Iran: The Next War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MACDRIVE, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #1
    Would any of you guys care to speculate when and under what conditions a war between Iran and the United States would go down?

    I don't want another war anymore than the rest of you guys, but I'm thinking we should prepare ourselves for the prospect of war since it seems to be becoming increasingly likely given Ahmadinejad's refusal the stop enriching uranium and Bush's hair trigger.

    My best guess is that sometime after January 01, 2008 President George W. Bush will strike Iran. :cool:
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    I don't really know how it could happen unless the US was actually attacked. We certainly couldn't get in to any other wars, there just isn't the man power or money, same story in the US isn't it?
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Can't see the US acting whilst Iraq is in the state it is. Bluster and aggrandisement is one thing, dropping bombs another.

    However, the chances are reasonably high of Israeli Air Force action before too much longer. Their "training run" into Syria seemed to me like a warning shot across Tehran's bows.
     
  4. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    I don't think G.W. Bush has the political strength to launch an attack on Iran.

    Plus, after Iraq, I don't there would a great rush of support for such an attack from around the world.
     
  5. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #5
    I'm thinking we could definitely do some bombing runs, but as far as occupying Iran with ground forces, I don't see the man power without starting a draft.
     
  6. AlBDamned macrumors 68030

    AlBDamned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    #6
    I think it's being hyped but it would be so beyond the realms of stupidity that my faith in humanity is still just about there that I believe it just wouldn't happen.
     
  7. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    So then what would be the point? It would be a very, very bad idea. Unless Iran actually attack anyone there's little point in doing anything other talk.
     
  8. AlBDamned macrumors 68030

    AlBDamned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    #8
    Exactly, and they won't attack anyone - even if they had the weapons - because it would be implicit M.A.D.ness
     
  9. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #9
    Bush has this idea that Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and take control of the Mid-East oil flow; that to him is the same as a direct military attack from Iran.
     
  10. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #10
    Bush has lots of ideas, but he's made so so many bad calls that I don't think what he thinks might happen will be anywhere near enough to gain any support for kicking off a fresh war. It's all talk, and it should stay that way.
     
  11. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #11
    Possession of nuclear weapons does nothing other than protect your own borders and strengthen your negotiating position. How exactly would a nuclear armed Iran take control of the oil flow? Would they for instance immediately invade the incredibly well-armed Saudi Arabia, knowing full well that taking on Saudi's far superior conventional weaponry would leave no option but to use those nukes and be annihilated in return?

    No. If Iran wants nukes, it's for their own security. At the moment they are surrounded by enemies with equipment a generation ahead of their own. A nuke prevents any invasion attempt and balances out Israel's advantage over the region into the bargain.
     
  12. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #12
    That's just it, Bush doesn't care about political support; his loyalty lies with the oil companies. He also knows that congress can't stop him from attacking Iran.
     
  13. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    He may be the president, but he cannot just go to war because he and he alone (relatively) feels like it.
     
  14. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #14
    I'm not exactly sure, but I'm sure Bush Co knows.

    The problem though is that Israel doesn't look at it as a balance of power, they look at it as a dire threat to their existence.
     
  15. MACDRIVE thread starter macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #15
    I hope you're right.
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    Which is why I expect them to act at some point. However, that doesn't automatically result in US teenagers being drafted. Don't panic. Bush is being deserted left, right and centre by his own team and increasingly a lame duck. Any US invasion of Iran isn't going to happen under this President.
     
  17. Black&Tan macrumors 6502a

    Black&Tan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    #17
    I may be mistaken, but as Commander-In- Chief, I believe he can order air strikes and cruise missile strikes without consulting Congress. He needs to get Congress' approval for continued action within a few weeks...
     
  18. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #18
    I don't mean that he technically cannot do it (I don't know exactly what he can and can't do), I mean he'd be crazy beyond what we all already expect to do so.
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Note that the current hard line talk on Iran is coming from France and Germany, not the US, which I think is quite deliberate. I'm harboring some small hope that Bush is finally "getting it" enough to recognize that pressure on Iran has to be applied through our allies and the UN, if we're to get positive results without conflict.
     
  20. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #20
    I think McKinley in the Spanish-American War, Wilson in WWI, Johnson in Vietnam and Bush in Iraq would disagree.

    As for what Bush can do on his own, the controversial War Powers Act (controversial because of its questionable constitutionality) allows Bush to order troops into battle for 60 days before Congress has to do something about it. By which time, I'm sure, Bush would claim that we can't "cut and run", or "allow the terrorists to win" or "serve Amedinejad tea and cookies" by ending the wholesale slaughter of the Iranians.
     
  21. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #21
    The US military is already stretched to the breaking point with people and equipment. The idea of any kind of ground confrontation with Iran is ludicrous--the conventional (non-nuclear) strength currently does not exist.

    Politically, an attack on Iran would be suicidal for Bush and the Republicans. For that reason alone Bush will not attack Iran (unless he stops taking his meds again....)

    Absent an Iranian attack into Iraq, the most likely scenario has been mentioned by dynamicv--the Israeli air force launching highly targeted strikes against certain Iranian installations.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Of course, we ARE basing troops within missile range of the Iranian border... Should anything "happen", it wouldn't be too difficult to whip the public (and a pushover Congress) into enough of a frenzy that military action could be taken with reliative political impunity here.

    The truth of the matter wouldn't be able to be sorted out until it was too late to stop the bombing.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I wouldn't be surprised if there were another terrorist attack very close to the election. That would be enough for Bush to suspend elections and start a war in Iran. Think I'm crazy? I hope I am.
     
  24. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #24
    I hope you are too!
     
  25. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #25
    Al Qaida has attacked many times just prior to elections just to disrupt them or sway voters. It wouldn't surprise me that they are taking particular interest in our upcoming election although I can't see it helping anyone other than the republican candidate.

    As for your mental state, that's between you and your psychiatrist. :)
     

Share This Page