POLL: Will the US go to war against Iran?

Remove all ads!

Simple question, yes or no or don't know. My personal opinion is a high probability for 'yes'.

I don't find Administration babbling that they don't plan to 'invade' Iran reassuring, because anyway the current most plausible scenario is a massive air strike, not an invasion with ground troops. Never mention that spirit thingie, and that both constitute acts of war.

Gates said this: "With respect to Iran, first of all, the president has made clear; the secretary of State has made clear; I've made clear -- nobody is planning -- we are not planning for a war with Iran.'' Well, 'we' is less than 'nobody'. While the President, SecState and SecDef might not plan anything, but say, spend their time munching pizza, their staff or the VP may very well do so.

Considering their track record, I think this reading is realistic.

Perfect example, and worth a thread of its own (*HINT*), is Alberto Gonzales claiming with a straight face (Quick Time link)

You read right. The document doesn't explicitly tell that it applies to everyone, ergo, picking US citizens and deny them this right is constitutional. Oh yes? That guy still has his job??! I rather think it was so bloody obvious that it does apply to everyone, that at the time of creation it was not neccessary to even mention it. Oh never mind.
The absence of public outrage over this is IMO the scariest thing of all. Getting some more, and speaking about Gonzales -- doesn't the US right wing have an aversion against sleazy, frivolous trial lawyers? Would you buy a used car from Gonzales?

I think the Bush men cling to their statements in a very similar way Gonzales does. After all, 'invasion' is something different than 'bombing' - ergo, the Administration didn't lie when their electorate sees them bombing.

I don't put any faith in Administration denials on this.

[ February 13, 2007, 09:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 27 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Will the US go to war against Iran? (27 votes.)

Will the US go to war against Iran? (Choose 1)
* Yes, there will be war - 41% (11)
* No, there won't be war - 33% (9)
* Dunno - 26% (7)

 

The US needs someone to blame for their ****ups in Iraq.

 

nah, there wont be war against iran.

itll take too long for bush to muster a force to attack, if he attacked now with little or no planning its possible the forces would have their arses handed to them. bush will be out of office by the time a force could be ready and the next president wont be stupid enough

 

Shoshino,
as for little or no planning you are mistaken. Air strikes are being planned by Stratcom, at least since May 2005. The disturbing thing is that Stratcom is normally tasked with nulcear war planning, but attacking Iran can be understood as a strategic task in its own right.

The appointment of naval aviator Admiral Fallon as new head of CENTCOM, where two ground wars are raging, suggests that air power is supposed to play a much greater role in this theatre. Considering the limited utility of air power in counter-insurgency warefare, that suggests a shifted emphasis away from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Carriers have with much publicity been moved into the theatre. Bombers and tankers can arrive in Diego Garcia or other forward bases within 48 hours, probably less. The only thing in question is the aftermath, and what will happen. Pretty much every retired General and Colonel is in utter horror about this. Not so the administration and the Transformation Cultists who pray to St. Douhet to fix the 'Iranian threat'.

Cheney and his goons do not see the US hamstrung by being bogged down in Iraq. Rather they see most of their air power 'underutilised'. Insofar one doesn't need to really think hard to see what advice they'll give the 'Decider'. The 'aftermath question' doesn't arise, because the overwhelming US airpower will shock and awe the Iranians to beg for peace, and everything will be swell.
Like in Lebanon last summer when Israeli air power decisively defeated Hezbollah. That's what all these 'old think' generals don't get.

Not to mention the question not to negotiate with 'evil' out of principle. The Administration will play tough until they see no other choice but either bombing or negotiating, that means they'll probably choose bombing, because everything else would be lack of resolve, Munich 1938 -- appeasement, surrender. Maybe it's just a variant of Nixons 'madman doctrine', but I doubt we're that lucky.


EDIT: If you believe that strategic bombing will result in an early surrender of the enemy, at low cost to yourself, it becomes much more attractive than the give-and-take of a negotiation that will only compromise your 'moral clarity'. That coupled with the faith in 'American Exceptionalism' makes for a toxic cocktail. In fact, it is a receipe for war as a standard operating procedure of foreign policy and not as a last resort. That is also the reason why 'transformation' gives the neo-cons such a major hard-on. US technological supremacy only makes credible their wet dreams of 'Global Benevolent Hegemony'. Besides, author Robert Kagan and his bro Frederick are founding members of PNAC. Frederick at AEI directed the creation of the 'surge plan', titled "Choosing Victory -- A plan for success in Iraq" and is said to have presented it to Bush who is said to have liked it a lot. The neo-cons are alive and kicking./EDIT

[ February 13, 2007, 16:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

how long did they spend planning Iraq? they planned the air campaign with ruthless efficency, but then dwindled on their ground work. i have no doubt that the US could bomb Iran back to the stone age, but as for a ground campaign, i dont think they have what it takes.

 

On a positive note, the media seems to be taking a 'won't get fooled again' position on the Iran issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8668903
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/

Probably others as well.

 

I thought we beat this horse to death in the 'where will Bush attack next' thread.

My answer is no.

The US does not have the forces available for another conflict. Period. There are no US Military advisors that believe you can win a war without ground troops.

Planned? You've got to be kidding me. The US Military has strikes and operations 'planned' for every conceivable threat. That's the job of the military -- to be ready to go to war. That does not mean the US will EVER use those plans.

The nomination of ADM Fallon is entirely a political appointment. He has an excellent reputation for fairness and has some international political experience -- just the thing needed for the Middle East right now. By putting a Navy Admiral in, both the White House and the Congress know he will 'clean ship' and remove those that have been embarrassing the US in CENTCOM. Fallon is also the most experienced theater commander in the United States military. Who would be more qualified?

 

Of course we did, but there are some who miss no opportunity to rag on the U.S.A.

I don't think the U.S. will attack Iran. I think/hope that the American people will not tolerate such a course of action should it be proposed. It is true that the government doesn't seem to really care what the citizens actually think or want when pushing their various unconstitutional schemes. Nevertheless, I do think that even leaders as arrogant as ours will stop short of starting a war with Iran. OTOH, if King George were to start a war as a lame duck, it would be left to the new administration to try to extricate the country from the situation, which would be extremely difficult. Still, I say no.

BTW, Bush and company are NOT conservatives/righ wingers in any way, shape or form.

 

The rhetorics are there, the will is probably there I just hope and believe that reality will bonk some of the guys in charge on the head and make them restrain themselves. I do think we are likely to see missile attacks though but hopefully not on any greater scale.

War! Huh! What is it good for?!

 

No. They may be warmongers, but they're not stupid. Well not *that* stupid. Hopefully...

 

I'll give a generous 30% percent chance of US attacking Iran but I'll give a healthy 60% chance of Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities within the next six months. I don't think that even Bush would pull of a war against Iran at this point. They would never go for a full scale invasion, to that I give only a 5% chance. It simply would not be realistic at this point. Iranians probably meddle in Iran but that's to be expected and is really no reason for war. Israel will end up with doing the dirty work and bomb the facilities in Ishafan to oblivion in which case EU (and possibly even US) will give them some criticism but silently really thank Israel for solving the problem with an Iranian nuclear programme with a single devastating blow.

[ February 14, 2007, 12:23: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Why the hell wouldn't they attack Iran? They seem to fight anything that threatens there position as the worlds No.1 country (at least in their eyes).

What's one more war to add to the already full track record?

 

Depends on your definition of war. Technically Clinton commited an act of war every time he fired off a bunch of Tomahawks into terrorist camps that happened to be on the soil of another nation without getting the consent of that nation first.

Will we invade Iran...only if a nuke goes off that is traced back to them.

Will we "bomb them back to the stone age" (btbttsa), probably, especially if the definition of btbttsa is anything like the definition like the definition "shock and awe".

 

There seems to be an impression here that the current Administration is seeing the Iran issue in rational terms. Their track record suggests quite the opposite.

End of last year Israel got a golden offer from Syria. It is very clear that a peace agreement between Israel and Syria would remove a lot of tension and should help adress many problems. Israel needs less enemies, not more.
Point is, it went nowhere because Olmert explicitly refused the offer in order to not 'undermine' Bush, who was at the time under pressure after Baker's ISG report, which called for talks with Syria. That means two things: That the Bush administration position on Syria is to the right even of a right-wing Israeli government. That is IMO quite remarkable*. Second, that Olmert by pointing to Bush basically sais 'if it was up to me ...' distances himself from Bush. Also remarkable. EDIT:It also suggests a third thing -- that the Bushies still insist on their policy of regime change in Syria and on the principle of not-negotiating with 'evildoers'./EDIT

What this episode tells me in respect to Iran is this: If the Bush men are still that ideologically rigid on Syria, I can't see how they would be any more flexible on Iran, especially considering their current rhetoric. That is a point I see ignored.

The accusations against Iran are basically 'outrage stuff' and their steady repitition suggests to me a concerted effort to demonise Iran, quite along the lines of what was before Iraq. The US increase pressure and tension, and arresting Iranian diplomats is nothing else but an overt provocation. The 'surge' itself, and the probable focus on shia militias like Sadr's, can also be understood as an effort to demolish Iranian retaliation capabilities in Iraq, and as such, as attack preparations.
The pieces are in place. In the absence of progress in Iraq, and in absence of unconditional Iranian surrender and mounting domestic pressure, the temptation to pull the trigger might at some point just become irresistible.

Unless McCain or Liebermann get elected as next president, chances are only Bush is crazy enough to 'tackle the Iranian threat'. That would add a certain urgency to make the best of the options being unitary executive commander in chief offers, and would be as such an additional incentive for attack. That also is a line that is circling around in comments for a while. With carrier groups and troops being rotated into the theatre, deployment schedules of usually six months suggest to me a heightened potential for escalation for the next six to eight months.

I'd like to stress again, that the Bush men most probably do not see their ground forces being bogged down as an obstacle. Problem is that when they want a brief and fulminant preventive air strike and that's it - Iran might just not agree and say: 'The fight is over when we say so.' The consequences are unpredictable, with plenty of opportunity for disaster. Iraq + Iran might beome America's Stalingrad at the Tigris.

That doesn't mean it's certain the US attack, but that it shouldn't be dismissed as 'Doggie is just wanting to play!'.

* and in tune with neo-con Meyraw Wurmser's (wife of David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney) comment in an interview that DC's neo-connery was outraged that Israel last summer only hit Lebanon, and didn't attack Syria, too.

[ February 14, 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Wow, Mrs. Wurmser is quite the idealist. Apparently she thinks that invading your neighbors when you're already up SC is something completely natural. I wonder what she'd say if Israel did start serious peace talks with Syria and publicly announced that it won't bother with Iran, and if Iran really gets a bomb Tehran won't need lightbulbs to glow in the dark.

I wonder if Cheney's heart would be up to it.

 

Well, the point I was trying to illustrate by pointing out Wurmser is that generally there seems little comprehension about how radical and dogmatic the Bush Administration's foreign policies actually is, and how serious these people are about about 'not negotiating with evil but defeating it'. That's not just some politico crafting his words for sound bites. They are dead serious. Currently this is the official US Administration stance in US foreign policy. And they clearly do not see war as a last resort, but as a completely legitimate tool to achieve a political goal.

And to answer to Dinsdale and T2, this is not 'raking on the US', but to underline what these people are capable of when left to themselves, say when ignored, and as such, in my earnest way, a reminder that they should not be taken lightly. That said, I really hope I'm indeed just an utter pessimist, and wrong.

 

Unless Iran backs down on it's Nuclear plans, I believe there is almost certainly going to be a bombing war by George W.
The rhetoric that I see reported here indicates that anything else would cause a massive loss of face to GWB - something I don't see him taking very well.

 

I wanted to vote No War but ended up voting dunno.

I said this a couple of years ago but I'll say it again. I do not trust Bush and scares the hell out of me. I won't say more than that because I don't want to get myself or the Board in trouble.

No, we are not in a position to wage a ground war but who knows maybe the Executive Branch does think we could win with just air Strikes. And if there were enough we might win that battle but IMO we loose our allies.