US gearing up for a military conflict in Iran?

Question

Tales of US planes patrolling the Iran/Iraq border. US soldiers given authorisation to kill Iranain agents in Iraq and a substantial military build up in the Gulf while the UK say they're going to bring nearly 2000 troops home. Where is it all leading?

The Eisenhower is docked in Dubai just now and I spoke with a couple of the Navy guys at Ski Dubai yesterday. They reckon it'll be a sabre rattling exercise but their tour has been extended so you never know.

Answer 1

Well, I believe that some kind of confrontation with Iran may be inevitable, because the religious fanatics running the place will force it. They believe that they have a divine mandate to kill Jews and Christians (not to mention anyone who does not believe in being subjected to a totalitarian Muslim government).

I believe that this is an extension to the war on terrorism, as Iran supported and armed Hezbollah in their war with Israel last summer, and is now arming the Shia in Iraq to make sure the sectarian clashes there continue. Hence the need (and right) to take out any Persian (Iranian) caught in Iraq causing trouble.

Ahmadinejad is a modern-day Hitler, and the only way Hitler was defeated was through bloody conflict. I am hopeful, however, that our strikes into Iranian territory will only be air-based, to take out their nuclear development facilities. Now there are two things I could see that MIGHT prevent this...

a) Israel's plan to possibly hit Iran first, with a bunker-busting nuke into their reactor research facility; or

b) Our stabilizing Iraq and making them a solid ally, hemming Iran in and intimidating them by being right on their border, since we'd be free to devote more of our attention to them.

Bottom line is, Iran's leadership is equivalent to what the Neo-Nazis are in the west: a far-right bunch bent on killing Jews and imposing a totalitarian system of government, ultimately, worldwide. They want a Taliban-style theocracy, only on a global scale, and are not afraid to initiate a nuclear disaster to do it. This is because unlike Hitler or the Soviets, these guys believe they have a glorious spiritual reward waiting for them. Therefore they are the ultimate enemy: they feel they have nothing to lose and are completely justified in their intolerance and hatred.

(For the record, if my knowledge serves, "Iran" comes from the word "Aryan". If correct, that should pretty much solidify my case.)

Now for those saying it's the "idiot, warmongering Bush" causing all the problems, I don't know what else can be said to show you how naive and ignorant this is. The jihadists want YOU dead. If you pacify and try to "understand" them, they will perceive this as weakness. Osama & co. have made their goals and they are on record. No matter what the US does or does not do, they're coming. So go ahead. Blame the president. Blame "dopey" US foreign policy. But NEVER blame an ideology grilled into Arab children from age 3 that says anything non-Muslim is evil and needs to be destroyed by whatever means are necessary. NEVER blame a belief system fueled by religious justification and systems of reward for hellish attacks on "infidels" (that's you, by the way). NEVER blame people like Ahmadinejad, who says that Israel should be wiped off the map. No, instead point the accusing finger at the US. We must've done something to piss them off. That's it. It must be us. Maybe then you won't have to be really afraid that something crazy in the world is happening and we genuinely have no control over it. Maybe the Jews should've asked Hitler what they did to piss him off so much. Or the Christians the Roman emperors who threw them to lions, or Africans their slave-masters. Yeah, no one in the world is guilty of genuine evil. Just the US. When WE attack, we're bad and stupid. When some psycho blows up a nail bomb in a dance club killing bunches of 16-yr old kids, he's a freedom fighter. The twisted reasoning here is simply amazing.

Answer 2

A war against Iran isn't possible now (USA has already spent too much money and humans' lifes for the Afghanistan and the Iraq... and there are many soldiers from the "second line" engaged in military oparations in Iraq, and so USA doesn't have now enough privates for another war. Then you have to know that a war against Iran could have terrible conseguences for this area: Siria, Palestina, Israel, Libano, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan.... If USA fights the ayatollah, it will sure start the Third World War.)
But when the Iraq will be pacefull, probably to fight against the "islamic repubblic" it will be a needs for the world's peace-keeping. Infact I believe that the Third World War is coming. And i'm asking myself who is the "war-starter": Iran or USA? Cause Iran will sure start the war by a nuke attack on Israel, and it's better fo the world that this fact will never happen.

Answer 3

There will be formed a new coalition, this time including Israel. Rice will try and avert a military solution, but she will fail because the Iran govt will not stop their nuclear programme because they maintain it's for peaceful ends. So the US admin will be led by the hawks who will launch an air strike, with Israel taking the lead. Some ground troops will be used, but only to disable the missle radar systems. Bush and Blair reckon they have nothing to lose since their reputations are already that of warmongers. After that, who knows? If Iran use their missles, the middle east, and the world, will be changed forever.

Answer 4

You have beaten me to asking the same question. God help us all! Who gave Bush to god given right to police earth. We (UK politicians) are nothing more than his lap dog and will follow the master in what ever he wants us to do. Our defences are already stretched to the limit, we have troops deployed in hot spots all over the world, we have a potential conflict building up in the Falklands again. Blair as said that he will be withdrawing up to 1600 troops from Iraq, now he's committing a further 1000 to Afghanistan. And all the time the ministers and a certain section of the British public are asking for defence cuts. Whats is that old proverb, before setting out on revenge first dig two graves.

All our brave lads (and lasses) have signed their lives away to defend Queen and Country - but to follow a mad man into every conflict he sees fit is unfair. Perhaps the world will be a less stable place with Iran holding a nuclear capability. But is it not becoming less stable with our coalition forces entering more and more muslim countries dictating to them and tearing their countries up. Is it any wonder that we as `infidels` as hated so much.

We should stand on our own and tell Bush and his administration that we went along on the WMD idea in Iraq which was a big mistake and it has backfired on us; why make another mistake by going along with them this time. (The people do not want another conflict of this nature, wars do not always win the hearts of voters!)

If it was Ronald Reagan in office I could understand the cowboy attitude of shoot now ask questions later.

Answer 5

If we're lucky, it's empty saber rattling in order to encourage Iran to open up inspections. If we're not, we're going to see Bush use the full extent of his powers for military action, while Congress stands against him. In this case, the first one to blink loses face and accountability, and if neither does, everyone loses.

Even the best case scenario involves touchy diplomacy and concessions from both sides. At worst, the United States extends itself to the breaking point in another war, and they'll need fresh soldiers somehow...

Answer 6

Odds are pretty good the Bushwhacker decided the quickest way out of the Middle East is through Tehran. I wouldn't plan any trips to Iran until sometime after the next twenty or thirty Millenniums,...whats the half life of radio active nuclear decay anyway?

Answer 7

War is a very good way for a US politician to hold onto power. I mean the Vietnam war was ended not by the voters wanting it to stop, but by the Watergate Scandal.

President Harry S Truman was the first president to go onto a foreign policy campaign, and he came into a second term from behind, on his policies to purge communists from the US and the rest of the world. It lead to direct confrontation with China, McCarthyism and the Korean War, also the political involvement in Vietnam. but that did not finish his term, he simply ran out of political allies to stand for him at the elections.

Bush has modeled his political comback on Truman, so world beware. He is unable to stand for a third term under US Law brought in in 1951, so he will do as much damage as he can now, to ensure his candidate gets elected on the wave of nationlism, I expect the problem to start in 2008, just in time for the ballot box.

Answer 8

Killing Iranian agents caught operating in Iraq is a fine idea. Where it leads is up to Iran.

Answer 9

I hope not, because if they do any country associated with them will not be safe to live in, especially the UK.
What is it about Bush, he seems hell bent on wars, I know the 9/11 happening was a horrendous event but surely it is crazy to retaliate against countries like Iraq and Iran.
The real perpetrators namely Al-Qaida who it appears Bush isn't doing to much about because he is to busy involving himself in Iraq and now possibly in Iran. It is a very grim situation and it is not helping toward world peace.

Answer 10

Haliburton need more work. It's stock prices are down again, so dumbya and co. have to scare up some more work for them. The American oil industry wants a presence in the middle east and bush will give it to them no matter what the cost.