Who is going to stand up to the US this time when it decides to invade Iran ?

Mr.Micro

I believe it is only a matter of time before the US invades Iran under the auspices of removing a nuclear threat or regime change or indeed some trumped up nonesense to remove one of the members of the axis of evil.Bush has about a year or so to do something and according to the press some of his advisors are gung ho for action. Who is going to stop the US ?

mikemac

Not sure why you would to stop him.
It is a nuclear threat and a regime change is needed.

You ever seen those photos of mass executions and also the stonings?

So he can go ahead and invade if he wants imo

gandalf

Err a tad dramatic methinks. The US cannot even handle Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment there is no way they can take on Iran as well. What may happen is the Israeli's bomb certain facilities in Iran with US giving them verbal support but beyond that the US will not be able to do anything.

McArmalite

Interesting article that Vice-President Dick Cheney, the King of Hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.

http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=42499&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3

homah_7ft

The US is going to have to bring in conscription if they want to invade Iran. I don't see that happening in the short to medium term at least. Iran won't be able to refine enough weapons grade plutonium to make atomic bomb for at least 5 years. I think a more likely scenario is Israel testing out some American developed deep penetrating bombs.

purple'n'gold

As big an idiot as Bush is, I don’t think he is mad enough to start a war with Iran. As for Israel, they won’t want to risk the retaliation that will happen by attacking them unless they deem it absolutely necessary. And I don’t think that is the case just yet.
Anyway, if Iran wants nukes, why not just buy some? I’m sure there are a few knocking about the former Soviet Union. And if you have the money, you can really buy what you want.

eoin5

I think Iran has a much better reason to attack the US than vise-versa. Among other crimes it has committed against Iran (the list is verrrry long) it has advocated the use of and supplied the means to manufacture chemical weapons to Iraq in full knowledge of their intended use against the Iranians.

What do the US have? If anyone wants to talk about nuclear threats look no further than the US. Theyre the ones pushing it and compounding the situation at the moment.

Theyre wont be any invasion though, not this decade anyways.

Mr.Micro

Bush has the infrastructure in Iraq already with Israel as a key ally. Just think much of the insurgency is blamed on Iran so in theory knock out Iran less problems with Iraq.He has a short time scale 1 year as the next President may not have the stomach ,also if Iran is developing a bomb could the US afford to wait 5 years . No .

homah_7ft

But why invade?

Mr.Micro

homah_7ft wrote:

But why invade?

For 1 to stop the insurgency problem ,otherwise the US is bogged down in Iraq for years and 2 to stop the nuclear programme,as bombing alone could not guarantee its destruction . One bomb would be all that is needed..

eoin5

homah_7ft wrote:

But why invade?

Theres no way to change the regime in Iran other than invasion. Theres no opposition to arm except the Kurds and they dont number enough. You can bomb and starve the country into the dirt but it wont end in regime change.

Mr.Micro

eoin5 wrote:

Theres no way to change the regime in Iran other than invasion. Theres no opposition to arm except the Kurds and they dont number enough. You can bomb and starve the country into the dirt but it wont end in regime change.

Indeed ,and Saddam Hussein survived Bush senior to wreak havoc until Iraq was invaded, even then despite all the bombing over the years the intelligence
community still believed there was WMD so invasion was the only option for change.I do not think Iranian people would automatically side with invaders ( or liberators as they like to be known as ).

is_that_so

I think there are a number of difficulties with the idea.

Firstly remember that the US has plans to invade almost every country on Earth including Canada. It's part of their planning and gives the Pentagon a reason for its existence.

The influence, thankfully, of the necons is beginning to fade. Much of their ideology is based on the simplistic black and white of the Cold War - "anyone not with us is agin us".

They have thrived on the post 9-11 chaos and fear and the misdirected perception that they know best.

Whoever comes in after Bush will ensure that America changes. The appetite for war is already long gone and if it is a new Republican president he will more than likely face a hostile congress who will not allow the machinations that Rove et al cooked up to be revisited. And if not one could certainly expect a return to Realpolitik and possibly a US retreat into itself.

But as pointed out they could use Israel by proxy to drop a bomb or two. That way too is fraught with risks and will not guarantee that Iran will lie down in the way say Quaddafi or Saddam Hussein did to an extent. Even a US plan to "take out Iran's military might" is not guaranteed given Iran's association with Hezbollah and other groups.

What is also clear from the "defeat" in Lebanon is that Israel cannot necessarily guarantee it will win if it ends up taking on other forces. Curiously they don't seem to realise this. So it could drop a bomb and open up a large can of worms.

It could also cause even more extended difficulties for the US in Iraq.

And all of this based on the assumption that the US can convince pretty much every other power that such an action is a good idea. China is growing more confident, Russia a little more belligerent, the EU would not support it and even India would not be terribly keen on such a mess on its doorstep.

A pyrrhic victory I think they call it. And that's without an invasion.

Mr.Micro

is_that_so wrote:

I think there are a number of difficulties with the idea.

Yes I agree with much of your reasoning ,but it does not make the nuclear dilemma go away .It is not as if the US can wait and see ,if the US actually believes Iran is a clear and present danger.Israel cannot really afford to go it alone against Iran and if it did, then the US would have to support it. As you say, Israel got the fright of its life in Lebanon against Hisbollah ,it was glad of a ceasefire, as it was losing the war. Then effectively it appears the US will do nothing as its options are minimal ,but GW is not one for logic.

karen3212

I just wanted to ask though, does China or Russia or India have ''interests'' in Iran?

Orion

micmclo wrote:

It is a nuclear threat and a regime change is needed.

You've just described the US. :P

Not gonna happen anyway. As other posters have said the US don't have the personnel to invade Iran with them already fighting a war on three fronts - Afghanistan, Iraq and at home (both with their draconian new anti-terror laws and public opinion for war).

karen3212

Macros42 wrote:

You've just described the US. :P

Not gonna happen anyway. As other posters have said the US don't have the personnel to invade Iran with them already fighting a war on three fronts - Afghanistan, Iraq and at home (both with their draconian new anti-terror laws and public opinion for war).

I know we all get our information from different places, but to me it looks like it will be a UN ''invasion''. Do people think that is more feasible.

Op, I know this might sound disgusting, but would it be impossible to add a poll to your question thread. Will we see an ''intervention'' in Iran soon? smth like that, I know it sounds horrible, but I would be interested in the percentage of people that say yes or no etc.

jonny72

Does anyone think that perhaps all this could be a giant bluff by the US?

To somehow scare the Iranians, to turn them against their president, to put pressure on their economy, etc, etc.

An invasion of Iran is absolutely out of the question for the US military at the moment, even limited air-strikes would be far too much of a gamble, could easily spark a wider conflict, I mean you don't have to be a military planner to see the millions of ways in which bombing could go seriously wrong.

Maybe they are just hoping to pressure Iran into pulling a Libya, hmm but I doubt that would happen, theres too much pride involved at this stage.

I remember when Bush came to power, my friend, who is an avid conspiracy type, told me that these people called the neocons had this 10 year plan to supplant democracy through force around the world, yadda, yadda, I thought he was nuts.. and here we are, discussing the possibility of a third preemptive invasion in Middle East.

dave2pvd

karen3212 wrote:

I just wanted to ask though, does China or Russia or India have ''interests'' in Iran?

Oil?

There is not enough army remaining to invade Iran.

Might be interesting to see the Navy lead the charge on the ground!...all those white uniforms getting filthy.

Nope, the political will is no longer there for such a venture. It would result in the US stuck in the middle east for even longer. As it is, US forces will be dug in for 5 years or more.

Gaz

But what have Iran done to deserve an attack ? Seeking nuclear power is surely there right, sure even having a nuke is there right ... why should one nation be allowed and another not ?

And have they not said all along that there nuclear plans are for power generation and that for the most part the inspectors are happy.

Yes there is problems with there government, human rights abuses , hanging homosexuals etc but for the most part the people are happy , they want to live by those Islamic standards , ive been to Iran and the people where some of the most amazing and friendly people ive ever come across. They prefer there ways, we may view them as harsh or restrictive but thats there culture and in there view our celebrity , money and status driven culture is horrendous and they dont want that ... cant blame them either.

Akrasia

homah_7ft wrote:

The US is going to have to bring in conscription if they want to invade Iran. I don't see that happening in the short to medium term at least. Iran won't be able to refine enough weapons grade plutonium to make atomic bomb for at least 5 years. I think a more likely scenario is Israel testing out some American developed deep penetrating bombs.

He doesn't want to Invade Iran, just bomb the sh1t out of it. A repeat of the lebanon war of last year.

The problem is that the iranian army are not going to hide in their barracks under attack. They will retaliate, and they will retaliate by closing off the strait of Hormuz and by attacking Israel.

Akrasia

micmclo wrote:

Not sure why you would to stop him.
It is a nuclear threat and a regime change is needed.

You ever seen those photos of mass executions and also the stonings?

So he can go ahead and invade if he wants imo

They don't intend to invade or to remove the regime. They intend to bomb them and destroy their military capability and their economy.

That's a strategy that will make islamic fundamentalism much stronger in the region, and human rights abuses will escalate.

Thats not to say that they wouldn't be forced to invade if the war escalates, but they would most likely just carpet bomb the place from the air with no regard for civilian casualties.

I doubt anything of the sort is planned at the moment.
For one a democratic controlled congress wouldnt allow it and for two,theres likely to be a regime change in the whitehouse in the fall of 2008 anyway.

purple'n'gold

Thats not to say that they wouldn't be forced to invade if the war escalates, but they would most likely just carpet bomb the place from the air with no regard for civilian casualties.

That would be a very bad plan; I don’t think that even the Neanderthals that presently run the USA would want to start WW3. Because that is what would happen. Somehow or another Islamic fundamentalists would get a dirty nuke into Tel Aviv and explode it, Iran’s retaliation against an attack like that would be extreme, and it would polarise the entire Islamic world. Westerners would be at terrible risk all over the third world. Not to speak of oil being cut off to the west.

is_that_so

karen3212 wrote:

I just wanted to ask though, does China or Russia or India have ''interests'' in Iran?

It is not in either China's or Russia's interest to have another nuclear power in central Asia.

Russia has a "special" relationship and has sold them a lot of "equipment" over the years. They even volunteered to enrich the uranium for them.

China sells weapons to anyone who will buy them.

India will not want an extremely large Islamic state on the border with Pakistan mustering forces for war.

On top of this there is the Iranian border with Turkey, the Caspian Sea and as posted the Straits of Hormuz.

Zombrex

Mr.Micro wrote:

Who is going to stop the US ?

The Democrat controlled Congress for a start.

The US is not going to invade Iran. At least not for 15 years or so. They might bomb them. A lot. But that is it.

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote:

I believe it is only a matter of time before the US invades Iran under the auspices of removing a nuclear threat or regime change or indeed some trumped up nonesense to remove one of the members of the axis of evil.Bush has about a year or so to do something and according to the press some of his advisors are gung ho for action. Who is going to stop the US ?

Well you asked two different questions.

1. Who is going to stand up to the US.

2. Who is going to stop the US.

The answer to 1 is virtually everybody except Britain and Israel. The answer to 2 is nobody because nobody has the power.

That said there will be no invasion. The US is too tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Reps really need to start their election campaign with three ground wars running in the Middle East/SW Asia. If Iran persists in developing it's nuclear capability it may provoke an aerial assault by Israel which needs to stop or at least slow down the Iranian nuclear programme.

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote:

Well you asked two different questions.

1. Who is going to stand up to the US.

2. Who is going to stop the US.

The answer to 1 is virtually everybody except Britain and Israel. The answer to 2 is nobody because nobody has the power.

That has answered my questions. Logistics,feasability ,manpower,resources and volatility are all going to stop the US then? It still does not make the major reason for confrontation go away .ie the nuclear issue, so it looks like a Catch 22 situation ,but as I posted earlier some of the actions by the current administration have not applied the above criteria, so its open season still as to the outcome

bonkey

Mick86 wrote:

1. Who is going to stand up to the US.

2. Who is going to stop the US.

The answer to 1 is virtually everybody except Britain and Israel. The answer to 2 is nobody because nobody has the power.

That said there will be no invasion. The US is too tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would suggest that your second answer is not entirely in line with your further comments.

Who is goin gto stop the US? The US will, for a start. They're not stupid enough to get into a shooting match with Iran, so they'll stop themselves from doing so.

If you want to take a different perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan will stop the US...because (as you say) the US is too tied down there.

Hobbes

Tristrame wrote:

I doubt anything of the sort is planned at the moment.

1. Scuttlebutt from various military blogs suggests that US assets are in the gulf readying up for an attack. Or at least going through the drills.

2. Last week (iirc) a bill was passed in the Senate that basically allows Bush to attack Iran.

3. As someone pointed out, they don't plan to invade, just bomb the heck out of it.

4. From the conspiracy type sites they said Syria bombing was a dry run. Personally I don't believe it. I do however as far as I can tell is that if there is an attack on Iran it will be similar to Syria (airports, infrastructure, military locations hit).

4a. Bush has made an official statement some months back that the Nuclear plants would not be attacked.

5. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. They are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

6. There was also a recent report from an ultra conservative think tank that went into "What would happen if the US did it..". Factors in everything. Basically the world is screwed, but even the report at the end pointed out how the US would still come out on top of it.

So my feeling is this..
a) Pysops is giving the perception of an attack. Why? No idea.

b) Bush will attack before he leaves office.

There is also a website tracking it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm

Dirk Gently

People seem to be of the opinion that logically and logistically the US would not launch an attack or invasion but the extremists in the white house have shown a disregard for both so I wouldn't rule it out. Another interesting consequence to an attack on Iran is that Venezuela will turn off the tap and refuse to supply any more oil to the US.

I don't go along with the "big bluff" theory either as an imminent threat of destruction will do more to unite a country against the aggressor and prop up nationalism rather than spark internal revolution but again who knows what warped tactics the white house will use to terrorise and nationalise their own citizens behind the republican war machine.

In this era of "energy security" I wouldn't rule out any action to secure energy supplies as the stakes are so high but I can't help thinking recent US actions are the last sting of a dying superpower which will find itself more isolated and more dependant on others as this centaury progresses.