Iran-Usa, willing to bet against my scenario?
339104
The "red lines" for military action is when Iran has developed:\n\n1. weapons grade enriched uranium (90-95%), ~2008\n2. next technical hurdle is constructing the trigger mechanism. 2010-11\n3. engineering device for delivery, ie, making it small enough to fit on a warhead. 2012 at the earliest.\n\nEach step is no small feat, by 2012, there may be a regime change and all the current tension will have subsided.   \n \nThe point i've been trying to make is that we've lived under the shadow of nuclear holocaust for 50 years, the real tension is the hair triggers of the US and Russian arsenals, forget about the Iranian potential.
322678
Probably not. The US is currently involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cost of attacking Iran could prove to be very, very high. I imagine the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities at some point, should the US not intervene.
617909
He will have a bulge in his pocket and a earpiece, you can bet on that, do not expect him to think for himself. I bet before it is over some neo-con idiot will blame Clinton for Iran. Any takers.
663483
We have seen the help of USA and others country when Iraq \nattacked to Iran,and Iran dad resisted with them and finally they win.Now after about 20 years Iran become more stronger then before and i think if USA could attack, They did many years ago.
367237
It will be a deep impact for USA. The united states will go to boggy!\nNo I don't mean that Iran is a powerful state. USA is very powerful and USa can beat Iran however, a war eating of the source of  a country. And many people in the world will hate USA. It is not good for American people:(
260342
Using military forces...No.\n\nBUT\n\nI think they will manipulate the World Economy so America collapses under economic ruin...especially if ANY military action is taken against Iran.
472676
Everyone, Settle down. Lets say if the us does attack Iran with in the next few months... there will be a few issues to arrise. \n\nHow can we maintain a constant shipment of oil and goods through the persian gulf?\n\nWhat will be the toll of a full scale in vasion on Iran?\n\nWill Isreal play a part?\n\nNow, considering our current locations you have to realize we are surronding Iran. East- Afghan. West- Iraq SW- Persian Gulf (Which contains US Navy Bases) We have an extremely good capability on the assault on Iran because there Ballistic Missile program doesnot hurt the US (It can really successfully target Isreal and european countries. And due to lack of accuracy there missiles can not really successfully target iraqi or afghan US bases though possible) \n\nThe actual use of US Soldiers will most likely be minimal in comparison to the Iraq effort. Most of Iran's time money and effort has gone into three things, Ballistic Missiles, Navy equip and Nuclear engineering. They are still very Third world in other aspects of military life. \n\nNow, as far as China is concerned they have recently tried to deal with russia in regards to oil (very lil US oil comes from Iran) so they can circumvent Iran. Also, China is trying to increase Sino-US relations as far as terrorism is concerned so they will most likely not take any sort of side in this conflict.\n\nRussia, they might be overall neutral but slightly more Bias towards Iran due to the fact they still have deep issues with the US. They might help Iran but the aid would be minimal incase of conflict because they do not want any open-press coverage of something like that.\n\nIsreal- The questions with Isreal's involvement are more less simple but the answers are TBD. Will Iran try to strike Isreal in last effort? Will Syria get involved(with their own goal ie: taking back the homeland) if Isreal does?\nHow will Jordan come into play, or will they not?\n\nSaudi Arbia, UAE, Quatar, Bahrain and Oman- All of these countries success lie with in US/european markets. I whole heartedly beleive they will try to stir some propaganda about this NOT being a religous war so they can gain more money and profits. Thank god for greed.\n\nPakistan- Due to the border relation with Iran will Pakistan be Neutral? They cant go against the US, They are to close of an alie. But If they did non can gurantee India would not attack them and end them for good.\n\nThats all I am gonna cover if you have any other ?'s, as always, Just Ask! : )
431849
The usa know of the iran forces and i think polotics will also hold them back as it is not going to well for them in iraq. think they may let another country like isral hit iran first rarther than dent there reputation further by going to another war within the middle east.  the whole world think the iraq war was all about oil. at the end of the day we should not be looking for war to gain oil we should be looking at new resourses as oil will run out within the next 10 - 15 years.\n\nAirstrikes no chance from usa not without backup from the UN\n\n\nbelow is a news statment of isreal and iran\n\nIran has warned Israel it will react "most severely" if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities. \nForeign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was responding to reports that the United States is to sell Israel hundreds of "bunker-busting" bombs. \n\nIsrael urged the United Nations Security Council to take action to stop Iran's nuclear programme. \n\nThe US and Israel have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. \n\nIran recently defied calls by the UN's nuclear watchdog to suspend all enrichment-related activities, insisting its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. \n\nNuclear 'nightmare' \n\nAccording to reports, the US is to sell Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker-busters", which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls. \n\nIn 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. \n\nIsraeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the UN must deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons before it is too late. \n\n"[The Iranians] are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. \n\n"We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians, but we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They're only trying to hide it." \n\nHowever, Kamal Kharrazi said Israel, not Iran, was a threat to world peace. \n\n"Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries." \n\nWhen questioned about Israel's reported purchase of the bombs, Mr Kharrazi said, "be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely".\n\nmal UK\n\nI Also agree that iran is not the danger and israel is the big danger one that claims to be a friend is most proberbly the most dangerious of all USA are not to clever and still think of israel to be a friend, i dont think so israel have the power to take the usa this is my thoughts and the USA acctually help them by selling them arms USA Govenment is all about Greed not saying UK is any better but UK seems to follow bush
475094
Bush government may attack to Iran(an attack to Syria is also within possibilities) or support the attack of Israel. But I don’t think that it is going to be within one year at least since USA may have some trouble in its backyard within forthcoming months. Brazil-China relations become closer. There is already a tension with Venezuela. There will be elections in around 10 South-America countries in 2006. At the end of this year, USA may have other Chavezes to deal with. USA is already in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is risky to attack not only Iran but any other country before having stability in the backyard. \n\nYou may look over the following link to see whats going there.\nAnalysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm
748031
I don't think saturation nuking will work, as that they won't penetrate the underground bunkers. The USA will just have to invade and risk yet another Vietnam. The invaders will all become junkies (20% of Iranians are on hard drugs) and when they lose they will have to admit millions of Iranian Shiite refugees into the USA. It's tough, I know, but there is really no alternative. The USA must stay the course. They can't let the terrorists claim victory.
90927
peace with you , look in my point of view:\niran may loss the war with U.S. and may win , but this depends on what is wining and what is losing , anyways, iran will not succumb to a forigen pressure,\nsimbily this because this is a war on islam not a war on iraq or on iran ....\ndays will show you and everyone that U.S. will compose a new stories to fight jordon ,syria and Egypt, but be sure U.S. will lose , do u know why?,\nbecause it's the evil .... days will show u too. \nby the way i come from Egypt ,and i don hate americans ppl , but i wonder why they accept on what bush do...!!!
354538
If the USA or the UN do not get Iran under control--YES.
87620
The odds are that a coalition will end up attacking Iran.  They can do alot to "placate" the world, but every day we wait they are getting closer to destabilizing the entire region.  Those who think the military cannot handle another engagement, bullpuckey.  We can call up ALL reserve and guard troops, we can start conscription, and we would WIN!  I hope like hell this does not happen, but America will not be bullied, or allow one country, JUST like Iraq, to threaten the WORLD's (not Cheney's or Bush's) oil supply.  If it was disrupted for any length of time, with a regional war, or by the theocracy in Iran(backed up with Nukes), the WORLD economy would go into instant depression.  \n\nThen who would we blame???  People forget that the entire WORLD needs peace and free access to resources, that way we all can prosper!
625223
USA is keeping Iran under pressure and giving signal to other Middle Eastern and Arab countries not to indulge terrorism. This way, interest of USA is protected by trying to suppress terrorism and controll of the oil price. At the same time, USA will not expect to see the rise of another nuclear power state in the Middle Eastern region especially Iran who has long dispute history with the USA and Israil. In my mind, unless unavoidable circumstances, USA will not go to War as they have found recent experinces from Iraq War.
68592
I think that this question is totally irrelevant. If Iran( or any muslim nation against USA)  builds nuclear facilities (civilian or military) americans will destroy that country (only becoz they c them as a threat).\n\nI think that america's common sense has been permanantly crippled by bin laden. Post 911 America views the whole world suspiciously (except their slaves in UK and friends in Israel). America has ever since been contradicting themselves. Remember the war in iraq, it was fought bcoz bush claimed to have evidence of non existent weapons and the threat of a dictator.My question to the world is "If iraq , y not pakistan?". Mushy's a dictator and one who openly admits to having nuclear weapons.\n\nI predict that soon the patience of the international community will run out. A grand alliance (Russia, China , France , India and the Arab world) could be formed so that america and americans will exist only in history textbooks.
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
24476
I think there may be a relationship between Iraq and Iran. Iran will eventually step in and take advantage of the chaos.