youknowwho
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 157
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday began the war talk of August. It's not quite the guns of August, 1914, but it ain't beanbag, either.
When "Meet the Press" asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen if the Pentagon had a plan for attacking Iran, Mullen replied, "We do." He added, "Military actions have been on the table and remain on the table."
Mullen tempered his response by emphasizing an attack is always an "option." Mullen kept his hypothetical saber stroke in a diplomatic sheath by emphasizing the U.S. regards military action to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities as an "option."
Mentioning the overt war option lit a Beltway firestorm, but his tough statement is one of many made by Obama administration officials since January of this year. Rumors of covert options designed to damage the Iranian nuclear program have made the rounds for several years. CIA Director Leon Panetta, in late June, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and carefully hinted at covert war options.
Panetta was asked about Obama administration intimations that Iran had encountered "technical troubles" in its nuclear program. Were Iranians lousy bomb-builders, or was sabotage involved?
Panetta replied: "... I can't speak to obviously intelligence operations, and I won't. It's enough to say that, clearly, they have had problems. There are problems with regards to their ability to develop enrichment ... ."
Amid reports of a planned US strike on Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has warned against the "miserable" consequences of the move.
On Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said the US military is prepared to risk a potentially devastating war in order to stop Iran from building nuclear "weapons."
However, Mullen, US highest-ranking military officer, expressed his extreme concern about the possible repercussions of such a strike.
In an interview with Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam television network on Tuesday, Mottaki said the US will face fate more miserable than its destiny in Iraq and Afghanistan should it adopt any move against Iran.
"It is a long time the US [officials] make such remarks…We can currently see their fate," the Iranian minister added.
It is standard operating procedures to have war plans in place for pretty much any country. Rumsfeld updated many of the war plans. We probably have war plans for Canada, Britain, Iceland and others. Having a plan in place is meaningless.
Military action is always an option in any diplomacy. That does not make it likely. We would be foolish to reject any option in advance.
in case of an attack, I'm afraid Iran will make it a full scale war.I'm sure that even if we struck at Iran's nuclear capabilities, it would be limited to surgical missile strikes and zero boots on the ground. That's the only option I can even see them remotely considering.
This is merely carrot and stick diplomacy. First, you show the jackass the stick so he knows you mean business. Then, you offer him the carrot, as an incentive to do the right thing.
Our military is already stretched way too thin as it is. There is no way we can sustain another war. We don't have the money, troops, or political support for that.
in case of an attack, I'm afraid Iran will make it a full scale war.
it was carrot and stick for a long time. after not getting any response from Iranian government, would obama consider actually attacking Iran?
after ending the war in Iraq, there's 50000 troops ready for deployment.
in case of an attack, I'm afraid Iran will make it a full scale war.
it was carrot and stick for a long time. after not getting any response from Iranian government, would obama consider actually attacking Iran?
after ending the war in Iraq, there's 50000 troops ready for deployment.
Then there are the recent veterans like myself who would re-enlist and serve in an attack on iran to conduct regime change there, and bring those animals to the Hague to be hanged for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Trust me, I've spoken to alot of my former battalion members and alot of us would go there for an E-1 salary to get the job done...
in case of an attack, I'm afraid Iran will make it a full scale war.
it was carrot and stick for a long time. after not getting any response from Iranian government, would obama consider actually attacking Iran?
after ending the war in Iraq, there's 50000 troops ready for deployment.
That's possible, but I consider it unlikely. It's more likely that Iran would attack Israel, and vice versa. And, I believe that we have little or no control over Israel these days. The military option is ALWAYS on the table, but it is actually rarely utilized by the U.S., in actuality.
ahmadinejad always does something ridiculous. that's why I'm so afraid. btw, nothing can shift the focus off the government right now. it's not like that people and government are in disagreement. people are against the government. this is totally different than the situation before the elections.I'd say the chances are less than 10% unless Ahmadinejad provoked it by doing something ridiculous. And, the only reason I can think of for him to do that would be to distract the people of Iran and create a new enemy for them, so as to shift the focus off of his failings. However, I consider that likelihood scary but again, unlikely.
North Korea's situation is totally different. they're totally supported by china, since if they fall, china would be alone in that region, facing multiple threats from US.I mean, North Korea has been threatening the same damn thing, and probably has nuclear weapons, and we haven't bombed them yet.
even if lack of troops is the problem, US may go for a air strike and everything can happen then. even US may consider attacking despite being weaker than before, just not to face a bigger threat of nuclear Iran in the future.Not really, no. The troops have been deployed for almost a decade, and we can't really maintain that.
The day iran began de-stablizing iraq through training, funding, arming, and ordering attacks on US troops by its usual terrorist proxies there it became a full-scale war. Just as it does not get a pass for hamas, hezbollah, islamic jihad, its attacks on the kurds, and so many other groups inside iran that the human rights groups never seem to want to highlight much.
A half-rational president would and should have attacked iran almost 7 years ago...
Actually, there's far more: 60,000 in Germany, 60,000 in Japan, 58,000 in South Korea, the entire Navy and Air Force, neither of whom are expending much men or material towards either iraq or afghanistan, PLUS the 85,000 troops about to leave iraq PLUS the coming drawdowns in Afghan.
Then there are the recent veterans like myself who would re-enlist and serve in an attack on iran to conduct regime change there, and bring those animals to the Hague to be hanged for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Trust me, I've spoken to alot of my former battalion members and alot of us would go there for an E-1 salary to get the job done...
While this is possible, it would require a whole lot of stupidity from your government. They cannot win such a war. Israel alone could probably defeat the Iranian army, and Israel would not be alone. There is simply no upside for your government to escalate.
The Coalition used 300k troops for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It would take more for Iran. 50k is not enough, especially when the US military is over-deployed. US soldiers have spent too much time deployed the last 8 years or so, and need to start getting more downtime. Just having the troops available does not make invasion likely.
Youknowwho,
I agree with Redress' assessment of the reported comments. I believe that the probability of the United States' launching a military operation this year is very low for a number of reasons:
1. The situation in Iraq remains delicate. A war could greatly destablize that country (pro Iranian elements there + Iran).
2. The economic recoveries in the U.S. and Europe are modest and important risks remain. Any significant additional shock could prove perilous.
3. Iran has threatened to retaliate against the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure and shipping. A significant energy price shock would almost certainly push the U.S. and Europe back into recession. Were Iran to take out a meaningful share of the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure, the result could be more than a recession. Incredibly, even as the world witnessed a brief but sharp spike in oil prices in 2008, almost nothing has been done to diversify the energy supply. Hence, much as the lessons of the 1970s oil price shocks were forgotten, those associated with the 2008 spike have also been forgotten. That leaves an area of vulnerability that Iran could exploit.
Of course, Iran could be bluffing with its threats to attack the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure. At the same time, revolutionary regimes can sometimes prefer mutual destruction over preserving an existing order when faced with bad outcome. Hence, if the Iranian regime sees nuclear weapons as being central to its legacy, it could well choose to inflict a severe price globally in retaliation for being denied the ability to attain such weapons.
4. Little substantial progress has been achieved in Afghanistan. Given the fragile situation there, it is not implausible that Iran could, if it desired, actually tilt the balance of power against NATO forces there.
5. Caution due to the U.S. military's planning failures. Too many unintended and "unforeseen" issues arose in Iraq and Afghanistan. The complexity and stakes involved in a military operation against Iran would be much greater.
6. Growing cost disadvantages for the U.S. military. Currently, the U.S. is expending about $1.2 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan. The cost issue, especially at a time of fiscal challenge, makes a sustained military operation unappealing. Hence, unless a "knock out" blow that takes out Iran's nuclear facilities and shatters its capacity to retaliate could be achieved, the U.S. would face a formidable challenge.
7. Questions about the lasting impact of a military operation i.e., effectiveness (some sites are hidden, others are deep underground and would require near-suicidal special forces operations to be taken out, and Iran's attaining such weapons could only be delayed for a relatively small amount of time).
8. U.S. public sentiment could be problematic, especially if breakthroughs are not achieved in Afghanistan and the nation's unemployment rate remains elevated.
All in all, my guess is that the U.S. might consider an additional sanctions regime to build on what currently amounts to fairly modest sanctions. It might also seriously consider the feasibility of constructing a deterrence regime to address the issues that would arise should Iran gain a nuclear weapons capability. Given the risks and circumstances, war would be a last resort by necessity.
Don, it is also probably worth noting that the US intelligence community probably has significant operations in place in Iran. I would suspect it is almost certain that we are funneling weapons and money and knowhow to Iranians opposed to the current government in a hope of an eventual coup.
I'll be happy if there's no war, believe me. for the same reasons you mentioned here, I had believed that there could be no war between Iran and US unless one side makes a very provocative action. but, the reason that I'm considering the possibility of a war is because the economic situation in Iran is at its worst after revolution, government popularity is at the lowest rate, and it seems that government considers nuclear bomb the last resort to gain safety against foreign threats, and then starts the war inside. so Iran is not going to back down on this issue. now, if US faces the question of either a nuclear Iran or a war with Iran, which would be chosen? I honestly do not know what happens, that's why I wanted other insights so that maybe it could enlighten me a little more on this issue.
Iran has a strong intelligence service as it was proven after the elections. actually I'm not seeing anything happening soon.
considering the cold atmosphere surrounding middle east, 4th round of international sanctions, Obama's plans to end war in Iraq, and constant threats by Israel, this is all looking so much like a planned situation. I mean, I know everybody has plans for wars. the important thing is, in this situation, anyone can consider this an obvious threat. at least, Iranian government considered it a threat, and this fact is reflected in their media.
What about the assassination attempt directed at Ahmadinejad?
I note you failed to mention Iran's constant threats and behavior. Interesting.
considering the cold atmosphere surrounding middle east
apparently it was an act of joy by supporters, and not an assasination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?