I took the 2nd variant. Though the sword law rules, and peddlers of democracy had already screwed one state in this region in 2003, in my view Iran doesn’t look like another place where US can win a small victorious war quick and easy, run in its army once again and give new orders to guys from American military-industrial complex
Don't think so. The USA doesn't have the military capability to take on Iran. Even a limited bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities won't guarantee success. Also I seriously doubt the ability of Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. Should also point out that the Iranian centrifuges are so primitive that they often break when enriching Uranium 235 into the Plutonium 238 needed to create weaponised material. The Iranian regime survives on propaganda which often derives from it's technological fields.
It's not going to happen, the lesson's of Afghanistan and Iraq are too fresh in the collective consciousness. It takes 20 or 30 years to forget those lessons and start to believe that the US Military can solve problems effectively.
What happened to the North Korea hubbub that was so rabid last week? I thought they were the next "monster" we are supposed to be afraid of?
Oh we could certainly 'conquer' Iran in the same way we did Iraq- we have the capability. But could we win the 'peace'? I don't think so. I am hopeful that we will not end up in a war with Iran.
I am far more worried about NK than I am about Iran. The majority of Iranians especially the younger ones are pro-western. Obama really dropped the ball when he didn't immediately embrace the Green Revolution. With enough subterfuge and manipulation and time I think that Iran will once again become a strong ally of the US as it was before the 50s. Iran is also among the most socially advanced of the Muslim countries especially when compared to our "allies" like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who are living in the 7th century still.
1. I believe that USA could absolutely level Iran, if by no other means than using the world's largest (USAF) and second largest (USN) air forces. 2. I believe Iran can already produce nuclear weapons pretty much at will. News reports over the past few months suggested that their scientists tested out their weapon technology in a set of joint detonations with North Korea. If Iranian scientists were actually part of those NK detonations; isn't that proof positive that they can make weapons too? 3. I don't believe making nuclear weapons is as complicated as some might have us believe. If it was so complicated, South Africa wouldn't have been making them 50 years ago (back in the late 60's) and kept them ready to launch until the break up of their government and joining the NNPT in 1991.
I would say no because the American people so strongly desire to stay out of wars for a while. Their experience with Iraq and Afghanistan was traumatic. Give them a few decades breathing space then you can go back to killing hordes of innocents without repercussions to fund the defense industry which gets you elected.
Oh I'm sure the USA could do it. but it would be a Pyrrhic victory and would result in a substantially higher casualty rate on both sides. But what happens afterwards would be a real nightmare. As Iran is very mountainous country which excellent for hiding militias. Much larger than Iraq and has a population that is twice the size of Iraq. Which only exacerbates the shortage of manpower. The Iranian military has had a great deal of experience fighting it's Arab neighbour and only showed the measure of it's resolve. News reports should really be treated with an err of caution and it might unwise to associate themselves with the DPRK as they are a much more volatile state than Iran. Until an accurate assessment of the nuclear program is carried out, I can't properly reply to that point. The south African nuclear program actually started in 1948 and had been planned to go into the weapon stage by 1967. It was only by the 80's that they were able to test a weapon. I should also point out that North Korea is pursuing an independent program and the underground detonations that have occurred indicate small yield devices. These fit in tactical class of weapons and would need to be produced en masse in order to be a viable defense asset.
Yeah, there were times, I'm sure you knew When I bit off more than I could chew (c) As yet US only forbids American companies from sending anything to Iran, with limited exceptions and American authorities have pressed other nations to stop doing business with Iran. (Kind of the light economic blocade? ). But Iran's a big experience getting around these sanctions.
I am Jewish and no POTUS or Senator ever asked me my position on the matter. In fact, no Jews I know have been polled either. If USA attacks Iran, it will have something to do with major lobby groups that represent military contracting and oil and nothing to do with an organized group of Rabbis.
Iran Has 18,000 Uranium Centrifuges... Atomic official says Iran has 18,000 uranium centrifuges 17.08.2013 > Iran has about 18,000 uranium centrifuges, the outgoing head of the country's atomic agency has said. Officials claim that Iran enriches uranium to 5 and 20 percent for peaceful purposes.
I think war depends on Iran. While doing our "hearts and minds" thing on the ground might be difficult, it does not seem that giving them a general pounding from the air, or even artillary on the ground, would too hard. So it'll come down to whether they persue nukes or not. There is a possibility whoever our president is at the time won't go to war even if Iran tries for nukes...but we might well end up in a war anyway, we'd just be fighting it without New York and/or DC. You don't need Plutonium to make an atomic weapon. Enriched Uranium will do. They have the capability to produce that, and once you've got that making an atomic weapon is, sadly, not that difficult.
Well even if they assemble a nuclear weapon. There are still some technological gaps they still have to fill. Like getting their missiles within striking distance of the US without it being shot down. True but this is the common method. But just because they have the capability does not mean that they will. I mean we should surely be pursuing India and Pakistan or maybe even Israel as they are the most likely to go to full scale war. And of course there's the DPRK but that goes without saying.
Please, we more than have the capability to "take on" Iran. It won't happen because Iran has a largely pro-western population, we wouldn't want to turn those people against us. Plus, we'd be better off funding an opposition group.
I'm not saying waging war on Iran is a good move, or that they will be very effective, or that it will be a piece of cake. In face, I think it will be a very bloody and costly war. But I think the US will go to war. Sadly
I don't think so. The US has alot of commitments which reduces the amount of soldiers available. Iran is not like Iraq. So when you mean funding opposition groups do you mean funding terrorism?
Not every splinter group in the Middle East are terrorists, what an incredibly ignorant statement. Clearly from someone whose never been, no less.
Your lack of specificity had prompted that question and now you chose to insult me. I have been to the middle east. Egypt (N.Africa) Israel to name just a few. Also having worked for an Oil & Gas rig manager I have had some experience. I'll ask you to retract that statement.
I certainly hope not, as we simply cannot afford it, but seeing as we have a President and Congress who apparently believe You Tube postings as fact, I dunno. The entire idea of Iran even wanting a bomb is nothing but right wing American propaganda left over from the Bush years desperation phase. Iran has historically wanted a home based nuclear electricity source, as they are apparently the only oil rich nation that realizes even they will eventually run out if they keep living off it entirely, and they want to develop a petrochemical base for general industrialization while they still have plenty of oil left. This goes back to before the Shah. They don't want a bomb. They realize they don't need it, couldn't use it, and can't afford it. Our right wingers, however, think we need another war, it's their solution to everything apparently
I don't know if there will be a war between the United States and Iran within the next 10 years or not. I really hope that there will not be. That said, if Iran does develop nukes then it is Israel's prerogative as to whether or not they attack Iran. I hope that Israel does not attack Iran and I would not condone a preemptive attack from Israel against Iran.
I personally dont think that will happen. "Diplomacy" is something to solve these kind of problems. And both countries especially the US has good diplomatic background to start and continue the negotiations. In international relations countries do not need to like each other or to be friends. The primary concept in IR is "benefits" and both countries may find a mutual benefit o which they can come closer. http://irglobal.blogspot.com/
Look at the timelines in other countries, from the time when the first reactor went on line, to the time when they succeeded in making a bomb. Iran is far more capable than most, but they haven't done it. I think they realize that the world can burn up quite sufficiently without their contribution. If Palestine, or Israel, or India or the Saudis start a nuclear holocaust, all is lost anyway. I hope that the US war mongers really act out of character, and allow them to develop as a nation. They have the potential to become a huge stabilizing factor in the ME if they are simply allowed to cultivate and defend their own interests in that part of the world.