Is Iran Next on Bush's Military Agenda?

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

President Bush's declaration that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran's nuclear program indicates a potential military strike if Iran does not comply with international demands. The discussion highlights the geopolitical complexities, including the likelihood of China and Russia vetoing UN sanctions against Iran, and the implications of a military response, such as the occupation of the Iranian shoreline to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The conversation also raises concerns about the potential for escalating conflict in the Middle East and the impact on U.S. foreign policy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy
  • Knowledge of Iran's nuclear program and international relations
  • Familiarity with the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East
  • Awareness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on international relations
  • Study the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations and military interventions
  • Examine the role of China and Russia in Middle Eastern geopolitics
  • Investigate the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in global oil supply
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for political analysts, international relations scholars, military strategists, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

  • #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