What's the main plans for TIRRANNT (The military action against Iran)?
398168
It is my impression it is a plan of containment, and limited action.  Diplomatic pressure is most likely not going to be effective.  Some form of action will be required but it will be a group of nations involved with limited military involvement.
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.
131581
There's lots of saber rattling right now, but I think the people in power would be stupid to try and invade Iran - the Islamic view of the Western nations isn't so great as it is (especially now), and any attack against Iran would really be adding fuel to the fire.
210236
I don't see anything happening over Iran too soon.  Any US president would be insane to start a war with Iran and should be sent to a psychiatric facility immediately.  The EU and NATO definitely won't do anything to piss the Iranians off, Iran has missiles that are within range of their countries.  The UN doesnt have the balls to do anything either (plus you have Russia and China who'll oppose a lot on the Security Council).  Frankly, I think Israel is the only one who can be counted on to do anything at all--which in their case is going to be military action.  That, sadly, is going to drag us (the U.S.), if not Europe, in as well.
121654
I have to say, you have a very good name (I'm not trying to suck up). My guess is that the old adage will prove to be true: "if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it." The leader of Iran will start building up his arsenal and he will start being threatening the surrounding countries. He will do something radical like bomb Israel and the world will try to appease him. But since he is a psychopath with nothing on his mind but wiping Israel from the face of this Earth, it will not work. He will start a big war and encite a lot of hatred of the Muslim people (more so than 9-11). It will progress in the same way that World War II progressed until someone does something. The only question is who will it be? Jaques Chirac made some statements standing up to him so it may even be France. Wouldn't that be ironic? The UN is not going to do anything about this just like it has never done anything about anything else. They are like an assistant principal they have no real authority.
379494
Today?...NO. Somewhere in the near future..YES. Considering he planned the war in Iraq, there is no doubt that he wont invade Iran to. The plans are on the table, the option is open..why no just start a world war 3. I really think that is what this country is coming too.
54867
To use as a staging area for the rest of ww3. Iran is probably next
143897
an outline of all of the nations you want to attack
462557
watch the word IRAN start appearing more in print and tv as the elections start back up very soon\n\nIRAN HATES THE UNITED STATES.... Just in case u have not been paying attentiion
27880
The U.N. will not be passing any resolutions anytime soon that would involve actual military action against any government or nation anytime soon. I doubt the EU would either since for that organization to pass any resolution that authorizes military force would require a general consensus among its member nations--you can count on them not act in such a way. Also, some member nations would be in the line of fire were Iran to complete its assembly of a nuclear weapon. Thus, considering that fact as well, they would be apprehensive. Thus it would down to us since it is unlikely that other nations would be bold enough to act with force premptively until they are directly threatened or attacked. So would I, right now, support U.S. military action against Iran? No, I would not: I believe our forces are spread too thin right now, domestically and across the globe where they are stationed in other countries. Also, it would be, in general, a bit too hasty to simply invade until we have secured Iraq. In an added note, I would respond to the last part of your question by asking you that if we did invade, why would we not take the time to topple the regime? In the event of an invasion, it would be the wisest choice to do that and not simply to "destroy" or dismantle the nuclear reactor facilities. To leave them in power would be like amputating the finger that has ganggreen, but not sterilizing it completely thus allowing it to fester and grow once more. Another problem with your final annecdote, it would not be so simply just to "destroy" a reactor. Such action would have massively negative reprocusions, i.e. a high civilian casualties. To dismantle it might prove just as tricky and it would surely take time and maintenance by specialists familiar with the workings of nuclear reactors. Additionally, were we to invade (and it is clear that if we did such an action must include toppling the religious-extremist regime as well)--for this reason it would be necessary for us to leave troops stationed their while the next government is installed as in Iraq. So finally, in order to do this most effectively were it to be done, Iraq would have to be secured and our troops pulled out of that region first. Before that happens, our hands are tied even if Rumsfeld or Bush will not admit it: we are chained to the options of diplomacy through the U.N. for now and/or to economic sanctions (which I believe have already been imposed). Logistically speaking, from a man-power and resource perspective, as well as a domestic approval view (whether or not both congress and the american people are in favor on such an action), it would not be in our best interest to take such action. I would not support it at this time.\n\nackerson87@yahoo.com if you would like to continue this discussion or have any other questions we might discuss.
519674
I see the Point of the Article.....But  I think the Administration is taking the right Approach here,This is my opinion why:1-The younger Generation of Iran do not like its Gov. Policies.Wouldnt be surprised if some or all allied nations trying to stir people against war.2-Irans leader has been making unprovoked threats to many nations,making this a European problem as well.Because of types of threats,War could very well mean WWIII.I think Administration is hoping that our Allies take the lead in any negotiations because Irans military capabilities make it a bigger threat to europe.3-If it comes to American military involvement,look at a map,to see where our soldiers are with regards to Iran.With Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,Fleets in Persian Gulf, And our bases in Europe and Asia,we are well positioned Militarily.Although my personal belief is that Iranian leader is Crazy(literally)I hope this situation resloves itself.The majority of young Iranians are just like us,they want to live like us and european nations,its just that they have a lunatic with a very large military loyal to that lunatic for a leader.Please note that my opinion is based on what I know and learned through discussions with Iranian Immigrants at school.\nSorry 4 any typos...heavily medicated....
528774
What are my ideas? Quite simple. He is going to be the reason another World War will happen. Already there is war in Iraq. If the Iranian President decides to attack Isreal, Isreal will strike back, causing probably Russia and Chian to attack Isreal, which then the US and Britain will get dragged in to fight Russia, China, and Iran. See since there are so many alliances in the Middle East, just like in World War 2, lighting the wrong fuse will cause a big bang that will escalate to World War 3.
46986
What we should do is to work with the rest of the world to isolate Iran. That would mean no trade with the country except for food. It would destroy their economy and send the message that the world won't tolerate their behavior. \n\nWhat will happen will be completly different and nothing will happen to Iran. Many countries are too thirsty for their oil so they will not support any sanctions.\n\nI think what we should do is to kill the top leaders of Iran. War is too expensive and sanctions do not work.
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! : )
147386
WOW!! SMART MOVE BUDDY!! If someone tells their plan on this site which the Iranian government checks, their plan will not work, not because the government will know, but because they are so stupid to post it on the internet! But to answer you, yes there probebly is. By the US government, the Mojahedin e Khalgh, all opposition parties, and the young population of Iran.
706670
They need something over there to be bombed.  I think a few cruise missiles are in order simply to wake up ahmadinejad and scare the sheet out of him.  There must be some actions and repercussions for what they are doing.  If there aren't, why would they ever stop?  It needs to be done now BEFORE they have a nuclear arsenal.  Same goes for north korea.
378616
The Iranian government should be restructured; I'm not sure that an invasion is the best way to do it. But, with their stated goals of wiping out Israel, etc., and their pursuit of nuclear weapons (not nuclear power; they have plenty of oil) they are scary, scary.