Has US started the count down to attack Iran?

Answer 1

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR USA BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY TIRED IN IRAQ.

Answer 2

If Bush had his way, but he isn't going to get any support and he can't make up enough lies to attack Iran! It has already been proven that Iran is not even close, not in his term or the next presidents term, to building a nuke. no matter the lies Bush was spouting!

Bush has done enough damage for one alcoholic!

Answer 3

Not now that Tehran is getting the jitters.

Although you wouldn't know it listening the bellicose rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's leadership has the jitters. While the President this week stayed on message, proclaiming that "our nation is swiftly on track to becoming a superpower," anxiety over the possibility of a military confrontation with the U.S. in Iraq and further damage to Iran's international position has the country's leaders locked in sober, closed-door consultations. And Tehran's most influential businessmen are again debating whether to transfer their assets abroad. Says political analyst Saeed Laylaz: "At the highest levels of the regime, the situation today is being taken very, very seriously."

Escalating tensions with the U.S. are sufficiently worrisome that former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is once again leading a drive to contain Ahmadinejad and his political ambitions. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who heads the executive branch in Iran's system, asked Rafsanjani - who was beaten by Ahmadinejad in the last presidential election - to spearhead a similar effort last year, after Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel sparked an international outcry. That intervention was late and ineffective, but this time Rafsanjani is moving more quickly and aggressively to defuse tensions with the West. The former president has been meeting with MPs critical of the President, and issued a terse and rare reprimand after a recent presidential speech. Official and semi-official media have joined the effort to curb Ahmadinejad, with two prominent newspapers in the past month running editorials critical of the President, calling his foreign policy obtuse and ordering him to stay out of diplomacy over the country's nuclear program.

Answer 4

Yes, it looks likely.

Whatever the critics are saying are right. The future consequences of a war against Iran are incalculable.

War doesn't bring peace, only justice can.

Answer 5

A military attack on Iran could unleash disastrous consequences for the Middle East and the wider world, a coalition of unions, faith groups and think tanks warned in a report released Monday. The document, "Time to Talk," said a military strike, which many believe is being planned by the United States, could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and embolden hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government. It said an attack on oil-rich Iran could also drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world.

"The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted," the report said. "At present, this is not the case."

The report was compiled by 17 groups, including the Amicus and GMB trade unions, aid agency Oxfam, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Foreign Policy Centre, a left-leaning think tank. Among the document's backers is Sir Richard Dalton, British ambassador to Iran between 2002 and 2006.

Dalton acknowledged the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, but said "recourse to military action — other than in legitimate self-defense — is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world."

The report is one of several high-profile appeals for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In a letter published in the Sunday Times newspaper, three former high-ranking U.S. military officers urged the U.S. to open talks "without preconditions" with the Iranian government.

Retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar and retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan said an attack "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."

The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that Labour Party lawmaker Nick Brown, a former minister in Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, would file a House of Commons motion this week calling on Blair to speak out against military action.The report said that an attack by the U.S. or its regional ally, Israel, could spur more violence in Iraq from Iran-linked Shiite insurgents.

"Iran's links with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza as well as Shia constituencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf States make regional retaliation against any military attack on Iran likely," the report said. "U.K. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could be particularly vulnerable, with significant losses possible."

An attack could also increase terrorism by fueling anti-Western sentiment around the world, while strikes on nuclear facilities risk unleashing radioactive contamination, the report said.

Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in Scotland, said both sides needed to step back from the brink.

"The view held by some in Washington that all diplomatic and political options have been exhausted is a palpable nonsense that needs to be challenged," he said.

At the same time, "the Iranian government needs to recognize the danger it faces."

Answer 6

It certainly seems like it. Interesting to think that the U.S. trained the Iraqi's to fight the Iranians in the 80's, fought the Iraqi's themselves in the 90's and 00's and are shaping up to hit Iran themselves. Is the Middle East spelt O-I-L?

Answer 7

Not officially, at least. But don't think for a minute they haven't made preparations for that eventuality. (Hint: Have you noticed that while National Guard light infantry units have been deployed 2 and 3 times, nobody's seen the active duty armor or mechanized infantry in a while?)

Answer 8

no because if us attack the Iran than Iran which is now ruled by u.s than no more ruled Will be left.

Answer 9

Sure. It is up to Iran whether that countdown ever ends at 0. The ball is in their court. Proceed to develop and use (or even threaten to use) nuclear weapons, and their government writes its own death warrant.

Answer 10

countdown..? so this is why Iran doesn't like American... always with the warning, always with the threatening quote....

ah... f*ck Bush... he doesn't have the guts... just another tiny winy little big mouth b@stard like all americans.. like you if you're an Americanos..

admit it... a troops all like commando killed by a simple extremist with a bomb and ak47... so dumb...

yeah... send in all the troops to Iraq or iran.. and America is ripe for plucking... or should i say a sitting duck.

Answer 11

It sure appears thatway which would be sucidal for us, as China, Russia, and Korea have made it clear they will assit Iran