphyxiation sanctions, which will end with the third option. The Iranian authorities will have no other choice, amid the worsening economic situation, to start a war in order to stay in power and avoid the collapse of the country.

For some reason, none of the parties wants a good scenario.

[Leeds]

I put on the 2 option.
This is how an Iranian rocket or drones fly to bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then Patriot ...

[gafarovsafar]

put on amersky options is contrary

[Pessimist22]

Sit quietly, otherwise it will be like yesterday!
How was yesterday?
Bombed and there was nothing to anyone

[vadson]

Well, it’s unlikely that nothing will happen to anyone, Iran can say hello to Israel and the Saudis, as well as to the Americans in Syria

[Svarog]

The third scenario assumes a further escalation of the conflict. Analysts believe that Tehran will take some actions against the interests of the United States, which Washington will need to respond to, including by invading Iran. The choice of combat format will depend on the political goals that the United States wants to achieve.

Now, if the US is planning an invasion, it will be completely interesting here. Most likely, after this adventure, the United States will lose its status of world hegemon. Iran is a serious state and it will not be possible to defeat it without serious losses.

[Lannan Shi]

Quote: Svarog

Iran is a serious state

I remember Iran very vigorously grabbed the lyuley from Iraq. Remind the outcome of the war of the last and the us? By the way. The state sitting on oil, and for almost 20 years unable to provide itself with gasoline, is hardly similar to a serious one. Technologies a hundred years ago have just been mastered. And one more thing by the way. Syria. In which the IRGC, such as the elite of the Iranian army, was almost dry, almost leaked, to wild sheep with light infantry. And it wouldn’t practically merge, if it weren’t for our few hundred fighters, but 1 dozen aircraft.

[Svarog]

Quote: Lannan Shi

I remember Iran very vigorously grabbed the lyuley from Iraq. Remind the outcome of the war of the last and the us?

Iran is the only state that keeps the United States from fully managing the BV. If it were all as simple as you write, the United States would have dealt with Iran long ago.

[Lannan Shi]

Quote: Svarog

If it were all that simple

But it's not that simple. Actually, it's still easier. Iran is a prohibitively aggressive state headed by religious fanatics. The list of countries where the ayatola managed to send militants is not much shorter than where the mattresses climbed, during the same time. If at all shorter. And Iran is just a wonderful scarecrow for the whole region. Even Jews and Saudis agree on the Iran issue. Probably the only question in which they have agreement.
Well, and who, in their right mind, will destroy such a wonderful horror story? The whole region is looking for protection from a really violent neighbor. Just a dream. But if you need to demolish something in Iran, they will tear it down and do not frown. For there is nothing to fight. For example, the youngest, in terms of the year of the creation of the prototype, the Iranian Air Force fighters are 10 years older than me. And the youngest in terms of year of release, the localization of the sample, even before the created Gagarin.

[axiles100682]

A really turbulent neighbor is just the same Saudis with their fanatics and Israel with missile bullets wherever needed and in addition to dirty rhetoric, which by the way many countries in the world disdain, Iran does not attack anyone, nor bombard anyone from around the corner.

[SAG]

The whole region is looking for protection from a really violent neighbor. Just a dream. But if you need to demolish something in Iran, they will tear it down and do not frown. For there is nothing to fight.

And now, dear, remember what kind of horror story about which state they are sculpting in Europe ... Maybe someone really is a violent neighbor, if there are brains ... Iran may have nothing to fight, but China and Russia very much ... It wouldn’t be so, an invasion of Iran would have been exactly 10 years ago. A film of 300 Spartans came out just then (if you can again understand why I wrote this)

[Vadim237]

That was over 30 years ago.

[Sergey M. Karasev]

[quote] [Iran is this serious state and it will not be possible to defeat it without serious losses. / quote]
Moreover, the highest stupidity on the part of the Yusovites will be an attempt at a ground operation.

[den3080]

Iran is a big country, mostly mountainous. The size of 5 Germany and a population of more than 80 million people.
The United States will simply choke if they attempt to start a ground operation there.
About 2000 aircraft and up to 700 personnel were gathered against Iraq at that time. And drove ... through the desert, our urban.
Who is now subscribing to this? US in one person? Hard to believe.

[novel66]

still arrogant muzzles ..

[SERGEY SERGEEVICS]

Quote: novel xnumx

still arrogant muzzles ..

They have it, and all the evil ones are

[novel66]

Well, stupid .. naturally

[SERGEY SERGEEVICS]

Quote: novel xnumx

Well, stupid .. naturally

Aha

[mkop]

US reserves the right to launch air and missile strikes

In general, an interesting rhetoric. More and more, the US is moving towards overt Nazism. Only the opinion of the United States matters and no one else's. Only they have goals, the rest exist insofar as. God forbid someone would encroach on their interests - to destroy, to bomb them into the Stone Age ... How are you "gentlemen" Americans different from the Nazi filth that Hitler brought up and nurtured?

[vadson]

[quote = mkop] [quote] How are you "gentlemen" Americans different from the Nazi nits that Hitler brought up and nurtured? [/ quote] rarely get on cabbage soup and memory is too short

[Ural-4320]

Well, actually, Aloizovich learned a lot of racial from the works of American luminaries. Tu was a powerful article on eugenics and Hitler appeared there.

[Babermetis]

Quote: mkop

US reserves the right to launch air and missile strikes

In general, an interesting rhetoric. More and more, the US is moving towards overt Nazism. Only the opinion of the United States matters and no one else's. Only they have goals, the rest exist insofar as. God forbid someone would encroach on their interests - to destroy, to bomb them into the Stone Age ... How are you "gentlemen" Americans different from the Nazi filth that Hitler brought up and nurtured?

Very simply, almost everyone can become a US citizen, and live in if not the largest .. then at least the second economy of the World. But not everyone is given to be born Aryan.

[sniperino]

Quote: mkop

How are you "gentlemen" Americans different from the Nazi nits that Hitler brought up and nurtured?

By the fact that they brought up and nurtured Nazism and Hitler in order to capture Eurasia with his hands, but only part of the problem was solved - they were holed up in Zap. Europe and Japan. But Hitler himself wanted to do everything and lost.

[Sniper]

if the States wanted, and could start a war .. then there were plenty of reasons for this. a game of muscles, and nothing more.

[Livonetc]

The United States does not have any "right to strike," as it claims it never did and does not.
State savage.
However, they do have the opportunity to strike.
But in the foreseeable future, there will be no serious land invasion by the US Army anywhere.

[Mordor]

Well, we are weak ourselves, You can bomb it, but will the goals be achieved, these "bombs". Have got used to "mattress" to the collection of coalitions. Europe, perhaps, will not fit into this. Then, Americans, Jews and Saudis. Well, and there it will be necessary to see how it first comes back to haunt, the Saudis and Jews themselves!

[vadson]

Europe is not something that does not fit it, it will by all means persuade the United States not to start a war with Iran; otherwise, the price of oil can easily jump over hundreds of dollars per barrel. remove Saudi oil and Iran from the market and see what happens

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Mordor

Then, Americans, Jews and Saudis. Well, there you will need to see how it first comes around, to the Saudis themselves and to the Jews!

The Saudis do not know how to deal with Yemen and puzzle over how less shameful it is for them to get out of the war. In the case of the killing of the Saudis with Iran, the activity of the Hussites against the SA will only increase and the burning oil refinery will seem to them a childish prank, since strikes will be delivered at all energy facilities, which basically keep the prosperity of S. Arabia. So among the main allies, Jews remain.

[Mordor]

Well, on the whole, I agree with you, but the Americans can convincingly "advise" the Saudis that they are obliged to avenge their refineries and drilling rigs on Iran. Well, and then, as the Saudis have enough will, either get involved in this adventure, or politely refuse!

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Mordor

Well, on the whole, I agree with you, but the Americans can convincingly "advise" the Saudis that they are obliged to avenge their refineries and drilling rigs on Iran. Well, and then, as the Saudis have enough will, either get involved in this adventure, or politely refuse!

The problem for the Saudis is that there are too many princes in the royal family who want to sit on the throne and are ready to "kinship" to oppose the less successful, both heirs to the throne and those sitting on the throne. The gamble with Yemen and the inability to defeat the barefoot Houthis for the current king, 34-year-old Mohammed bin Salman, is already a big problem, and being drawn into the war with Iran promises him the loss of the throne, since Iran cannot be compared with the Houthi rebels. The military failures of his "brothers" will certainly be used against him, and given the fact that heads are chopped there like cabbage stumps, Salman will find 10 reasons not to get involved in a new adventure.

[Vadim237]

Given that the Iranian air defense Globalhawks can shoot down - there will be no talk of any light bombing.

[vvvjak]

The third scenario assumes a further escalation of the conflict.

Regarding the third scenario, an anecdote was recalled: "Do you know why Ninja Turtles attack four of them? Because their teacher is a rat."

[Invoce]

The history of US relations with Iran began from the moment when the states seated their shah on the Iranian throne ... It ended badly for amers ... an attempt to free hostages in Iran showed what American special forces are like ... If anyone is interested in tyrnet everything is there, but if briefly the United States liquidated itself without reaching the territory of Iran, having lost both equipment and people ... You should not even try to tease the Persians ... They will answer in their faith and in their right to answer .... they will cry not only family members of the expeditionary force, but also generals who are thrown out of the US army for incompetence

[Pavel57]

America really needs war. But it is fraught with the wrong ending, which they plan to start. Therefore, most likely a year there will be nothing.

[Lesorub]

Three likely scenarios presented for Iran in US

The United States is waiting for a convenient moment, for the implementation of the active phase - (obviously the states will not get on their own alone), and gathering a coalition - a significant reason is needed!

[Ural-4320]

In the statement, I would like to swap the words of the USA and Iran, and see the reaction of the world community.

[Shahno]

Quote: Svarog

The third scenario assumes a further escalation of the conflict. Analysts believe that Tehran will take some actions against the interests of the United States, which Washington will need to respond to, including by invading Iran. The choice of combat format will depend on the political goals that the United States wants to achieve.

Now, if the US is planning an invasion, it will be completely interesting here. Most likely, after this adventure, the United States will lose its status of world hegemon. Iran is a serious state and it will not be possible to defeat it without serious losses.

Well, probably, they would more accurately question the status of the world hegemon in the event of a "war" And if you still manage to win according to the Iraqi scenario, then there will be an opportunity to extend the hegemony. Although Trump has recently been replaced ...

[Shahno]

Quote: Nyrobsky

Quote: Mordor

Then, Americans, Jews and Saudis. Well, there you will need to see how it first comes around, to the Saudis themselves and to the Jews!

The Saudis do not know how to deal with Yemen and puzzle over how less shameful it is for them to get out of the war. In the case of the killing of the Saudis with Iran, the activity of the Hussites against the SA will only increase and the burning oil refinery will seem to them a childish prank, since strikes will be delivered at all energy facilities, which basically keep the prosperity of S. Arabia. So among the main allies, Jews remain.

We are not up to it now. In the coming months, at least. Until the new government is formed ...

[Duck]

When deciding to conduct a military operation among the Americans, on one side of the scale there is a real opportunity to save their shale industry, and on the other a real opportunity to get good pendals from Iran (even if the stars and stripes win). So they think.

[Shahno]

Quote: Leeds

I put on the 2 option.
This is how an Iranian rocket or drones fly to bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then Patriot ...

Well, the third option requires "eggs" like Golda Meyer's ..

[Babermetis]

What is a full-blown military conflict in the imagination of the Defenders of the Islamic Revolution of Iran?

Shoot hundreds of rockets land to earth? And then they will receive a response from the sky and will completely eliminate the side effects of radiation from radioactive dust from the blown up nuclear power plants? At the same time fighting off tens of millions of hungry and sick fellow citizens?

[Shahno]

Quote: Babermetis

What is a full-blown military conflict in the imagination of the Defenders of the Islamic Revolution of Iran?

Shoot hundreds of rockets land to earth? And then they will receive a response from the sky and will completely eliminate the side effects of radiation from radioactive dust from the blown up nuclear power plants? At the same time fighting off tens of millions of hungry and sick fellow citizens?

I do not know. I would not underestimate the opponents. It is not good.
Understanding their weaknesses will be more beneficial.
No need to rush ... wait

[TermNachTer]

Having three sluggish and absolutely hopeless conflicts, + a very serious shortage in the air forces and the air force, getting involved in the war with Iran is already a sign that there is clearly a mess with your head. Most likely these are rotten show-offs from the Washington Reich Chancellery.

[maden.usmanow]

They say that India is a nuclear power, Pakistan is a nuclear power.

And who, the only one who used nuclear weapons in the war?

Trump is a businessman, if thousands of American soldiers' lives and "reputation in the eyes of European partners" hang in the balance, he will certainly choose a nuclear strike.

Now, Iran does not yet have its own nuclear weapons, but as soon as it appears, it will force all countries in the BW to also begin developing their own nuclear weapons.

The Americans will have a choice:

1) To demolish Iran without nuclear weapons

2) Or wait until each local sheikh holds a warhead in his barn.

It seems fantastic, but how many years have passed since the creation of serial ballistic missiles?

After 30 years, with such Iran, the presence of nuclear weapons will not surprise anyone.

[sniperino]

Quote: maden.usmanow

India is a nuclear power, Pakistan is a nuclear power. And who, the only one who used nuclear weapons in the war?

And who, the only one who gathered for the exercises to participate in the joint action of 4 nuclear powers? They could probably tighten Iran, they simply didn’t want to overstate against the background of the conflict.

[Old26]

The first scenario is the most peaceful. It assumes that the parties will take additional steps to de-escalate the conflict, and Iran will accept the US proposal to review and develop a more detailed plan for the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) for the Iranian nuclear program. However, even American analysts admit that the United States has too "extensive requirements" and Iran may require Washington to first return to the implementation of the JCPOA in its existing form.

The only peaceful, but extremely unlikely. Here the political will of both parties is needed, which is not observed now. New JCPOA plan? It is unlikely that this will take several years (EMNIP previous developed 3 years, no less). In three years without such an action plan, Iran will be able to achieve the status of a nuclear state.

The second scenario assumes that nothing will change in relations between Iran and the United States - the parties will not negotiate, but there will be no military conflict. The parties "will remain unchanged in their positions."

This option, even if implemented, will not be long-term. Iran will continue to implement its nuclear program and the time will come when "the appearance of an Iranian nuclear bomb will loom on the horizon" this fragile state "will order a long life." America will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Plus, the sanctions can bring Iran to the point where it "breaks down." And then most likely the second scenario will smoothly turn into the third.

The third scenario assumes a further escalation of the conflict. Analysts believe that Tehran will take some actions against the interests of the United States, which Washington will need to respond to, including by invading Iran. The choice of combat format will depend on the political goals that the United States wants to achieve.

Of course, the USA will choose the format of the database, but it is unlikely that they will immediately decide to invade Iran. Perhaps a few months after the outbreak of hostilities, or perhaps this honor will be granted to their allies. In addition, in fact, in the event of hostilities, Iran will be almost completely surrounded. Both in the literal and figurative sense. Saudis, Pakistan, Oman, the UAE are countries with Sunni Islam. If they themselves do not take part in the database against Iran, then at least they will provide their territories for the deployment of a coalition contingent. Only Iraq is questionable. From Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Pakistan can be hit. The base on the island of Diego Garcia will be involved and the Americans will not have to chase their strategists from the United States. How will it be with Azerbaijan - HZ (meaning base)

Quote: Svarog

Now, if the United States conceived an invasion, then it would be completely interesting. Most likely, after this adventure, the United States will lose its status of world hegemon.

The event is unrealistic. If success will contribute to Iran, for a while it is possible and hegemonic status will be shaken, but they will not lose it. Iran may win the battle, but it will not win the war. Too different weight categories

Quote: Svarog

Iran is a serious state and it will not be possible to defeat it without serious losses.

Iran of the 80th year was much stronger than modern Iran. And even then, eight years of battles with Iraq did not lead him to victory. Iraq was defeated. Do you think that Iran’s potential will allow it to withstand the same US? Aircraft with expended resources, a fleet that is only called a fleet, and in fact is a combined hodgepodge of boats and ultra-small submarines. Iran has some progress in creating cruise and ballistic missiles, no one disputes this. But Iran makes the same mistake as North Korea. A large number of missiles (especially medium range) with almost ten times less number of launchers. There are some successes in air defense, but Iran does not have a common air defense system. She is motley ...
Coastal units equipped with anti-ship missiles - this may affect the course of events in the Persian Gulf, but some missiles have short-range and warheads weighing 5-10 kg, which for a large warship, like an elephant

Quote: Livonetc

The United States does not have any "right to strike," as it claims it never did and does not.

Alas, there is. This "right" is true outside the legal field and international laws and is called "the law of the strong." It has always been, for all ages

Quote: vadson

Europe is not something that does not fit it, it will by all means persuade the United States not to start a war with Iran; otherwise, the price of oil can easily jump over hundreds of dollars per barrel. remove Saudi oil and Iran from the market and see what happens

Europe? Well, the first to sign the British with their dominions. The Young Europeans will sag in front of Uncle Sam with pleasure. And there look and others will subscribe. Now Merkel and Marcon are against it, but what will happen when the coalition is formed? After all, when a coalition was formed against Iraq, everyone also thought that the United States, Britain would participate, the Saudis, another three or five states. And as a result, a coalition from 11 countries with the support of 24. this could happen here ...

Quote: Nyrobsky

The Saudis do not know how to deal with Yemen and puzzle over how less shameful it is for them to get out of the war. In the case of the killing of the Saudis with Iran, the activity of the Hussites against the SA will only increase and the burning oil refinery will seem to them a childish prank, since strikes will be delivered at all energy facilities, which basically keep the prosperity of S. Arabia. So among the main allies, Jews remain.

The war of the Arab coalition against Yemen is increasingly reminiscent of the "strange war" between Germany and England at the beginning of World War II. It is very difficult to cope with the Houthis. These are essentially partisan formations that do not have a permanent capital or permanent deployment sites. And there is only one way to win a partisan war - to destroy the enemy completely, at the root.
If the war begins, then strikes are unlikely to be delivered for a long time against targets in Saudi Arabia. Due to the fact that the production of all these products (cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, possibly long-range strike drones) is not localized in Yemen. And assembly plants without the supply of parts and spare parts from Iran will not be able to produce products. And there will be no supplies, since the US and its allies will control the entrance to the Gulf of Oman ...

Quote: Invoce

The history of US relations with Iran began from the moment when the states seated their shah on the Iranian throne ... It ended badly for amers ... an attempt to free hostages in Iran showed what American special forces are like ... If anyone is interested in tyrnet everything is there, but if briefly the United States liquidated itself without reaching the territory of Iran, having lost both equipment and people ... You should not even try to tease the Persians ... They will answer in their faith and in their right to answer .... they will cry not only family members of the expeditionary force, but also generals who are thrown out of the US army for incompetence

In fact, they did not put him on the throne, but returned. We and the British put him on the throne in 1941. But the fact that he did not get along with his prime minister Mossadegh and was forced from February to August 1953 was in self-imposed exile. He returned after Mossadegh was overthrown (Operation Ajax). But in the 60s and 70s, the Shah maintained very good relations with the USSR. His foreign policy was multi-vector.

The attempt to free the hostages was not under the Shah, but already under Khomeini. The operation showed not what the American special forces are, but what happens when the operation is prepared in haste, not by specialists or blunders. The reason for the failure of this mission was purely technical ... The operation failed. But what awaits the Americans in case of the outbreak of war is sorry, but these are your dreams. Too different weight categories for Iran and the United States, so that the first cause losses that affect the Americans as you write.

,

[yfast]

Iran will be fried after the election, no matter who wins there. If Ivanka Trump wins, then she has nothing to lose.
If the Democrats, they will say that they are raking the shit of the previous administration.

[gafarovsafar]

to organize the flow of coffins under the mattress fabric from the BV and indeed from all over the world by any means there will be no tension in the world. It turns out that these beasts kill whoever they want and others are touched, the amerzan banged me