Is Iran Next on Bush's Military Agenda?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Art
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential military actions the United States might take regarding Iran's nuclear program, particularly in light of President Bush's statements about keeping "all options on the table." Participants explore the implications of military intervention, the geopolitical landscape, and the responses from Iran and other nations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that a military strike against Iran is likely if current positions remain unchanged, suggesting an airstrike on identified strategic targets.
  • Others question the legitimacy of the U.S. claiming the right to protect its security while considering whether other nations, like Iran, have the right to defend themselves against U.S. actions.
  • There is speculation about Iran's potential retaliation, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz, which could complicate U.S. military operations in Iraq.
  • Some participants highlight the historical context of Israel's actions against nuclear threats in the region, suggesting that Israel would not allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities.
  • A few posts reference past negotiations between Iran and Iraq, indicating a mutual defense pact that could affect U.S. strategies.
  • Concerns are raised about the U.S. military's capacity to engage in another conflict, with some suggesting that a draft or nuclear options may be considered if the situation escalates.
  • Participants note the potential for broader geopolitical consequences, including the involvement of China and Russia, and the risk of escalating tensions leading to a larger conflict.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of U.S. military action, the rights of nations to defend themselves, and the potential consequences of such actions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the current state of negotiations between Iran and Iraq, the evolving geopolitical landscape, and the assumptions regarding military capabilities and international responses.

  • #61
Skyhunter said:
More people believe we share a common ancestor than believe in evolution :confused: :confused:

Maybe they believe that apes evolved from humans and not the other way around. (I'm joking, of course, but the poll would make sense if this were the case.)

Now what was that about fundamentalism in the US?

It's unchanged since 1982?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
El Hombre Invisible said:
What comes next? Invading a country on the grounds it WOULD comprimise American national security if it ever considered acquiring the means?

Several steps are ahead:

1) invading neutral countries that might, one day, decide not to consider not to acquire the means.

2) invading allies that might one day distanciate themselves, placing them in situation 1).

3) invading the US itself, on the grounds that one day, it might consider NOT to invade countries satisfying 2), and hence put itself at danger.

4) destroy themselves right now, because they might one day decide upon 3) and hence pose a big threat to the US, which has to be eliminated pre-emptively.

:smile:
 
  • #63
Skyhunter said:
Now what was that about fundamentalism in the US?

Guh, a bunch of theocrats with nukes, scary !
 
  • #64
In spite of Iran's nuclear program taking the headlines, I think possible conventional weapons coming into Iraq from Iran are a little troubling.

An Iraq based on Shiite law would make a better neighbor for Iran than a pro-US neighbor would, so there's at least some credibility in the idea that Iran would like to see enough chaos in Iraq that the US won't be very picky about how we get out. Assuming, of course, Iran thinks it could help the Iraqi Shiites prevent an all out civil war from breaking out - we're having a hard time doing that, ourselves.

I don't think the US would bomb Iran based on the nuclear weapons program alone. But, there's always been a big risk of the Iraq invasion spilling over the border into Syria or Iran. I wouldn't be at all shocked to see the war spread over the border and into Iran.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
41K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
23K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K