Will America attack Iran?

[Persian Pride]

There’s been a lot of speculation about whether or not the United States will attack Iran. Roughly equal numbers of people believe the U.S. will and will not attack.

What are your thoughts??

 

[Danoff]

Maybe. It depends on a lot of things. Iran's level of cooperation (which seems to be low). Israel's tolerance of the situation (which will probably be low). If Israel wanted to take care of things for us, I'm sure we'd be happy to let them. The UN's tolerance of the situation (which seems to be high). Our tolerance of the situation (which is kinda medium, would be lower if we weren't politically tied up at the moment).

This won't be a repeat of Iraq. This isn't a nation-building project. If we go in, it should be purely destructive.

 

[Swift]

The UN's tolerance levels are FAR too high. Not only on this, but from others as well. What's the point of having an organization that is supposed to enforce international laws that NEVER enforces them?

 

[Danoff]

Apparently they're holding Israel hostage.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193989,00.html

I think they over estimate their capability, and underestimate the US and even Israel. If the US attacks, there won't be a retaliation against anyone.

 

[Diego440]

The UN's tolerance levels are FAR too high. Not only on this, but from others as well. What's the point of having an organization that is supposed to enforce international laws that NEVER enforces them?

Because NO ONE wants to go to war. Diplomacy is what the UN is trying to enforce, and sadly, it takes a long time for diplomacy to work.

If the US attacks, there won't be a retaliation against anyone.

... because?

 

[Danoff]

... because?

...because we'll do too much damage.

 

[Poverty]

The UN's tolerance levels are FAR too high. Not only on this, but from others as well. What's the point of having an organization that is supposed to enforce international laws that NEVER enforces them?

What diego said.

 

[jimihemmy]

We will not attack until we are at least finished in Afghanistan. We are already spread too thin. If they want to attack Iran, they should pull out of Afghanistan, move most of those forces over to Iraq and use that as a base of operations.

I say we will eventually only if Iran does not back down.
Eliminating a nuclear threat would be the only way for Bush to get the American people behind them.....

this war in Iraq is just a sham....

 

[Danoff]

We will not attack until we are at least finished in Afghanistan. We are already spread too thin. If they want to attack Iran, they should pull out of Afghanistan, move most of those forces over to Iraq and use that as a base of operations.

No way we're spread too thin. It will take time to organize an assault, and it's true that right now we're concentrated on Iraq and Afghanistan. But we're not using any of the equipment or people in either of those countries that we'd use in Iran.

We don't need pilots in Iraq or Afghanistan. We don't need navy in Iraq or Afghanistan. We don't need bombers, or even aircraft in general, and we don't need cruise missles in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those are the resources we'd use in Iran. Not ground forces. Maybe a special ops team or two would need to be pulled from the feild in Iraq, but mostly the battle in Iran would be different enough from the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, that there isn't much overlap.

Here are the areas where I see overlap in manpower which might cause some reduction in capability in Iraq/Afghanistan if we were to move on Iran

1) Planning
2) Recon
3) Special Forces
4) Drones

That's it. Not aircraft, not missiles, not troops.

this war in Iraq is just a sham....

Interesting point of view. Very original and I can tell it's highly researched. Thanks for trying to make this thread about Iran about Iraq.

 

[Swift]

Because NO ONE wants to go to war. Diplomacy is what the UN is trying to enforce, and sadly, it takes a long time for diplomacy to work.

That's great. And I'm all for that. Here's the problem...

It's like warning a repeat offender to "Stop it or we're going to put you in prison" If you don't put people in prison or execute whatever the penalty is every now and again, the organization in question looses all respect.

this war in Iraq is just a sham....

2,000 plus American soldiers and even more Iraqi's would say otherwise

 

[Flerbizky]

If the US attacks, there won't be a retaliation against anyone.

Except for the rest of the Muslim world.. Unless the US plan to make a glass surface in all of the middle east...

 

[Joey D]

Diplomacy is a joke, it's like telling a little kid in the lamest voice possible..."don't do that" and slap them on the hands. They don't learn. If you want to use diplomacy you have to show force, give them an ultimatim and if they fail to meet it let them feel the hand of God and then ask them again. Think about it, ask them to do something, they don't, we smoke check a few of their leaders and see what happens then.

 

[Danoff]

Except for the rest of the Muslim world.. Unless the US plan to make a glass surface in all of the middle east...

Which country or countries are going to come after us or Israel in retaliation for striking nuclear facilities in Iran?

 

[Joey D]

Syria, Jordan, and other little countries would get pretty pissed...but I think we'd have to deal with more terrorist activity then anything.

 

[Flerbizky]

Which country or countries are going to come after us or Israel in retaliation for striking nuclear facilities in Iran?

Take your pick.. Anyone containing Muslims with just the sligtest dislike for the Western world... Nuking Iran would set off so much fire...

It'll be fun to watch, me being an alien and all....

 

[Joey D]

I don't think we would use a nuclear weapon against Iran, I think the world would be pissed then.

 

[Danoff]

Syria, Jordan, and other little countries would get pretty pissed...but I think we'd have to deal with more terrorist activity then anything.

Right, so what's new?

Take your pick.. Anyone containing Muslims with just the sligtest dislike for the Western world... Nuking Iran would set off so much fire...

Who said anything about nukes?

 

[Flerbizky]

Who said anything about nukes?

What's the alternative ?....

 

[Joey D]

Right, so what's new?

Nothing really, they've always been pissed and we will always have terrorism.

What's the alternative ?....

Planes with bombs attached.

 

[Danoff]

What's the alternative ?....

Cruise Missiles, GPS guided smart bombs from stealth aircraft, special ops forces with explosives, snipers (not that I think we'd need snipers).

Our military is built for two things:

1) Big, sloppy destruction
2) Small, precision destruction

The latter is what we'd use in Iran. It would be a surgical strike in a few choice locations to eliminate facilities and get the message across "diplomatically". The most difficult thing for our military to do is occupy territory, but I don't think we'd need to do any of that in Iran.

 

[Flerbizky]

Cruise Missiles, GPS guided smart bombs from stealth aircraft, special ops forces with explosives, snipers (not that I think we'd need snipers).

Our military is built for two things:

1) Big, sloppy destruction
2) Small, precision destruction

The latter is what we'd use in Iran. It would be a surgical strike in a few choice locations to eliminate facilities and get the message across "diplomatically". The most difficult thing for our military to do is occupy territory, but I don't think we'd need to do any of that in Iran.

Option 2 is more or less worn out after Iraq... Which leaves option 1...

 

[Danoff]

Option 2 is more or less worn out after Iraq...

How so?

 

[Famine]

The most difficult thing for our military to do is occupy territory, but I don't think we'd need to do any of that in Iran.

Occupying a vast swathe of beaded glass isn't particularly necessary...

 

[Canadian Speed]

As a side note... Anyone seen the docu-movie "Why We Fight"? If not, see it, it's a good movie about this kind of stuff in general...

 

[Joey D]

It's not horrifically slanted towards anti-war is it?

 

[TurboSmoke]

The war in Iraq was massively underestimated by the US and virtually bankrupted it. Iran is a much bigger country with a large army. War in Iran will send the Muslim world over the edge and create far more destruction that we currently see in Iraq. That said, i do honestly believe that the US has no faith whatsoever in the UN and is genuinely uninterested in taking the diplomatic route. They will attack if they find it justifiable. They have learned no lessons of the past and do not care what the aftermath will be for countries in the middle east, for the middle east peace process, road map and for the citizens of Iran.

The US has a problem with the power base in Iran but its the people themselves who will suffer.

The answer isnt easy to see. We could wait to see if the unranium enrichment program is for peaceful methods. The people in every country deserve cheap and depandable energy but the problem here is there will be no nuclear energy for Iran. The US cannot take the risk that the technology is being utilised for unlawful purposes.

 

[Flerbizky]

Occupying a vast swathe of beaded glass isn't particularly necessary...

Excellent.. Excellent Famine - As pr. usual !...

 

[Danoff]

The war in Iraq was massively underestimated by the US and virtually bankrupted it.

Hardly.

Iran is a much bigger country with a large army. War in Iran will send the Muslim world over the edge and create far more destruction that we currently see in Iraq.

How?

That said, i do honestly believe that the US has no faith whatsoever in the UN and is genuinely uninterested in taking the diplomatic route.

Aside from the fact that that's exactly what we're currently doing.

They will attack if they find it justifiable. They have learned no lessons of the past and do not care what the aftermath will be for countries in the middle east, for the middle east peace process, road map and for the citizens of Iran.

We care most about protecting ourselves from hostile nations looking to build a nuclear arsenal.

The answer isnt easy to see. We could wait to see if the unranium enrichment program is for peaceful methods.

You forgot to add the other alternative. I'd rather not wait to see if their program is for nuclear weapons. Better to get them to take steps now, and if they don't comply, force the issue.

The people in every country deserve cheap and depandable energy but the problem here is there will be no nuclear energy for Iran. The US cannot take the risk that the technology is being utilised for unlawful purposes.

Iran is sitting on top of abundant energy. They don't need nuclear power, there is only one reason they're after it.

 

[Joey D]

Iran wouldn't be making a big fuss if they just wanted energy, they would just say we are doing this because we want power.

 

[Keef]

I thought it was neat how Flerby jumped right to nuking Iran. My lungs hurt from laughing so hard! We won't use nuclear weapons on anybody, much less Iran. Ever. We don't need to. We live in an age of technology and precision, where blind destruction gets about as much respect as a redneck going quail hunting with a .50cal "hunting" rifle. I'd laugh at anyone who did that.
Iran is a pretty developed nation and probably already has nuclear power stations and abundant energy. Thwy're up to no good, that's the bottom line.
I 95% doubt that the U.S. will start any conflict with Iran. But just in case, I Gearthed through Iran and found that danoff was probably right when he suggested that we would use mostly our air forces to fight the battle. Tehran is surrounded by mountains, over Appalachian in size, and there is no smooth, direct path to the city as there is with Baghdad. But I did find two military bases on the southern coastline of Iran that would be reason enough for me to recomission the USS Missouri! Man, they would make perfect targets for battleship batteries. Now that would be something to watch on CNN!