Will Mr. Bush Attack Iran? - Ardian's Opinion

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ardian007
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for a U.S. military attack on Iran, exploring various viewpoints on the motivations, implications, and likelihood of such an action. Participants reference historical context, rumors, and geopolitical considerations, with a focus on the current political climate and military readiness.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the likelihood of an attack, suggesting that current military commitments make it impractical.
  • Others speculate that the U.S. may be seeking justifications for military action similar to past conflicts, particularly referencing Iraq.
  • A few contributions highlight intelligence reports and military activities, such as reconnaissance flights over Iran, as indicators of potential aggression.
  • Some participants argue that the U.S. has no substantial reason to attack Iran, questioning the validity of claims regarding weapons of mass destruction and terrorism links.
  • There are claims that the U.S. may target Iranian nuclear facilities, with some suggesting that Israel's interests influence U.S. actions.
  • Several participants draw parallels between the current situation and past rumors about U.S. intentions, noting that many such rumors have proven unfounded.
  • Concerns are raised about the political ramifications for U.S. allies, particularly the UK, should an attack occur.
  • Some participants express a belief that military force will no longer be the primary means of engagement in future conflicts, suggesting a shift towards political and economic pressures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the U.S. will attack Iran. Multiple competing views are presented, with some asserting that an attack is unlikely while others believe it is a possibility. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources and rumors, but there are no definitive claims or agreements on the motivations or outcomes of potential military actions. The discussion includes speculative elements and relies on interpretations of current events.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those following U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and international relations, particularly in the context of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

ardian007
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody, what do you think will Mr. Bush next move is he going to attack Iran?

I have heard some rumors that U.S.A. troops are trying to find a pretext, (justifications), in order to attack Iran, as they did for Iraq, will they?
I think they are just mad about the petrol nothing else.
What do you think, will they attack Iran or not?
If you have more information send, me any thanks, Ardian...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, the US is not going to attack Iran. I don't have any information for you though - the rumors are just that: rumors.
 
russ_watters said:
No, the US is not going to attack Iran. I don't have any information for you though - the rumors are just that: rumors.
You know, right after 9/11, and hell, even before 9/11, people were spreading rumors that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq...
 
I think that the US will attack something within the next 6 months or so, or at least get started.
 
If you'll forgive me quoting myself, this is from my opening post on the thread 'Where will it end?'
the number 42 said:
This is from an article in The New Yorker by award winning reporter, Seymour Hersh:

"Report: U.S. conducting secret missions in Iran. New Yorker article says
U.S. commandos in place in 10 Middle East nations.

...One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6832704/
 
This is a link to an article I saw today.


http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r
 
Last edited by a moderator:
US is sending flights to Iran to check the defences and spot potential targets. "The idea is to get the Iranians turn on the radar to get an assesment of their air defences" an Intelligence surce in washington said. Source: The Hindu, 30th January, 2005
 
chound said:
US is sending flights to Iran to check the defences and spot potential targets. "The idea is to get the Iranians turn on the radar to get an assesment of their air defences" an Intelligence surce in washington said. Source: The Hindu, 30th January, 2005

This sort of game has being in place with the military for the past 50yr, is goes on all the time and it is significant of nothing.

While I have little respect for Shrub's intelligence, I cannot believe that the Pentagon would allow him to start yet another war. Though, it is always possible, that if they see an opening, the Iranians could attempt to take Iraq.

I have absolutely no basis for saying that other then ... Well they were at war with Iraq for most of the '80s so there are probably a few left who would like to finish it.
 
wasteofo2 said:
You know, right after 9/11, and hell, even before 9/11, people were spreading rumors that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq...
There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what?
Integral said:
While I have little respect for Shrub's intelligence, I cannot believe that the Pentagon would allow him to start yet another war.
Why...? Because we can't fight another war right now. Even for those who think Bush wants to, that's a point that can't be ignored. Though the military is technically supposed to be able to fight two large regional wars simultaneously, we could not fight a war in Iran right now. It just ain't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
USA on orders from Tel Aviv will attack Iranian nuclear power plants.Syria is also very propable target.One of them for sure.
 
  • #11
President Bush is planning to attack every enemy of Israel: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, North Korea, etc.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what? Why...? Because we can't fight another war right now. Even for those who think Bush wants to, that's a point that can't be ignored

I didn't know that factual predictions were of any value in the determination of Bush's politics :-p
I think the US CAN start a second war. They cannot win it, but they can start it :smile:. So let's give it a go :-p
 
  • #13
And draft is coming :smile: :smile: :smile: .I have no respect for people who voted and support this government,only death of their close ones will teach them to think!
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
There were rumors that David Koresh was Jesus. So what?
The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq. David Koresh, as far as I know, didn't actually turn out to be Jesus, but there were plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about Bush wanting to attack Iraq, and other policy decisions, that came to pass.
 
  • #15
wasteofo2 said:
The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq. David Koresh, as far as I know, didn't actually turn out to be Jesus, but there were plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about Bush wanting to attack Iraq, and other policy decisions, that came to pass.
Hmm, you must have been listening to different people then I, cause I don't remember that one...
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
we could not fight a war in Iran right now. It just ain't going to happen.
Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?
 
  • #17
This thread is just too funny :smile:
 
  • #18
ramollari said:
Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?
Besides the ones I already gave? Well, one good reason not to is that we don't have a reason to attack Iran.
wasteofo2 said:
The "so what?" is that in effect, the rumors about George Bush came to pass, even with like a year of people saying that it was ridiculous that we'd attack Iraq.
Besides what kat said, that's a self-reinforcing, unfalisifiable statement (ie, its meaningless): since Bush has 4 years left in office, any rumor that has yet to come true still might (you can't count up how many have and how many haven't) - therefore you cannot base a judgement of an individual rumor on history.
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
This thread is just too funny :smile:

:confused:

Why? Because some members are saying that the US isn't out to get Iran?
 
  • #20
You live in London, will the UK join the US in attacking Iran, if it does happen? If yes, then what will happen to Blair lol? Assassinated?
 
  • #21
I don't think Blair and Labour can afford to follow Bush any further. He knows Labour will lose the election in May if the voters think for a second that he would. Having said that, these people are such bare-faced liars you can never tell what their true intentions are. However, Blair's words at Bush's inauguration weren't too warlike: “It is possible to construct an international agenda that is more consensual, more multilateral than what has gone before," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6846727/

As for assasination, we haven't gone in for that over here in recent years. However, the leader of the Labour party before Blair died of an untimely heart attack in 1994, paving the way for Blair to fill his shoes, move Labour politically to the centre, and win the election in 1997. I'm not given to conspiracy theories, but as John Smith was a traditional socialist, you can bet that the UK would never have backed Bush's adventures.
http://www.ukpolitics.org.uk/cgi/viewnews.cgi?id=1017135078
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
russ_watters said:
Besides the ones I already gave? Well, one good reason not to is that we don't have a reason to attack Iran.

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?
 
  • #23
vanesch said:
WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

In the first two, at least, Iran is for real where Iraq was a sham. Hmmm. Maybe Iran was the real target all the time and Iraq was only conquered to become "airstrip one". Afghanistan being "airstrip two".
 
  • #24
I’m reasonably certain the US has fought its last conventional war. Military force will simply be one of many means to subdue an enemy. Iran might look forward to immense political pressure, a few surgical strikes, economic subterfuge of unimaginable proportions, shipping embargos, 10’s of billions of dollars in support of a revolution…

. . .
 
  • #25
selfAdjoint said:
Maybe Iran was the real target all the time and Iraq was only conquered to become "airstrip one".

I wonder how kindly the Shia majority party that gets voted in will take to the idea of the US using their land as "airstrip one" in a campaign against Iran ?
 
  • #26
ramollari said:
Have you any special reasons why USA wouldn't do that?

1. Resources are spread too thin to support a full-fledged war against Iran in the near future. Perhaps you think that the Iranian Military capability is comparable to Iraq's ?

Iraq's military comprised of virtually no air force or navy, and an army that surrendered at the first sign of US troops.

Iran, on the other hand has a serious air force comprising hundreds of fixed wing and rotary craft as well as a bunch of UAVs (yes Iran really has these). Their navy includes a couple each of subs and frigates, but several each of missile, amphibious, minelaying and support craft. Their army has about 300,000 tropps, but more importantly, they actually have serious tank batallions and amored cav and mobile artillery units. Invading Iran will not be the (military) walk-in-the-park that Iraq was.

Also keep in mind that Iran is about 4 times the size of Iraq, and the terrain is much more harsh. And the Rumsfeld Doctrine, having failed resoundingly, Pentagon will no doubt have to go back to something resembling the Powell Doctrine (retaining some aspects of the Rummy Plan, but surely asking for more boots on the ground).

2. Congress is once bitten.

3. I used to think that it would be impossible to gain popular support for this idea, but I'm not so sure anymore.

4. A draft will be an incredibly tough sell unless you have a direct attack on the homeland. In the case of Iraq, the administration was able to fool the people into blaming Saddam for 9/11.

5. No money.

I can see only one possibility for a war against Iran in anywhere near the immediate future. It would be if Iran makes a move against Iraq, and the World (UN/NATO/Middle East) has to rally together, and the role of the US is substantially diminished.

I'm actually mad at Bush for not being able to pose a military threat to Iran (due to the Iraq effort), who is a much bigger threat to stability in the ME. He can talk all he wants about "not ruling out the military option", but Iran is clearly calling his bluff.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
vanesch said:
WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?
I don't consider the first two to be credible threats and the third is decreasing because Iran is moderating. Also, these 3 could be said about a handful of other countries, and the last two about dozens. Its too broad of an argument - need something specific.

SA, I won't argue 'if we did this to Iraq for this reason, we'll do that to Iran for that reason' - separate countries, separate issues. Like I said before, the same arguments could be made about a number of other countries. And here's one of the key differences:
Gokul said:
I'm actually mad at Bush for not being able to pose a military threat to Iran (due to the Iraq effort), who is a much bigger threat to stability in the ME.
I tend to disagree: I'm not a big fan of Iran, but they haven't invaded anyone lately. Hussein's expansionist desires (if not his efforts) were neverending. Does anyone really believe that had we normalized relations with him, he would have immediately restarted his WMD programs in full force and begun plotting his next move? Iran, apparently, has no such ambitions (their WMD program is a bargaining chip and nothing more).

edit: apropos again - Iran Open to Ties to US. This actually looks to me like the Libya situation that the liberal media ignored: "rational fear," leading to compromise. The nuclear plant thing is just a chip that Iran may be getting ready to cash-in.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Remember too that Iran is a Muslim state, in contrast to secular Iraq under Hussein, thus the potential to offend neighbouring Muslim nations is greater. There are many other reasons why attacking Iran isn't a good idea, but let's face it: GWB is not a man of good ideas.
 
  • #29
GWB is not a man of good ideas.
Lol, perhaps...but, the mayor of Baghdad wants to build him a monument. Maybe he knows something you don't... hmmmmm...
 
  • #30
Next time you get a chance to look at a map of the middle east get a big black marker and draw an X on Afghanistan, one more on Iraq and a slightly smaller one in Israel. That's where the Americans are.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
17K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
15K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
24K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
42K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K