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

Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

  1. Sep 30, 2007 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2007 #2
    mmm i really, really, don't think so.. how will it look if the republicans invade THREE countries during their administration??

    then again they've more than likely already lost re-election so they must just do it lol sad times

    edit: if anyone should make a strike on iran's nuclear facilities its israel, who is directly threatened by both that nuclear program and the government of iran.
     
  4. Sep 30, 2007 #3
    Cheney is crazy enough to attack Iran. Is Bush sane enough to stop him?
     
  5. Sep 30, 2007 #4
    If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

    -How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

    -Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

    -Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

    -What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

    -To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2007
  6. Sep 30, 2007 #5
    hahaha

    I would like a similar video system setup within the whitehouse. C-SPAN just won't cut it since congress is acting like a lame duck. I want to know if Cheney runs on energizers. Or more importantly, if there is a memory purger that can reduce any response to "I don't remember".


    Intuitively, I think a strike will happen. It has come to a stage where those in power are willing to risk it all in an act of desperation. Why would one want to focus on domestic issues, when we are still able to pay for our big guns? The atmosphere had clearly shift toward a hardline approach regarding Iran. Just watch any Rep debate and see how Ron Paul being the only candidate who is serious about diplomacy. The hawks might not have the consensus to initiate action, but then again they never really need it.
     
  7. Sep 30, 2007 #6
    I seriously doubt that we could do much of anything in Iran without causing an international crisis. China is heavily involved in developing oil production in Iran.

    http://www.investmentu.com/research/crude-oil-forecast.html

    China also holds about $600 billion in U.S. treasury bills and other government backed securities. China isn't about to roll over and play dead if do anything that interferes with their oil interests in the ME.

    Rather than buying oil on the open market with almost daily price fluctuations, China"s nationalized oil companies have been paying cash up front for long term supply commitments.
     
  8. Oct 1, 2007 #7
    Oh, the flow of animosity and hatred shall flow for centuries to come. You will not bear the suffering, but your children, grandchildren shall suffer the consequences. Have you not learn anything from age old conflicts that you've created. For your animosity and hatred are the weapons of mass destruction.
    Millions people will be displaced, millions will die. Is IRAQ not enough of a holocaust? Does the dead have to be your allies and have to your ideology before you considered a holocaust? Does the quantity have to be >1,000,000 dead within specified time frame before you considered to be a holocaust? In the eyes of the Almighty even ONE is considered a holocaust. To the Jews, Christian, Muslim-the reasons and justification you have of animosity will not modify the hypocracy in the eyes of your creator. Let the conflicts begin, for you shall kill your own brother.
     
  9. Oct 1, 2007 #8

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

    The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

    This clearly shows that Hillary considers dealing with the Revolutionary Guard equivalent to dealing with the leaders of Iran... a position right out of the Bush/Cheney neocon playbook.

    I'm sure lots of high resolution satellite photographs are being stockpiled even now.

    It's just a question of who gets to say, 'go'.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2007
  10. Oct 1, 2007 #9

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who do you believe after all the doublespeak coming out of Washington?
     
  11. Oct 1, 2007 #10

    mjsd

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    we definitely don't need another war so soon......
    and WHY anyway?

    mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter :smile:
     
  12. Oct 2, 2007 #11
    FYI...............................

    Ellsberg calls for actions to prevent war with Iran
    By MICHAEL YODER, Staff
    Intelligencer Journal
    Published: Sep 28, 2007 12:58 AM EST

    http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/210086
    Click the link above to read the whole article, short but informative.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2007 #12

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    If you look at a map of Iran, you will see that the US occupies territory along both the eastern (Iraq) and western (Afghanistan) border. We have them in a classic pincer movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement) and we could (if we had the will) squeeze them like a zit until they popped. That's what Iran is so freaked out about, and I can't blame them. How would the US feel if the former Soviet Union simultaneously attacked and occupied Canada and Mexico while stopping to search all of our sea traffic just outside our jurisdictional waters? If we didn't already have nuclear weapons, we would find a way to get them... and quick.

    Iran is a huge source of instability in the middle east and their rising influence has their arab neighbors quite uneasy. It is very likely that the US is acting the part of the mercenary on behalf of wealthy arab states to check Iran's rising power. How many anti-american protests do you see on the streets of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

    Thus the 'status quo' needs a war with Iran to keep the good times rolling. I can hardly wait until the US is free of the influence of Middle East oil....
     
  14. Oct 2, 2007 #13

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

    John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote. Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

    Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization')
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
  15. Oct 2, 2007 #14
    At least read the first few sentences of an article before you post it.

    It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

    It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.
     
  16. Oct 2, 2007 #15

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I guess I should have said that his wife didn't vote for it because... Clearly tongue-in-cheek.

    But is it likely that McCain will ever be president? I think that "President Obama" is a very likely thing, if not in '08 then perhaps in '12 or '16.

    So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
  17. Oct 2, 2007 #16

    chemisttree

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I think that some are just laughing it off.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  18. Oct 2, 2007 #17

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Absolutely. Iran can refuse to buy any Western materials, equipment, goods, or technology associated with nuclear programs from any Western nation and it can also refuse to sell arms to any Western nation. Doing so would at least bring Iran's foreign policy in accordance with Newton's Third Law of Physics.

    The issues between Iran and the US appear to be unresolvable unless Iran gives up on a nuclear program. If they're not going to give up their nuclear program then they have little to lose by responding "Bite me!" to the US. The US will attack the Iranian Republican Guard or it won't. There's little Iran could say that would have much affect one way or the other.
     
  19. Oct 2, 2007 #18

    Art

    User Avatar

    Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

    Still I'm sure the neo-cons will see this as only a small speed bump on their path to war. The character assassination of Mohamed El- Baradei has started already. He is being called such things as the 'Rogue Regulator' for daring to report facts that contravene the Bush propaganda machine.

    Funny how not so long back he was being feted by the same propaganda machine as the honest, independent investigator who Iran must satisfy.

    Still 'it's an ill wind that blows nobody some good' and so although the rest of the world would view an attack on Iran and it's likely consequences as an appalling disaster some people somewhere will do very nicely out of it I am sure.

    DeJa Vu anyone?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
  20. Oct 2, 2007 #19
    The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?
     
  21. Oct 2, 2007 #20

    Art

    User Avatar

    Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand............
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?
  1. Attack Iran ? (Replies: 127)

  2. Will Israel Attack Iran? (Replies: 92)

Loading...