How will the Iran thing work out - what is likely to happen?

Question

Niether Russia or China have moved on the issue and have continued to say we don't buy the US story
Both nations have and look like they will continue to frustrate US calls for sanctions
The war between Bush and Congress has the Pentagon threatening to go on bare bones skeleton crews at home Not have to cut back on operations in Iraq - but defense of the Homeland - (Is that stupidity or politics?)
Bush has more than planted the idea that Iran getting nuclear technology will lead to a nuclear bomb Word war 3
The election to replace him looms ever closer the clock is ticking for Bush's plans - His time is short and he knows it
Should an emergency occur the Congress will be blamed - not the Pentagon who could have scaled back in Iraq but scaled back at home instead
Iran will surely be blamed for any attack esp nuclear -or biochemical Keep in mind that top scientists say Iran is several years away from producing a bomb - But then the US has never though much of the UN

Despite what Bush might say publically his administration wants to attack Iran

The 5th fleet of aircraft carriers and the massive build up of men and equitment off Irans coast says war a lot louder than Bush's "I want a diplomatic solution"

And here it is that those Dems are stopping funding or slowing it down or trying to tie it to a withdrawl date called by neo cons a surrender date

But off in the waiting is Presidential order 51

That should an emergency occur the President could more or less do away with much of the powers of the Congress

How convienient -

Congress - deny funding and Iran attacks because the miltary was reduced at home thus sparking an emergency - All the fault of those people who would not support the war to protect the Homeland

Suspicous politics wouldn't you say?

Answer 1

Doesn't it all sound strangely familiar?
The CIA says Iran is at least 8-10 yrs away from a nuke; and yet it is imperative we eliminate this "threat" now?
The majority of Iranians can't stand Admadinijad (sp?). But an attack would immediately unite them against the West.

Answer 2

If we could destroy their future nuclear capability by bombing we would, but at best we could only slow down the program. Most people think that unless Iran can be convinced to stop development they will eventually get a bomb, but maybe the current government will loose power before do. Since it is the nature of people to rally in support of their government when they are attacked, bombing them would straighten the current government. This makes any choice a calculated risk.
Iran also has in its power to disrupt the mid east oil flows to the world, and Bush would pay a heavy political price if we are sitting in lines to buy gas or paying $10+ per gallon, It would anger the countries that import oil who are mostly our friends, and strengthen many who are not friendly.
I think Bush is bluffing trying to pressure Iran to make a deal, It has the domestically benefits of putting the next president, who will probably be a democrat, on notice that if Iran get the bomb on their watch they will be blamed.
Even if Iran get the bomb, it would be suicide to use it, but it would be used as a threat against other countries and set up "mutually assured destruction " game with Israel.

Answer 3

If Bush and the other war hawks have there way, it will turn out very messy for all involved. There are many reasons why we should not attack Iran. Here are a few::

1. They haven't attacked the US.

2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.

3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.

4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.

5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.

6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.

7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.

Answer 4

Maybe a late night fly over similar to the one in Syria? There is no way the U.S. could do another attack considering the current drain on the military. It would have to involve other nations. And I doubt that has a chance right now. I think the embargo is doing enough damage to Iran. But if Russia and China bail them out, who knows.

Answer 5

1. The raghead mullaus will see the light and give up the quest for nukes.

2. The raghead mullahs will see the light of a nuke delivered to them personally from a B-2 bomber.

3. The Iranian people will see either the light from #2, or see the light and get rid of the mullahs.

4. The US will see the light to deal with these bastards once and for all. We technically, by international law, have been at war with those idiots ever since they invaded our embassy in 1979, and making them an offer they can't refuse has been LONG OVERDUE !

Answer 6

with a bit of luck no longer, i might want to think of that even the main hawkish of republicans have learnt something from Iraq. of direction, Iran grow to be much less of a issue while Saddam Hussein, and the prospect of WMD, saved them at bay.

Answer 7

Either the USA and/or Israel will bomb the Nuclear sites with
2,000 pounders or worse.

Answer 8

Let's see:

Iran has no nuclear bombs. zero. Perhaps working on ONE.
U.S. has about 10,000 nukes.

Iran has never used nuclear weapons.
No nation has ever used nuclear weapons on another.

Except one.

Answer 9

Iran will be invaded soon because it is not putting a halt to its nuclear arms build-up.