will a war with Iran happen?

[Revy]

Now they have satellite photos of nuclear plants. It is eerily similar to what they did with Iraq. Saddam allowed UN inspectors in late 2002, a war was launched in March 2003.

Now there is this explosion of rhetoric about Iran's "secret nuke sites".

[Rebel_Serigan]

I tink a war with ran won't happen, neccesarily. I DO however thin that Iran is a little on the fanatic page and if they did manage to make a nuclear weapon it would make it signifcantly easier for a rouge group to aquire it. Will Iran even genuclear eapons is a bigger streach. They can hardly even make nuclear power without the Russians' help and now (according to Russia and the news) Obama has made headway toward gettig Russia to stop supporting Iran's program. I think Iran will be exactly like it's neihbor Iraq if does however even hint at nuclear activity, America does love to jump at any chance to fight someone. I think war in Iran is highly unlikely.

[brigadista]

no amerika has too many trade deals with iran

[Axle]

America's military is way too streched to invade another country for next to no reason.

[Comrade B]

The US has already spread its power out too much, a new war would be political suicide for a president with a chance at another 4 years.
The result would be a massive number of US military deaths due to lack of adequate equipment and military force, enraging a large number of countries, and after all this, a country just as unstable as Iraq is now, which would be left in chaos and with a renewed anti-Americanism, which was previously dying out.

[blake 3:17]

I hope in hell it doesn't.



Iran's nuclear plant admission brings sanctions showdown nearer

US, UK and France threaten tough new measures but Ahmadinejad is defiant

Buzz up! (http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665&targetUrl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-sanctions&summary=US%2C+UK+and+France+threaten+tough+new+mea sures+but+Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad+is+defiant&headline=Iran's nuclear plant admission brings sanctions showdown nearer |World news |The Guardian)
Digg it (http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld %2F2009%2Fsep%2F25%2Firan-secret-nuclear-plant-sanctions&title=Iran%27s+nuclear+plant+admission+brings+sanc tions+showdown+nearer)


Julian Borger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/julianborger) in New York and Patrick Wintour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/patrickwintour) in Pittsburgh
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), Saturday 26 September 2009
Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-sanctions#history-byline)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/9/25/1253877060161/Ahmadinejad-inspects-Iran-001.jpg Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspects the Natanz nuclear plant in Iran. Photograph: EPA


The Iranian nuclear crisis reached a decisive moment yesterday after Tehran was forced to admit it was building a secret uranium enrichment plant inside a mountain in the arid centre of the country.
The admission, following the discovery of the plant by the CIA, MI6 and the French DGSE intelligence agency, paved the way for a showdown on Thursday in Geneva, where Iranian officials are due to meet representatives of six major powers.
Failure to reach a resolution there would usher in a wave of wide ranging economic sanctions.
Yesterday morning, the US, British and French leaders broke away from the G20 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/g20) summit in Pittsburgh to announce the intelligence findings and condemn the Iranian regime.
Barack Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barack-obama) said western intelligence agencies had known of the secret plant, – near the holy city of Qom, a seat of Shia learning – for more than two years. He called on Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran) to allow UN inspectors to visit it, and to co-operate fully with scrutiny of its nuclear programme.
Standing alongside him, Gordon Brown (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown) and Nicolas Sarkozy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nicolas-sarkozy), the French president, said the alternative would be tougher sanctions against the Islamic republic.
Moscow issued a separate statement describing the plant as a "violation" of UN security council decisions, and offering to support an investigation.

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-sanctions

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, if Israel does what it wants it may drag the empire into a war it may not even want at the time.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

That is the whole problem, comrade.

If Israel decides to act unilaterally at any point, I don't see how long the US could stay out of the war. The Yankee imperialists can't afford to let go of their mad-dog in the Middle East now. It's started too many fights already, and bitten too many people.

[NecroCommie]

The logic conclusion forthe U.S. is not to invade due to myriad reasons stretching from the thinly spread military to the political atmosphere of the U.S. It is common knowledge however that logic has never been an obstacle for egocentric empires.

If obama starts a war, the american left will bash him for starting a war, and the right will bash him because he does not wage that war completely in the name of imaginary sky-daddy. The right would propably bash him too for not killing enough heretics, withces, heathens and communists.

[chegitz guevara]

Define war?

Is the U.S. prepared to invade and occupy Iran? Hell, they can't even gather enough political clout to send 21,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

Will they bomb Iran, or take the leash off Israel and allow it to bomb Iran? Possibly, but I think it rather unlikely. It could easily destabilize Iraq and parts of the Middle East. The last Administration was stupid enough and had enough hubris to think it could get away with that. This Administration is marked by great caution.

[Guerrilla22]

No, the US has it's hands full at the moment. Obama used the UN as a platform to threaten Iran, nothing new there. Over the last 20 years thats all the US has been able to do to Iran, threaten them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

elaborating on chegitz's post.

Speaking of bombing. that has been the cornerstone of american military power since WWII. the use of air superiority and massive amounts of explosives has ususally won americans victories. it is starting to fail. but if they had to, they would bomb iran to smitherenes.



if a president elected to restore the image of USA and to provide non bush-like policies ends up expanding the wars and doing nothing new the image of the United States would be tarnished for decades.

[FreeFocus]

I seriously doubt the US would initiate a war, it has too many geopolitical consequences that are negative. If Israel initiates it, the US would then be dragged in, and Iran has already stated it would consider an Israeli attack an American one as well. Afghanistan and Iraq border Iran, and close to 200,000 American troops are in those two countries that Iran would be able to turn into targets.

I'd imagine there's some serious arguments going on between Israel and the US for this reason.

Also, in all the war games simulations the US has carried out with regards to Iran, it's never a cakewalk. The US gets its face broken, even though it would win in the short term.

[jake williams]

Imperialism is clumsy sometimes, but it's rarely completely batshit, especially anymore. You have to understand what a war (and air strikes might well mean a war) with Iran would mean. We have every reason to suspect that the Iranian government is sincere when it says it would fight back asymmetrically, and anyway it would still be exactly what Ahmadinejad wants because it would unify the country. That means Hezbollah, and that means you have a war zone, effectively, from Israel through Iraq through Iran through Afghanistan to Pakistan. And as was mentioned, they're having enough trouble sending a few thousand troops to Afghanistan.

[Dimentio]

Now they have satellite photos of nuclear plants. It is eerily similar to what they did with Iraq. Saddam allowed UN inspectors in late 2002, a war was launched in March 2003.

Now there is this explosion of rhetoric about Iran's "secret nuke sites".

Would surprise me.

The reason why this change in US rhetorics lately (since 2006) depends on imperial overstretch. The USA doesn't afford any more large scale wars. While USA would certainly crush Iran militarily, it would cost much - both in imperial prestige, dead bodies and most importantly money which the US doesn't posess anymore.

[FreeFocus]

That means Hezbollah, and that means you have a war zone, effectively, from Israel through Iraq through Iran through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Great point here. The entire region would fall into even more chaos, and it would definitely inflame the entire Muslim world.

Additionally, the US attacking Iran would certainly weaken it vis-a-vis other powers such as Russia and China, but particularly Russia. The US was already unable to prevent Russia from changing the geopolitical reality in the Caucasus last year, and that was before the Afghanistan surge. How would the US keep control of the rest of the chessboard if it effectively throws all of its eggs into one basket, Southwest Asia?

Iran is probably the most serious geopolitical challenge American imperialists currently face, because attacking it has serious consequences, and allowing Iran to disobey imperial dictates can change the whole equation.

[pierrotlefou]

I wouldn't under estimate the US war machine. The democrats are not an anti-war party and I see them backing Israel if it came down to a fight. These people are looking for any excuse to garner more support for their quest to capture the Middle East. Iran is not helping the situation either by hiding nuclear facilities and testing missiles. Israel seems to be looking for any reason to attack and has been talking about doing so for years. It's only a matter of time I think before it shits the bed.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It's only a matter of time I think before it shits the bed.
best phrase evar.

anyways. The US, Israel, and NATO combined could not even manage to handle Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, (potentially) Pakistan and the Horn of Africa.

Iran is nearly the size of Afghanistan and Iraq together with some serious hills in the north and west, south-west. it is a ring of hills!

The only way they could bring Iran into submission is ironically with WMDs. And with that though comes the loss of all respect from the world.

If there was a draft, the Anti-War movement im sure would come to life and kick more ass than what happened during Vietnam. 3 wars in one decade? People cant put up with that.


there is no way within the next 2 to 3 years the US could handle an invasion of Iran.


I bet things would get reaaaaaall interesting in USA if it did happen though. Revolution would be palpable.

[Psy]

I seriously doubt the US would initiate a war, it has too many geopolitical consequences that are negative. If Israel initiates it, the US would then be dragged in, and Iran has already stated it would consider an Israeli attack an American one as well. Afghanistan and Iraq border Iran, and close to 200,000 American troops are in those two countries that Iran would be able to turn into targets.

I'd imagine there's some serious arguments going on between Israel and the US for this reason.

Also, in all the war games simulations the US has carried out with regards to Iran, it's never a cakewalk. The US gets its face broken, even though it would win in the short term.
The US might throw Isreal to wolves to save itself, the US might just order the CIA to launch a military coup and unleash a Augusto Pinochet on the Isreal ruling class (not just the Isreal workers) to "correct" the ruling class of Isreal and make them to understanding they are just vassals to the US ruling class. Thus the Isreal ruling class probably won't launch a war on Iran for fear the CIA will interveane.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Speaking about a coup.

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420641457091318.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)


It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.

[pierrotlefou]

Speaking about a coup.

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420641457091318.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

Is that quote suggesting it's not already part of american policy to secretly overthrow governments they disagree with? hah

[Rusty Shackleford]

Is that quote suggesting it's not already part of american policy to secretly overthrow governments they disagree with? hah

Was not the installation of the Shah a US backed Coup d'etat? How about Pinochet? How about Honduras(pending)? It seems that american media does like to "forget" about undemocratic actions taken by the US and when the target is a theocrat its a "Grand new strategy to bring democracy to other countries!"

[Outinleftfield]

I tink a war with ran won't happen, neccesarily. I DO however thin that Iran is a little on the fanatic page and if they did manage to make a nuclear weapon it would make it signifcantly easier for a rouge group to aquire it. Will Iran even genuclear eapons is a bigger streach. They can hardly even make nuclear power without the Russians' help and now (according to Russia and the news) Obama has made headway toward gettig Russia to stop supporting Iran's program. I think Iran will be exactly like it's neihbor Iraq if does however even hint at nuclear activity, America does love to jump at any chance to fight someone. I think war in Iran is highly unlikely.

So you think Khamenei has the political capital to violate his own fatwa against building nuclear weapons(passed in 2005) and avoid being impeached by the Assembly of Experts for religious hypocrisy?

[RedSonRising]

I'd say that Iran is most likely trying to gain some sort of advantage by harvesting nuclear energy domestically, and since it appears it is also serious about making a bomb, I think it is in the spirit of self-defense against more powerful nuclear-arms-having countries more than anything else... but it's a counter-productive move as it has only increased aggressive policies towards the country (unless you consider the mutually-assured-destruction situation productive of peace). At the end of the day, nobody wants to throw the bomb since many more would follow, and a war with Iran might trigger that. Most involved in this tensioned situation know the costs of too much aggression on either side, so I don't think a war or coup will occur, just lots of increased rhetoric and superficial diplomacy digs from both sides.