Iran Super Thread- Merged

[foo32]

This is tough one.  I think it is fairly obvious the Bush administration wants to attack Iran, and is doing everything it can to try and drum up (especially) domestic support.  But it is hard to conceive of how the American administration has enough support left at home to further extend its current war commitments to yet another country.

That said, while I'm reluctant to agree with Bush administration about anything (call me anti-Bush if you like), it looks to me like this may be a necessary war. Too much of a delay due to the unpopularity of this administration may prove to be a bad thing for the world. Iran might be playing by IAEC rules right now, but I think you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe they only want peaceful access to atomic power.  A fundamentalist Islamic regime controlling atomic weapons seems like a recipe for disaster to me (and we may well only be coup away from this occurring in Pakistan as it is).

 

[RCD]

This will probable happen.When is the question?
But who will be Prime Minister of Canada when it happen's?

 

[foo32]

This will probable happen.When is the question?
But who will be Prime Minister of Canada when it happen's?

Out of curiosity, assuming this war does occur, do you think there will be a Canadian (military) role?

 

[1feral1]

I think it is fairly obvious the Bush administration wants to attack Iran...,

I don't think any rational western power wants to see an aggressive Iran with nuclear weapons. Its well beyond the Bush debate.

It will be a similar strike like the IDF did in the region to destroy a nuke plant some time back.

Iran is huge, with a large population, and I don't think it could ever be taken without total war (high Allied casualties and high civilian casualties too), not the PC one they are trying to fight in Iraq.

However airstrikes on selected targets is likely and is reality. The sooner Iran is put out of nuclear business, the better.

My opinion anyways.

Regards,

Wes

 

[Flip]

Whats Bush got to do with it? Do I sense a bit of an anti-Bush agenda here?

No, not at all.....Bush is likely to be the guy who decides.

Like it or not, the problem in Iran is simmering, but sooner or later it will boil over, and whoever is in the US President's chair at the time will have make a decision. Republican or Democrat regardless.

I agree,

...And what about the surge report?

If General Patreaus identifies Iran as a problem
I would guess there would be action sooner, rather than later.

 

[Flip]

However airstrikes on selected targets is likely and is reality. The sooner Iran is put out of nuclear business, the better.

And again, I agree.

I think the Iranian population would love to have a reason to get rid of their
current government. -This might be it.

My opinion only.............

 

[KevinB]

I think the Iranian population would love to have a reason to get rid of their
current government.

They have many reasons already -- they are just too apathetic to do anything - kinda like Canadian voters.

 

[foo32]

It will be a similar strike like the IDF did in the region to destroy a nuke plant some time back.

As long as such a large American force is sitting on the ground right next door, I don't believe for a second an American attack would be limited to just a nuclear plant ... it wouldn't be prudent.  To me, this makes the plan to trash the Iranian armed forces that much more believable.

On another note, I do think the Americans could reduce the vast majority of the Iranian military to twisted metal in only a few days, but this would just mark the beginning of the war.  One that will surely leave the Iranian population miserable.  They might want to get rid of their current government, but not this way!

 

[karl28]

                    Man what a scary thought the possibility of  Iran with nuclear weapons . It's like a really bad  darned if we do,  darned if we don't situation .  I feel for the people who have to make that discion on weather or not to go to war  .  I know that I  wouldn't want that responsibility .
          I am probably being foolish but I hope that a diplomatic solution can be reached that's good for every one .

 

[1feral1]

As long as such a large American force is sitting on the ground right next door, I don't believe for a second an American attack would be limited to just a nuclear plant ...

There might be US troops 'next door', but there is not enough on the ground to do a proper job where they are now. I don't think they can use the Iraqi placed forces for much of anything, as they are busy as hell where they are now, trying to win in Iraq. Win battles they do, but winning hearts and minds is another story, and thats both at home and in country.

Wes

 

[foo32]

There might be US troops 'next door', but there is not enough on the ground to do a proper job where they are now.

I didn't intend to imply the Americans would use those troops against Iran, just that they were well within the range of Iranian retaliation, if say, the Americans just attacked the nuclear plant with an air-strike.  Because of the risk to American troops, it makes a certain amount of sense to go after the Iranian military immediately.  Betting that the Iranians would not dare attack the American troops on the ground in Iraq would be too great of a risk (in my very humble chicken-hawk opinion).

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Personally I think that the situation in Iran is similar to that in Iraq. The people don't like the government that much but if you invade their country and chaos and anarchy ensue you won't be regarded in a positive light. Better the devil we knew than the devil we don't know. If the Islamists and jihadists see another place to import their violence and mayhem and inflict that on the civilian population we could be in for another quagmire.
There's another factor here too in that China has an agreement with Iran for oil. Would a military strike by the US bring China into the tensions? Is a strike against Iran going to be UN and NATO sanctioned or does the US go it alone with another so-called "coalition of the willing?"
As others have noted the tolerance for war in the states is not high right now and I'm not sure how they would sell this to the American people.

 

[foo32]

There's another factor here too in that China has an agreement with Iran for oil. Would a military strike by the US bring China into the tensions? Is a strike against Iran going to be UN and NATO sanctioned or does the US go it alone with another so-called "coalition of the willing?"

These are really good points.  Iran is China's biggest oil supplier. You can forget any UN sanctioning of military action for sure (China would veto it).

 

[larry Strong]

Real economic sanctions could shake Ahmadinejad's government. Iran's sick economy relies on numerous imports. But the prospect of "real sanctions" emerging from the U.N. Security Council are slim. Real sanctions ultimately mean enforced sanctions, and given the porosity of Iran's borders -- and the porosity of commitments by the likes of Russia and China -- the likelihood of enforced sanctions drops from slim to none.

 

[GAP]

If Iran is cooperating with the Atomic Energy Inspectors there is no way the UN will impose sanctions.

 

[foo32]

I don' t know how much (if any) credibility they have, but I've encountered rumours on several sites over the past day or two, that an attack on Iran by the USA is imminent.  I usually shrug rumours off (since they are usually B.S.) so I didn't pay much attention, but here is one that was just linked from digg.com:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

 

[tomahawk6]

Dailykos the ultimate tin hat anti-Bush web site. ;D
If an attack is going to happen few will know about it in advance.

 

[FredDaHead]

If Iran is cooperating with the Atomic Energy Inspectors there is no way the UN will impose sanctions.

Even if they aren't cooperating, there is no way the spineless UN will impose sanctions. Besides, even if the UN had some kind of semblance of a spine (which it doesn't), as was pointed out, Iran is one of China's oil suppliers; there is no way China would vote for or abstain from a vote on sanctions instead of vetoing it.

 

[a_majoor]

We have been down this thread before actually: "Trouble from Iran" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34696.0.html

 

[Infanteer]

As always, food for thought....

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/Sadri.pdf