It's 95% unlikely that the US would be stupid enough to attack Iran. Iran is a threat to nobody. Just because their Pres. doesn't like yours, so what, nobody likes him. I would be more concerned about Pakistan or Israel as potential war mongers and a threat to peace in that region. As for Iran being a threat to the US, not likely.
Iran has attacked no one. In fact, it was first abandoned by the U.S. and the West and then drawn into an eight-year war with Iraq, during which the U.S. and the West armed both sides to the teeth. Many of the supplied weapons were illegal, unethical and immoral.
If Iran’s rhetoric and tirades against such duplicity seems over the top, what student of 20th-century history can blame the country? It has been royally shafted over the decades, even when Iranians elected a democratic government only to have it ousted by the U.S. and replaced by the Shah as dictator.
While the U.S., U.K., France and others openly defy the international accords against nuclear arms proliferation and the illegal market in armaments, people in the west have the gall to haul Iran over the coals and give the West a free pass to get out of jail.
Iran is a much better global citizen than either the U.S. or Israel, and yet their crimes often go unreported and sometimes praised.
Also, Russia & China would not stand by and let the US take over Iran. Actually, all the war talk is from the American side, as if they want it to happen.
2007-03-18 22:29:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
People have been talking about the US increasing its power around the world and that the whole of the middle east should be dealt with because its "full of terrorists." I feel ashamed that there are people like you out there and I feel sorry for the Americans out there who are embarrassed of American foreign policy and have people like you backing up the rest of worlds detest for America. You are truly ignorant. In answer to the question, it is solely for the oil with the nuclear threat as a handy excuse (if it was based on a nuclear threat then North Korea should have been "dealt with"). If America genuinely wanted to make the world a better place it would slip into places like Zimbabwe and deal with Mugababe, it would cancel third world debt which is responsible for Africa's poverty and therefore for the deaths of millions, It would not turn its back on cutting emmissions and saving the planet... Iran don't need to be "taken over" they need sanctions in place and to be dealt with diplomatically by the UN... Unless of course America wants more blood on its hands and another Iraq...
2007-03-19 05:04:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by roskolewis 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
It will be because of the oil hidden under a false cloud of nuclear threat. Iran is no threat to us even with nuclear weapons. It is a bigger threat to the surrounding Arab countries and Israel and I can't see them standing for it either.
2007-03-19 04:46:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Haddock 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
Always got to impose its will on somebody. The UK is only one step away from being the next US target, having a fairly large nuclear arsenal, and its own oil reserves.
2007-03-19 08:08:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by rookethorne 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Oil for sure. here is my reason
US is a big country its like a big organization or company.
If you own a large company doing business. the last thing you want to do is losing money in the company.
Because of nuclear threat = losing money for the company.
Beacuse of oil= gaining profits
2007-03-19 05:18:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by anderson 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
well, your question needn't be "either, or"
most likely if the U.S. goes into to Iran it would be a strategic military move designed to strengthen the U.S position in the area (Middle-East.) And even more likely, it will be considered a "wise" move if other countries in the region continue to grow in strength. But, when I say, "wise" I don't mean, morally right, I merely mean it as in, it would help maintain U.S. power, if they had a U.S. friendly, puppet-government, heading Iran, and even better off still, if they had a continuous U.S. military presence in the region. Of course, the reclamation of resources(oil) would further propel the cause--- the cause being "military aggression against Iran."
2007-03-19 04:52:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by RB 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Oil, but there could be another reason:
It is very like the US economy would enter into a recess period by december of this year.
US use to reactivate its economy with war.
Remember that North Corea wasn´t invaded!
2007-03-19 04:57:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by X 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
nuclear threat. a war w/ iran would cause gas prices to shoot up far and fast. i dont see a war anytime soon, but maybe in 10 years we will duke it out
2007-03-19 04:46:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
if it was carrot fields and not oil fields in iran the u.s would never even think of going to war
2007-03-19 06:48:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by longshanks52 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
It worries me when power mongerers speak of justifications for their wars... cos inbetween those few "people" (who no longer have human considerations!) are all the PEOPLE, millions of them, who are just like you & me...
referring to those who want a BETTER life... with loose labels to spread FEAR etc., is merely disinformation...
So PLEASE remember the PEOPLE trapped in those regions, when you contemplate the possibility of a nuclear (final) "solution" !!!
2007-03-19 05:56:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋