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.

  • #61
vanesch said:
...it is not evident that an Iranian Ayatollah-directed Islamic Republic of Iraq is what the US imagines as the best ally against Iran.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say is that the Bush administration propaganda machine is not to be underestimated -- i.e., they are now saying they would accept an Islamic government in Iraq. And perhaps Bush would support an Islamic government if it is an ally--which is what was wanted from regime change. Saudi Arabia is not the model of democracy, but because they are an ally... There is a list of non-democratic countries, including those with "ruthless" dictators like Saddam that the U.S. has supported--not so long ago the Shah of Iran. Your point that Sistani may not be an ally, well now that is something to consider.

Thank you for your reply! :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
The actual 'Iran' issue is that the West fears nuclear weapons in Iran hands. The West uses the Non Proliferation Treaty to forbid Iran to develop such weapons.

But: "The nuclear states have tried to contain the spread of nuclear weapons by a range of technical, political and legal means, mostly under the framework of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the failure of the nuclear states to implement their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to eliminate nuclear weapons threatens this. Mexico, for example, told the International Court of Justice in November 1995 that if the nuclear states did not meet their commitments to disarm within a reasonable timeframe " we would need to revise our continuation as party to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." (Sergio Gonzalez Galvez, Undersecretary of Foreign Relations for Mexico. Presentation to the International Court of Justice, November 3, 1995.)"
http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/A%20bomb%20in%20search.htm

OK, that's maybe old news ... but the majors nuclear powers need also to execute their obligations. Just like Iran must.
 
  • #63
I've always found the 'our WMDs good, your WMDs bad' attitude pretty inane, and probably not the best basis for negotiations.
 
  • #64
But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President. :wink:
 
  • #65
Gokul43201 said:
But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

:smile: I stand corrected :biggrin:

Gokul43201 said:
Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President. :wink:

You mean God and Junior aren't one & the same?
:biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
16K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
14K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
23K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
41K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
10K