English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems that Iran (tacitly) helped stabilized northwest Afghanistan post 9-11 and that the Iranian supported Shiite militias of eastern and southern Iraq have done far less against coalition forces than they could. Is this correct? And if this is correct, what could Iran do in these theaters of war?

These potential costs do not seem to be much discussed in the media or in Washington.

2007-03-11 13:48:00 · 9 answers · asked by foreign affairs analyst 1 in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

Well, if the US attacked Iran, Iran would logically respond by attacking any US forces within it's strike range.

Given that Iran is surrounded on two sides (Iraq and Afghanistan), that gives them plenty of potential targets.

2007-03-11 13:53:21 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 1

Bush supposedly took his country to war with Iraq because there were allegedly WMD in Iraq. For wherver reason, however, no WMD were found in Iraq, which could mean that the WMD were moved out of Iraq and into Syria or Iran, or even Saudi Arabia. If this is the case it seems highly unlikely to me that Iraq would want to shake things up any more by looking to either of these countries, or Afghanistan or have anything to do with them even in the midst of shiia attacks

2007-03-11 13:59:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They could escalate their current involvement throughout the middle east. They will never be much of a stabilizing factor. If they become to involved in Iraq then Syria and Saudi Arabia will have borders with a new and dangerous enemy. It will be sometime before somewhat of a balance can be regained in that area.

2007-03-11 13:59:47 · answer #3 · answered by dano 4 · 0 0

The cost is too great to attack Iran on the ground. It will not happen. If attack is made it will be with nukes. No need to go in on the ground. From start to finish at the most is 35 minutes.
Two 50 megatons in Iran and one small tac nuke in Syria. It is all over except the shouting. Either nation is capable.

2007-03-11 13:58:27 · answer #4 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 1 2

i'm afraid the U. S. and Israel could try this one jointly and something human beings will particularly rightly take a back seat. No different governments on earth at the instant could have adequate money to possibility their attractiveness with impunity like those 2 war mongering countries.

2016-09-30 13:11:42 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

When Iran is surrounded by superior forces, all Iran will be able to do ,is bent over and kiss their crazy butt GOODBYE, hopefully they will launch a few nukes, so we can see how long it takes the USA to turn Iran into a Walmart parking lot

2007-03-11 14:03:44 · answer #6 · answered by DukeofDixie 7 · 1 1

attacks on iran is suicide for the states. it will boil over globally. shutting the strait of hormuz will also mean no oil, nukes would not happen since israel will be affected with radiation. we dont know what iran has but in my view all supplies are made in russia and china.

2007-03-11 14:03:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Iran would attack these areas.

2007-03-12 00:05:51 · answer #8 · answered by Tropango 3 · 0 0

You evidently do not understand our US military superiority. I evidently understand I am wasting my time answering this only because of boredom and the urge to read ridiculous questions.

2007-03-13 02:30:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers