board77

I'm sure y'all are getting tired of my recent political tirades, but I hope you'll indulge me for another poll..

Common sense would say that the only way a war with Iran would happen is if Iran attacked the USA. And the chances of that are about a million to one.

Of course, our foreign policy these days is hardly driven by common sense. Having said that, I say its not gonna happen.

Here is something worth reading:

By Patrick J. Buchanan

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer to both is no.

By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants.


Why, then, this talk of confrontation and pre-emptive strikes? Even if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity by a regime that, no matter how militant, has shown no desire for war with America.

What is the worry? Just this. If or when Iran goes nuclear, she has a deterrent to intimidation. U.S. freedom of action in the Persian Gulf comes to an end. We would have to behave as gingerly with the mullahs as we do with Kim Jong Il, something intolerable to our neoconservatives and President Bush.

For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's invulnerability would come to an end. She would enter the world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the better. But herein lies the problem for President Bush.

Britain, France and Germany do not want to take the first step to confrontation by asking the U.N. Security Council to vote sanctions on Iran for restarting the enrichment process. And even if the Europeans agree to go to the Security Council, a resolution calling for sanctions would face vetoes by Russia and China.

If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. It would be interesting to see how many U.S. allies are willing to support sanctions on the third-largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel.

Moreover, if the present negotiations end in sanctions on Iran, then, just as North Korea sped up its nuclear program when talks broke down, Iran might do the same. That would leave the United States with the final option: air and missile strikes to destroy all of Iran's known facilities for the enrichment of uranium.

But as Iran is permitted such facilities as long as it allows absolute freedom for U.N. inspectors, how could we justify such acts of war?

After all, we give a $160 billion trade surplus to China, though she is targeting our cities with nuclear missiles. President Bush cut a deal to help India develop nuclear power, though she has tested bombs. We give foreign aid to Pakistan and Israel, which had clandestine and successful programs that built atomic weapons. And we have a basket of goodies on offer to Kim Jong Il if he will shut down his nuclear facilities and hand over any bombs.

Where is the consistency here?

There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S. strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik demonstrator. As Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War College writes in the New Republic, Iran's best strategy might be to lash out in retaliation.

What could Iran do? Plenty. Send Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S. troops. Incite Hezbollah to launch rockets on Israel to widen the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the Shias in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring terror home to the United States.

In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy into instant cardiac arrest.

And as the United States lacks the ground forces to invade Iran and topple the regime, U.S. retaliation would be restricted to air and cruise missile strikes. But just as 9-11 united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime, enhancing its prestige as it fought America to protect Iran's equal right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear technology, an issue upon which almost all Iranians agree.

President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would be no cakewalk.[/quote][/quote]

Quote:

Common sense would say that the only way a war with Iran would happen is if Iran attacked the USA. And the chances of that are about a million to one.

Very true. Of course, that doesn't really matter if you believe intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

I’m not overly worried about Iran. It seems to be moderating on its own (the minimum voting age is 15 and something like a half the electorate is under thirty and therefore don’t remember the Iran-Iraq War or the original revolution), it is mostly Shi’ite as opposed to the mostly Sunni or Wahabist terrorist organizations, and probably doesn’t want to step on any toes at the moment. Besides, it’d be a tough target – a large, populous country with a population that could easily be moved by fundamentalism to mount a fanatic fight. I also can't see the US having any real reason to fight them, nor have they made any real suggestions that they intend to do so.

A lot will change if it seems to be well on its way to nuclear weapons, but at the moment there are greater concerns IMHO (Syria, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan for a start).

We just don't have the troop strength, despite all the saber-rattling. Not only is Iran bigger and more populous, its terrain is predominately mountainous. Sort of like Afghanistan. We could ask the Russians how well that went.

What do people think would be the result in terms of diplomatic effects if the US actually used nukes on Iran, or anyone else, in a first strike capacity? Not that the administration cares, of course.

All I know about this Iran stuff is that Cheney is the resident doomsayer of this administration. I don't think he even knows the word happy or smile.

If the BA tries to invade Iran, especially starting off with pre-emptive nuclear strikes, the shitstorm from the world and those against the Iraq war here will be huge.

I would hope that the US wouldn't try to do anything militarily about Iran before we're finished with our mess in Iraq, and that could take a long time to clean up. It probably won't be done until after Bush is out of office, and hopefully we'll have elected a leader who doesn't bound into explosive situations carelessly.

That being said, however, if Bush wants to do something about Iran he'll definitely have to do it before his term is up. He could commence military action on Iran and then leave the rest to be dealt with by the next president. I certainly wouldn't put that past him.

Unlike Iraq, Iran has an army and munitions and money and a bunch of allies, and Iran has not been to war in a long time so its troops are not tired out. We want a real fight with lots of dead, Iran is where we will find it. Why did the communists in Russia fail? Spread too thin, too long, economy busted and viola hungry pissed Russians. You'd think someone would point that out to someone.

Iran to have nuclear bomb in six months, says Israel

Well they would, wouldn't they? They urged the US to take out Iraq, and now they will do the same with Iran.

Ain't never gonna happen.

It pains me to say it, but even Bush isn't that stupid.

Why, Liddy!

You're almost a Republican, talking like that!

Quote:

Ain't never gonna happen.

5 years ago, would you not have said that the US invading a country that had showed no signs of attacking it or any other nation was never gonna happen?

Iavas_Saar wrote:

5 years ago, would you not have said that the US invading a country that had showed no signs of attacking it or any other nation was never gonna happen?

Erm - 5 years ago Bush wasn't president yet That changes everything.

Well, he has 3 more years yet

I know

Perhaps this will soothe you:

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Whistler wrote:

Why, Liddy!

You're almost a Republican, talking like that!

Bike Racks!!!!

Unless Iran posed a significant military threat to the region the US is extremely unlikely to attack it. I am pretty sure that even the invasion of Iraq was done on the basis of faulty intelligence of Saddam's threat to the region rather than some grand scheme.

Quote:

Unless Iran posed a significant military threat to the region the US is extremely unlikely to attack it. I am pretty sure that even the invasion of Iraq was done on the basis of faulty intelligence of Saddam's threat to the region rather than some grand scheme.

Iraq didn't pose a "significant military threat". And the intelligence wasn't simply faulty, it was deliberately deceiving to strengthen the case for war. The Downing Street memoes show this.

And now they are attempting to deliberately deceive us into believing Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon when in fact it would take them years.