Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Will Iran be Bush's next target?

  1. Aug 13, 2005 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm
    Following Iran breaking the UN seals and publicly stating it intends to resume it's uranium enrichment program it is believed the IAEC will shortly refer the matter to the UN security council. It is unlikely that any harsh measures against Iran will be adopted by the security council as it is probable that China and possibly Russia too will veto any such action.

    From Bush's remarks today it appears that unless either Iran or the US fundamentally change their current positions a military strike is inevitable. Assuming the initial attack will be an air strike against the ~350 strategic targets identified in Iran one wonders how this scenario will then play itself out?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 13, 2005 #2
    " Operation Iranian Freedom "
     
  4. Aug 13, 2005 #3
    See ... that's just it.

    Where is it written that only the USA has the right to 'protect it's security' when the only country to take an active stance on invasion IS the USA?

    Does the rest of the world have the right to defend itself against the USA?

    And if so, if they can't afford to arm themselves with enough conventional weapons to keep them out, should they be allowed the use of nukes to achieve their goals?

    China just negotiated a big oil deal with the Iranians.

    If the Chinese decide to accept the US definition that oil is a "National Security Issue", would China be right in defending the sovreignty of Iran ... With Nukes?

    Be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.
     
  5. Aug 13, 2005 #4

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It probably wouldn't be a quick series of strikes and then out. Iran could retaliate to some degree, which would create a long term problem.

    In retaliation, Iran could make passing through the Strait of Hormuz a treacherous experience. That means the US would either have to continue the bombing campaign for the duration of the Iraq war, or airlift everything and everyone into and out of Iraq. Even a bombing campaign wouldn't completely eliminate the threat. The only way to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz would be for US troops to occupy the Iranian shoreline along the Persian Gulf.

    Bombing Iran might also alienate the other Middle Eastern countries. If you don't have safe shipping, you at least need somewhere safe in the region to stage airlift operations into and out of Iraq.

    Staging air operations out of Iraq itself would be one option, but not Southern Iraq, since the Shiites in the region might be a little miffed at the idea of the US bombing Shiite Iran.

    Even in the worst case, where Iran decides to fight back and the rest of Middle East turns on the US, sustaining the war in Iraq might be doable. But you'd have to wonder why the US would intentionally make matters more difficult than they already are (Iran is obviously of this opinion, since they probably aren't intentionally trying to get bombed).
     
  6. Aug 13, 2005 #5
    One problem with that scenario.

    America has been tapped out.

    You have no forces left.

    Since there is nobody left to fight this war, the draft is the only thing left open or the use of nukes ... which option is going to take place.

    Like I said, the 'big lie' is already there in the newspaper.

    Three months ago, there were heavy negotiations with the Europeans trying to mitigate the damage the USA had caused in the area and regular announcements of visits from the Iraqi Foreign Minister building bridges between the US's new government and Iran.

    I can no longer find references to those negotiations on the internet using the simple search of 'Iran Iraq' however take a look at what DOES pop up. :surprised
     
  7. Aug 13, 2005 #6
    do not forget the main player in the region Israel. they are never going to let Iran have nuclear power station, they have allready bombed Iraq's reactor in 1981, so what is gonna stop them now ?
     
  8. Aug 13, 2005 #7
    China.
    :rolleyes:
     
  9. Aug 13, 2005 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    During those negotiations the new Iraqi gov't and Iran negotiated a mutual defence pact. This was allegedly watered down following US intervention to a commitment from Iraq that they will not allow the US to use Iraq as a launch base for attacks on Iran. http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

    The danger now is, I think Bush sees himself in the role of J F Kennedy when he faced down the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis (with an attitude of it worked for us before so why not again). The difference this time is the extra imponderables such as religion, what China and Russia will do and what the rest of the middle east will do.

    If Iran decides to call Bush's 'bluff' it isn't hard to imagine a scenario developing whereby the world is plunged into WW3. If this transpires it seems likely the US will be standing alone, even the rightwing Sunday Times in an opinion piece by former conservative minister Michael Portillo, is critical of US foreign policy over Iran and Blair has already distanced himself from the US with regard to Iran.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2005
  10. Aug 13, 2005 #9

    Art

    User Avatar

    There are too many targets that would need to be taken out and they are too well defended for Israel to attack them on their own.
     
  11. Aug 13, 2005 #10
    I only hope and pray Iran does have few nukes and in retaileation they use them, like every other sovereign nation would answer to an unprovoked attack.
    USA/Israel/UK and the other western puppets bastards just don't have the right to dictate other nations what they can and can't do.
    And by the way, how come it is so quiet about evil N.Korea ? Oh ! right, they have no oil.
     
  12. Aug 13, 2005 #11

    Art

    User Avatar

    You're right they don't have the right
    quotes from M Portillo's article referenced above.
     
  13. Aug 13, 2005 #12
    we just need pretext "terrorist bombing " here in great USA to launch attack on Iran, and bombing of Iranian facilities will go smoothly when two greatest air powers go together.
     
  14. Aug 13, 2005 #13

    Art

    User Avatar

    The North Koreans are renowned for their paronoia and it appears current activity in the south by Korean and US forces isn't helping to reassure them. I'd have thought the last thing the US would need right now is to alarm the North Koreans when they potentially possess several nuclear weapons.
    http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=8e825582-15ef-408d-8a90-30ee180ba119 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  15. Aug 13, 2005 #14

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I somehow suspect "retaileation" is a red herring: don't you simply wish for the annihilation of the U.S.?
     
  16. Aug 13, 2005 #15
    Yeah, if only Iran had some nukes. Then all they'd have to do is stick them in their ICBMs, launch them (they must have 100-200 by now) at every major city and military installation in the states to comepletely annihilate them. Oh, and then easily destroy American counter-attack ICBMs with upgraded SCUD missiles bought from Russia.
     
  17. Aug 13, 2005 #16
    But what happens after the bombings?

    If we touch one single iota of Iran's oil production we shoot ourselves in the foot again, something at which the Bush administration seems to excel.
     
  18. Aug 14, 2005 #17
    There's a sizable article with plently of links at GlobalSecurity.org. Of particular interest are the reactions of Isreali leaders, who vocally support their intent to a pre-emptive strike:

    Also, the author present a case that some enrinchment facilites may be hidden underground and still unknown to us, as with the DPRK (a scary thought).
     
  19. Aug 14, 2005 #18
    And then invade Canada and establish the Sharia and Islamic theocracy :biggrin:

    And if they don't submit, nuke them too.
     
  20. Aug 14, 2005 #19
    Fine by me. But I'll obviously start a revolutionary movement and declare BC it's own sovereign state with a green anarcho-socialist government.
     
  21. Aug 14, 2005 #20
    You won't get a chance. Remember they'll NUKE you. And without the US or some other free country, Canada won't even be able to retaliate.
     
  22. Aug 14, 2005 #21
    FINE! I'll just have to infiltrate their military command structure and sabotage all the targets that would harm my new state. Geeze, you always have to make it difficult for me don't you!?
     
  23. Aug 14, 2005 #22
    Iranians or Persians except for long time ago never invaded other country, instead they were subjected to constant pillaging, so I'm not too worried about Iran.
     
  24. Aug 14, 2005 #23


    Israel will have to careful not to bomb anything with the Halliburton logo on it.

    quote
    "By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
    Updated: 12:24 a.m. ET March 8, 2005
    It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.

    But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.

    Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran."quote

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/

    There have been sanctions against U.S. Companies doing business with Iran since 1995. Halliburton claims it's Caymen Islands subsidiary is exempt.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2005
  25. Aug 14, 2005 #24

    Art

    User Avatar

    Iran are now countering with their own threats against the US;
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-14-iranuranium_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

    Bravado or do they have something unexpected to defend themselves against the US with?
     
  26. Aug 14, 2005 #25
    i think after iran heats up a little more, UN will deal with it in some way. from what iv read, its going to be 5-10 years before iran will have enough material to make a bomb and by this time bush will be out of office and i expect conservative support will drop without bush and the usa will then take a less active role. the usa has to much going on already to throw something significant at iran and while there is no short term threat, things can be postponed till later, and by that time things will change.

    israel is an interesting element. maybe action from israel (or israeli soil) some 2-3 years down the road with strong backing from UN and especially strong USA support on behalf of UN?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook