Would Iran have responded to Israel aggression against Hizbollah if the US or GB were not in the region?

Question

I understand that Iran was supplying Hizbollah.But how is Iran foreign policy effected by 200, 000 US and British troops a stones through away?
Please stay on topic. This question is not about Israel.

I am unsatisfied and disappointed with the lack of sightfulness of the answers. And fortunately Richard J. don't dictate sh.it on this sight. The answers have been so uninformative. I guess I'll have to answer this question myself. Everyone get's a C-.
And Richard J. answer the question or don't answer the question, but to badger the question or questioner is idiotic.

Answer 1

Impossible to say for sure, but I guess not, after all, The US can hit any target on the planet within a few hours. No pilot required!

I am not a fan of the Iranian PM and disagree with his decision to enrich Uranium, (even though there is no legal reason why he shouldn't. He is acting within the letter of international law and abiding by all Iranian agreements within international law) he is no Saddam Hussien. He is a Phd professor and intellectually, tactically and strategically far superior to Bush. Everyone who has had dealings with the current Iranian administration has said how smart they are. What is worrying is that they are as insane as they are smart and they have a deep understanding of history and appear to have learned their lessons well.

I cannot therefore see him making the mistake of giving the west exactly what they want in an invitation to invade. He knows the west will have to invent (lie) a reason to attack. he is playing the Bush regime like an antique violin just now. Sad to say, but the US is doing and acting exactly how the Iranians want them too. They are weaving so much rope with which to hang the US administration and the Bush boys cannot see it.

They can win a conflict with the US without firing a shot. The US is being bled dry (economically) in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the arrogance and hubris of the current administration completely ignores the lessons of recent history. The USSR was bled dry in the mountains of Afghanistan and it cost a LOT less for them to go to war there. The US is fast running out of money and personnel. Iran (with the help of Russia and China) will string your administration along until it collapses into a quagmire of debt and recrimination.

When the Iranians are clearly winning the strategic and diplomatic struggle, why would they be so stupid as to give the US the slightest reason to turn Tehran to green glass?

Answer 2

No. Iran got maximum benefit with minimum risk as things played out. George Bush rushing weapons to Israel, only to have Israel still not achieve their goals was really the best outcome Iran could have hoped for. Hezbollah is now beloved throughout the Arab world (the top song in Sunni Palestine is a little ditty praising Shiite Hezbollah). Hatred of the US is now at even higher levels than ever before.

And with their new ally (the government of Iraq), it's clear that Bush's true contribution to the Middle East has been to make Iran more powerful than ever. Bravo, idiot. Bravo.

Answer 3

Sorry but the question is about Israel.
I think that the question rather ignores recent history. It may be more relevant to ask
'Were it not for US Military aid, financial and political support would Israel have still failed to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and continued its occupation of Arab lands?'
If (BIG IF) Israel had returned to its pre-1967 borders and treated its Arab population fairly, there would probably not even be a Hezbollah.

Answer 4

This war was NOT against Hezbollah. It was against the people of Lebanon.
And Iran is not a country to openly meddle in other countries affairs.
That would make them look like Americans and not get them any friends in the region, where it used to be quite isolated before this war. It's different now, of course. In my view they are the real winners.

Answer 5

Most likely not. They would rather fight Isreal by proxy, by funding Hezbollah and other organizations. In this way, they can maintain a certain level of disconnect from their aggression towards Isreal. In this way they can deny responsiblility and ward off aggresive posturing from the US and/or GB. The presence of troops may be an issure but troops can be moved around easily enough.

Answer 6

Yes they would have responded, but if they had, it would have been deemed as none of their business and gb and usa would have had the satisfaction they are looking for by having gained a license to invade iran

Answer 7

excuses excuses
you obvously do not read up much
first off a throw stones away? Try the nearest people that were american or british is in iraq a decent ways away

america and britian were not even involved other then politically so please try not to defend the looser area because thats what they are loosers

Answer 8

Iran may well have done.....possibly to equal the balance for the US supplying and turning a blind eye to Israel acts of daily horrors of maiming and killing innocent families in their quest.

Answer 9

no, probably not,,, Bush has squandered efforts for diplomacy with Iran,, we need a new direction from the debacle in Iraq,, he has cut and run from Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden has new terrorist training camps on the Pakistan border,,, in the mean time,, N Korea has built more nukes,, Iran has moved their nuclear facilities,, Pakistan has nukes,, bin Laden's new home..... the US is in a quandary,,,,

Answer 10

Iran would have responded the same way it did with the UN (not US & GB) forces there.

If they had responded any different UN sanctions would have been tightened/enforced and they can't afford that