Will the U.S. go to war with Iran?

To start off, I'll say I don't trust polls all that much. I recently saw a poll in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that said about 70% of Minnesota supported the war. Then I saw that it was taken from about 1,000 people; about one-one hundreth of the population of St. Paul.

So this morning, I saw another little blurb about the war and its support. But this one also mentioned that about 50% of the people asked would support military action against Iran if the country continued to build nuclear reactors (well, the paper said weapons, but it seems more like Russia is helping Iran get power).

Aside from some anti-American sentiment which, thanks to the war in Iraq, is coming up even among our allies, I see no offense of Iraq. From what I hear, it's actually quite a progressive country and was helpful in the war in Afghanistan.

I think invading Iran would be a huge mistake. It seems the only reason we would strike there is that a war against North Korea would be extremely costly in lives and property.

What does everyone else think?

 

Iran is taking steps down the road of nuclear proliferation, which is certainly disturbing. However, unless the situation deteriorates considerably, I don't think an invasion of Iran is called for. It would do much more harm than good.

EDIT: Along with what JFT said.

 

I don't think we'll have to go to war with either Iran or N. korea. Those two are about to collapse from the inside. What we'll end up doing is providing aid and guidence to the governments that emerge.

My prediction:

Iran will change first. Students will continue to pressure the government for modernization, and a move away from this ultra-right government. It may change through revolution or through the natural progression of governments.

 

President Dubya said so himself in his first S of the U addy. That whole "axis of evil" thingy, remember? You see what he intended for Iraq, country numero uno on the axis list. N. Korea has used Iraq as proof positive that it must build up its "defenses" in order to save itself from American agression--noting that inspections actually spurred the conflict, not reseolved it.

And so Iran is next, yes. We're already in the region. Why not keep going, right?

Good for me I'm over the age limit, or I'd be expecting a draft notice sometime in the coming year...

 

There is no way the US will go to war with Iran.

Militarily it would be near impossible. Niether Iraq nor Afghanistan is suitable as a jumping off point now, and even considering the best outcome of the current war, Iraq wouldn't be for several years. Afghanistan doesn't bear thinking about since I doubt Musharraf could afford to let us even have overfly rights in the case of such a war.

Iran is larger then Iraq and, as afar as I'm aware, doesn't have an internal oppisiiton army like afghanistan. It would required at least, I believe two or three times the inital troops as the invasion of Iraq and While the regime in Iran may be unpopular I'm not sure it has been so oppressive to the majority that their hatred for it would overcome their patroitism.

If Iran continues on it's path to nuclear weapons we may see precision guided strikes on their facilites like the Israelis did to Iraq in 81, or possibly special ops teams going in.

I seriously doubt though we'd invade.

 

If Iran continues on it's path to nuclear weapons we may see precision guided strikes on their facilites like the Israelis did to Iraq in 81, or possibly special ops teams going in.

Wouldn't such an act be considered an act of war? And how does that action somehow safeguard us from the x number of anti-American terrorists it will no doubt create?

 

Almost certainly an act of war but as I said I'd doubt we'd invade and I doubt Iran could.

And your claims of the creation of anti American terrorists is rather silly considering Iran's relation to the rest of the gulf.

It will undoubtedly anger some who might be willing to thorw their lives away, but I doubt anyone not angered by this war would be angered by that.

 

Constructive comments only, please.

 

No, with Iran its all a waiting game. See the fundamental difference between Iraq and Iran is Iran has elections, actual elections. Rightnow in Iran there is a Conservative President who wants change. The youth in Iran is fascinated by the west, particularly America. With this Ayatollah's death I would expect to see great changes in Iran, perhaps even the son of the late Shah returning to some sort of figurehead roll.

 

War with Iran would be mad and I seriously doubt that it will happen although given my opinion of the present US administration I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another target get picked once Iraq has been dealt with.

 

The key thing that's missing from this discussion is the fact that Iran is the "home base" of radical Islam and terrorism. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, you name it- they're in Iran and getting support from the Iranian government. Iran is also in process of acquiring nuclear capability. We have Afhanistan, we will soon have Iraq. Iran is in the middle.

It's still too early to say whether or not there will be military force used there, but it's a situation that's going to come to the forefront once Iraq is under control. I think the Administration believs North Korea can be brought under control by China, which means there is a presumptive diplomatic apporach there.

 

Dont mess with Bush and Dont mess with Texas and dont go there girlfriend!

 

There has to be several methods to dealing with the Iranian problem. The method of most benefit and least problem should be chosen, and no single method (i.e., military force) should be ruled out on the basis of its concept alone. That would just be silly.

I think, first, a better idea of the threat Iran's government poses to its people, its neighbours, and more distant nation-states, either through tyranny, sponsoring terrorism, or military encroachment is needed. From there, the method should be chosen. I personally know almost nothing about the Iranian issue, except that, in regards to religion, Iran is MUCH more fanatical, especially in its regime. It's been trying to export that fanatacism to other states in the Middle East since '79. I don't view its problem as extreme as the Iraqi one (and I also think the problems of Libya and Syria are more pressing, especially the latter), but it certainly seems that the leadership in that country are profoundly illiberal and anti-Western.

I think a better understanding of the religious situation is vital to the understanding of the political one. Iran is one of the few (the only?) countries where Shia Islam is practised not by dissenters, but by those in power. I think the political culture, correspondingly, is also different: Iran's rulers have long regarded Iran as the dominant power in the region, and this could affect their actions.

My personal opinion is that neither containment nor engagement will work entirely. Containment, as was applied to Iraq up until the last few months, is generally a failure against such states, and engagement may not be entirely necessary, or diplomatically desirable. I think a carrot-and-stick approach is required; Iran's leaders are zealously anti-American, so compromises might be needed, as much as I inherently dislike half-measures.

According to most sources, Iran is either developing, has developed or will soon begin developing nuclear weaponry. It's pretty much a given that it already has some degree of chemical and biological weaponry (as it is also a given that Iraq, Libya and Syria have them). It's this build-up that needs to be discouraged and reversed. So by applying a carrot - say, greater economic cooperation with Iran from the West - it might be encouraged to begin that process. Should that fail, a stick might be used - by using precision weaponry to disable parts of its weapons program, or even its regime.

I think, in conclusion, Iran should be monitored VERY closely. Though it's religion is important as a force in the region, its weaponry should draw the greatest attention. And any buildup thereof should be actively discouraged. Once better intelligence on its actions and capabilities are received, then action can be taken. For now, something between containement and engagement must be used - the carrot-and-stick method.

- Scarlet.

 

To start off, I'll say I don't trust polls all that much. I recently saw a poll in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that said about 70% of Minnesota supported the war. Then I saw that it was taken from about 1,000 people; about one-one hundreth of the population of St. Paul.

You don't have to poll the entire population to get accurate results--this is what statistics are for. As long as certain conditions are met, such as the sample is random, a small polling sample will represent within a small margin of error the true values (yes/no in this case) of the population. This is why polls are shown with a value +/- a certain percentage (ie the opinion for the war 70% +/-3%, meaning the true value lies within 67% and 73%)

 

Unlike Iraq, Iran is increasingly likely to change its government through internal action.

If I remember the numbers correctly, something like 80% of the population of Iran is under the age of 25 and as a previous poster mentioned, they aren't happy with the current power system in their country and seem to love American culture.

 

There has to be several methods to dealing with the Iranian problem.

Those type of refences to a nation of people as a "problem" is certainly not going to help anything.

I personally know almost nothing about the Iranian issue,

Okay, well at least that is stated.


except that, in regards to religion, Iran is MUCH more fanatical, especially in its regime.

What is fanaticism? You are just throwing around terms.

As stated in a prior post, Dubya clearly made the foreign agenda clear when he made his Axis of Evil Speech. He and his advisors believe in forcibly ending the axis and remaking the Middle East. Iran and Syria are coming up soon. Although I still think the swifest approaching operations will be in the Phillipines where we already have alomost 2000 marines assisting in fighting.

 

I don't think anyone messed with Texas.

And Knightwriter, cmon, this Bain guy needs some kind of temp or even perm ban. He's probably a sock, but I haven't seen anything in his posts but silly comments and YOUR "Edit...Keep it Civil Bain" edits in his posts.

 

No. Iran is already changing, and Khatami is keeping moderation and reform as his agenda. There hasn't been much involvement with terrorism there since 9/11, when they publicly denounced the act as cowardly. Futhermore, Iran has, as my learned friend J_F_T (Ha, that's the only time I'm calling you learned! ) noted, a large moderate student movement. The people of Iran do not hate the USA. They are actually quite pro-US, even if they Ayatollah council isn't.


E_S

 

Yeah, I heard on the news Iran is changing.

 

(Ha, that's the only time I'm calling you learned! )

I takes whats I can gets.

 

Iran will go one of two ways by the end of 2004:

1. A Tehran Spring in which the students and others force the theocracy out of power. This will lead to government that may be friendlier to the USA and against terrorism.

2. We could see a Tiananmen Square in Tehran, in which case, America could be in for a nasty fight. A VERY nasty fight.

 

War with Iran would be a stupid, stupid idea.

This a country whose government hates america, and whose people do not. It would be a very bad move on america's part.

Iran will change all on its' own. They don't need the US rolling tanks up to Tehran to do it for them.

Peace,

V-03

 

Vaderize03:

Perhaps, but there is a major risk here.

If the first scnario I outline occurs, there will be no need for the U.S. to go to war with Iran.

But the second scenario could also occur. Iran's government could reprise Tiananmen Square, in which case, it would be a more hostile government in control. A massacre on CNN or other news agencies would leave Iran with little to lose.

That would make them extremely dangerous.

 

I doubt that Scenario #2 is likely. Remember a moderate was elected to government. Even if the Pasdaran and the Council of Ayatollahs do try and use the armed forces against the Students, you would get a Tiennenman Square, you'd get a Yeltsin-styled coup.

A very learned answer, J_F_T!!!

E_S

 

the united states needs to concentrate on one project at a time. bush's next project is to get re-elected. theres more "evil" countries in the he world than the USA has dollars. how much was spent/is being spent in afghanistan?
plus the 75+ billion for the iraq war.