Engage Iran?

Question

When will we go on the offensive in Iran, our direct enemy?

Why do we persist fighting defense in Iraq?

Answer 1

Ahmadinejad is profoundly nuts. It's only a matter of time.

Answer 2

because iraq can easily be converted into an IRAN if those clerics take over... iran is sitting quietly on the sidelines waiting for us to leave and the country to fall apart so they can go in and do whatever they wish to it.

surprisingly iran has no intention (from what i understand) to fight us but we cannot attack them because we don't like or trust them (ie. iraq).

we have evidence of nuclear material being processed but are still unclear as to whether its peaceful (which even i doubt) or not... most of the people in iran are ok, its just their leader thats a little out of sync which many terrorists and people around the world say about us....

the only reason to attack iran is if evidence comes out that the plants are making nukes only then we bomb the nuke sites....

Answer 3

The fact of the matter is that we have demonstrated no intent to attack Iran. In fact from the US standpoint there is no benefit to us for doing so.

The only people who will benefit from a US attack on Iraq will be the Europeans. And do you see President Bush as willing to do any favors for Europe right now?

Personally I think that we should declare Iran to be 'Europe's problem' and watch them continue their totally ineffective policies towards Iran.

Answer 4

I think there's stalling because most people realize that Iran would be a much more difficult enemy to defeat. Why?

Well, first of all, Iranians are (in general) far more nationalistic than other nations in the Middle East. They think of themselves as distinct from the other nations and often superior. This "national pride" means that most Iranians would be willing to fight harder for their country.

It also doesn't help that we Americans ALREADY overthrew their regime once before. In 1953, the CIA helped restore the incompetent shah, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, to the throne after he was overthrown.

Answer 5

The short answer is because our President is the Commander-in-Chief, but that isn't a very satisfying answer. There are very good reasons to hesitate to implement your suggestion, and most of them involve the level of commitment and sacrifice required for success.

I agree with your assessment but realize that the American people are not ready to sacrifice much higher oil prices and many more enemies. Iran is much more powerful, wealthy, and zealous than Iraq. It is also much bigger. An offensive on Iran will meet a more difficult adversary, substantial Islamic protests (perhaps a united Muslim stance behind Iran) fueled by concern of American conquest and suppression of Islamic countries, and strong world fears of American foreign policy. All countries will be asking: after Iran, who is next, or who is safe in not fully supporting American interests? In an effort to establish security for themselves against the perceived threat to their sovereignty (despite our justification of the War on Terror), they may form alliances and coalitions against us.

Were I President, I would have set a fast standard of two years for the Iraqi government to come online as a sovereign, independent democracy, tested their capabilities periodically according to a set timetable (so that they could see their own progress relative to the standard), and then pulled out. My foreign policy would then become: we do not trade with any country who either supports terrorists or their interests or threatens America or her interests in any significant way (including verbally declarations of alliance or war), or who trades with such countries.

Answer 6

Regardless of the opinion of the people here in yahoo answers an preemptive strike on Iran is imminent

Answer 7

Should I assume the "we" means someone other than you, to pick up the gun and do the fighting. Sort of like Head draft dogger Dick.

Answer 8

So you really value human life, then.........