[dbruning]

I am curious what you guys think.

I've discussed this with a few friends of mine:

We figure financially it's a losing idea, even if they "win" quickly they would most likely end up with a situation like Iraq.

I'm not sure I agree with my friends belief that the US used up 80% of there long range missiles on the Iraq attack, but I may be wrong. Either way, if they are unable to control Iraq, I don't see Iran being any better. So militarily I don't think it's wise.

At the same time, I am not convinced the current government is worried about financial or military reasoning.

Why do you think?

I tried to offer up a suitable set of choices, please post your thinking behind your vote.

[Caswell]

I'm watching the carrier movements.

Any attack against Iran will require tactical aircraft that can mount round the clock sorties to counter retaliation from Iranian forces. I don't see any of the local governments in the area giving the US authority to use their bases for this purpose. The way I see it, the Americans will therefore need to rely on their carriers. From what I've read, the Eisenhower's on the way to the region, the Enterprise is on deployment (but may be recalled) and the Kitty Hawk was supposed to be sailing for the Indian ocean. So potentially 3 could be on station before the elections. Remembering that the US used between 5-6 in 1991 and 2003 against Iraq, I'd say that the Americans would need to deploy a similar number against Iran.

If we get news that 2 more carriers are heading to the region, then that might be a time to worry.

[dbruning]

Wouldn't the US be able to use Iraq or Isreal as a base of operations? If so, would the 3 they have in the area be sufficient?

[EnergyUnlimited]

I do not expect to see war on Iran anytime soon.
US is more and more appearing to me to be a "tired empire".
What we have now?
1. Failing war in Iraq.
2. Failing war in Afganistan.
3. Failing non proliferation efforts (NK).
4. Chavez nuisance.
5. Erosion of "hegemony" worldwide.
I really think, that having another war is now non-starter.
Objections of such war could be difficult to specify, and if specified - to verify.
Occupation of Iran is really out of question and few air strikes will achieve nothing except of economic turmoil.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', 'W')ouldn't the US be able to use Iraq or Isreal as a base of operations? If so, would the 3 they have in the area be sufficient?

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', 'W')ouldn't the US be able to use Iraq or Isreal as a base of operations? If so, would the 3 they have in the area be sufficient?

[NEOPO]

Diebold and the time isnt right as everyone will think its about the elections yet that would set my diebold theory off yet I am not normal and neither is my government!!

[Tyler_JC]

It's called redistricting, not Diebold.

Most congressional seats are extremely safe.

In order for the Dems to pick up 15 seats in the House (and a majority), they would need to win seats that Bush carried by over 10%. Who needs voter fraud when you can spread out the votes of the discontented masses across several districts full of BushBots.

As for Iran, are you crazy?

Do you have any idea how long it takes to mobilize a force of several hundred thousand US soldiers for combat operations?

If the president said we would invade Iran ASAP, it would still take several months before we could build up a large enough force of well-supplied soldiers to mount a ground invasion.

Moreover, the USA would need time to build up the manpower for another invasion.

We can't exactly pull out of Iraq and then invade a country 3x as large without recruiting more troops.

The math of a pre-election invasion is madness, it won't happen.

[NEOPO]

Well I see what you are saying about the voting this time around so no diebold and no war needed yet the question was "US going to war" and "US attacking" thus no one said anything about "invasion"

[Hawkcreek]

--

[mattduke]

Perhaps we will have another "Gulf of Tonkin".

[Tyler_JC]

Does anyone expect Iran to sit back passivley as we blow up their nukular processing plants from the air?

Heck no! Iran would send its army into Iraq and start a war against the US forces in that region. And why wouldn't they? It's the only ace they can play in that situation.

They do have a king of diamonds, they could take out Saudi Arabia's oil fields with their missiles and block off the Persian Gulf, but there's no reason why they couldn't handle both a missile attack and an invasion of their majority Shiite (read: Iran-Friendly) neighbor.

[dbruning]

I agree with what you are saying Tyler.

There would definately have to be a buildup prior to any attack.

Not that I am suggesting they would use them, but didn't some of the US missiles get outfitted with smaller nuclear payloads recently.

What if they decided to simply pound Iran into a pretty glass crater.

No need for troops at that point.

Of course I doubt they would do such a thing since it would also remove the oil reserves they want, wouldn't they?

And of course without some kind of 9/11 event, the world would roast them politically for using nuclear...

So if their not planning on a fight to win the elections, what is the game plan? After all the outrage of the last election one would think steps have been taken to ensure no tampering takes place this time....

yet if my popularity was at an alltime low, I'd have some kind of plan in place...

thoughts?

[Micki]

I was also thinking False flag op. like gulf of Tonkin.
It doesn't have to be invasion before election, just US troops "being attacked".

I don't think even Bush is so crazy that he would invade Iran in an attempt to gain popularity. A decision is probably based on something else. But if the decision has been made he may try to push the timing so he gets most value of it.

I still believe an invasion would be based on cotrol of oil.
The calendar is therefore set according to decline of major producers like SA. US wants to have control of the whole region by the time depletion rates become painfully obvious.

Nuclear power is definetly not the reason.
Look at NK doing nuclear bomb tests and getting a slap on the fingers with luxury good sanctions.

[AgentR]

TJ, you aren't writing anything that would discourage this administration from giving the order. In fact, some of what you wrote could easily be considered as reasons in favor of an attack.

On Iran's options:

1.) land attack into Iraq.
That'd be suicidal, despite verbal fluffage, Iran's ability to project air power is neglible compared to ours, US air supremacy in Iraqi air space is assured, and that turns any rolling vehicle moving West into a helpless target.

2.) missle attack on Saudi fields.
Quite possible, but it would mean the end of Opec; it would also reduce global supply of crude oil, causing the price to rise again, and all of Bush's friends to make out like bandits. As well as provide a renewed impetus for Americans to, in Bush's words, "...get off of oil." I count three good things right there.

3.) silkworm attack on a Tanker in Hormuz.
I'd expect all shipping through Hormuz will be discontinued for the duration of the hostilities. You can't sink what isn't there.

4.) missle attack into Iraq
If something isn't close, they can't hit it accurately. Expect Baghdad as a city to receive fire. Don't expect missles to be able to shut down airstrips, especially in Western Iraq.

Iran's best hope is that we would attempt to invade and hold territory in Iran. There, they have a tremendous advantage and could inflict a lot of casualties. Iran might wish for US warships to be stacked up in the Persian gulf, but I suspect they'll be out in the Arabian sea or Indian ocean.

The real decision about any Persian Gulf deployment won't be about the possible loss of some warships, it'll be about how much we're willing to test our point defense systems, versus how much we want to reveal about our point defense systems. If Iran is seen as the "final piece" of a trifecta, then placing ships to do battle in the Persian Gulf could be seen as worth the loss of secrecy concerning their defensive capabilities.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f the president said we would invade Iran ASAP, it would still take several months before we could build up a large enough force of well-supplied soldiers to mount a ground invasion.

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here will be no ground invasion, just rolling airstrikes for a week or so.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '&')lt;snip>

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here will be no ground invasion, just rolling airstrikes for a week or so.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '&')lt;snip>