Iran: Will the US attack them in 2007?

Question

If you say yes please state why and what you think the repercussions would be.

If you say no please state why and why you believe they won't.

This is a personal opinion question. No need to get nasty.

Answer 1

I'd say it's at least 50-50 that we will. Diplomacy has failed, sanctions will fail. The only options left will be we destroy their nukes with conventional weapons or Israel destroys them with nukes. I don't think Israel has the capacity to do the job with conventional weapons & can nat tolerate such an extreme existential threat to exist.

Answer 2

So we would desire to continuously enter right into a multi-billion greenback war with Iran as a results of fact they supposedly attacked us 25 years in the past? i think of not. Reagan performed this one wisely. no want for a war. basically positioned them on the sh!t record and no added help of commerce with them. What the hell have been we doing in Beirut interior the 1st place? "info of Iran offering weapons, information to Iraqi insurgents" same question. What the hell are we doing in Iraq in first place? we live a worldwide removed from Iraq. They stay ideal around the corner. The Shiites we "freed" are prepared on Iran. Saddam and his Sunnis offered stability to this occasion. We observed extra wholesome to smash that stability.

Answer 3

No, the US will not attack Iran.

Why? Because:

1. Even if George Bush wanted to attack Iran, he would not have support of Congress, now that the Dems are in control of the house and Senate.

2. Even if George Bush wanted to attack Iran, he would not have the support of the American people.

3. Related to the first two -- The ONLY possible basis is the allegation that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. However, UN reports are far from clear on this issue. George Bush has used up his domestic and international "good will" on the mere assertion that a country has/is building weapons of mass destruction. The American People (and their congressional representatives) will need proof now, and I do not believe it is forthcoming.

4. The Iranian army is much stronger than the Iraqi forces. Consequently, an attack on Iran would be a much more difficult battle. Deaths (on both sides) would be much higher than the toll in Iraq. The American people are not ready for this.

5. What would be the end? If America attacked and occupied Iran, then there would need to be an exit strategy. As Bush (may have) learned, and the American people and congress have learned, it is easier (not necessarily easy, but easier) to win the battle than win the peace. Bush needs to finish one conflict before he begins another.

6. The Amercian armed forces were previously drawn down, based on the proposition that a lighter, more elite, quick-strike force was needed in today's post-cold war period. However, the forces are stretched quite thin now, and a major conflict in Iraq could easily result in a return to the draft. The american people and congress are not ready for such action.

7. Even the Republicans, who might have supported such an action, are almost certainly unwilling to support such an action now. They have just lost control of congress, and actions taken by the President will be reflected in a back-lash, not only in the presidential elections, but in the congressional elections.

8. American prestige and international support is also at an all-time low. Foreign countries are at least as aware of how America messed-up the Iraq situation, and are unlikely to support further military action in the region by America. Even support from Great Britain cannot be taken for granted, as Tony Blair's term in office is also coming to an end.

Unfortunately, it boils down to this: whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for America to attack Iran due to its nuclear activities, the reason the US will not attack comes down to one word: politics. The American people (who hold the key to political power through elections) will not support another conflict, and the people in power want to stay there. Thus, they will not support such a conflict if (as I believe) it would result in their ouster in the next set of elections.

Answer 4

No. We are already fighting a double war. I think the main reason we are leaving other countries alone right now, even though some of them are threatening us directly and calling there countries safe havens for terrorists, is that we are tapped out.

Basically the only way that we could attack Iran next year is if we abandoned Afghanistan, or instigated a huge draft.

Answer 5

No, we are spread too thin throughout the world. I think because we are in Iraq, invading Iran would truly develop a regional conflict into an actual World War as Sunnis and Shiities align on either side.

Answer 6

You better believe it. I saw last night an American General in Iraq is blaming Iran for the IED attacks on our troops. If that's the case I say we kick their *** c bass

Answer 7

NO. IF IRAN GETS CLOSE TO MAKING A BOMB, ISRAEL WILL TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS. IRAN HAS DUG ITS OWN GRAVE BY CONSTANTLY STATING THAT ISRAEL SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE MAP. IF MEXICO HAD THAT ATTITUDE AND WAS ABOUT TO DEVELOP A NUCLEAR WEAPON, DO YOU THINK WE JUST MIGHT TRY TO STOP IT?? IT'S EASY TO HAVE PIE IN THE SKY EXPECTATIONS WHEN YOU AREN'T THE ONE UNDER THE GUN.

Answer 8

No.........too costly and Iran is not a little nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan

Answer 9

no i think the attack will begin in 2009 or so

Answer 10

there is no way we could do that simply because we are spread so thin as far as numbers are concerned, but secondly i dont think attacking them will do anyone any good.