What are the chances of war in Iran

[Seth8530]

Well this is just a topic about what are the chances of a war in Iran in the near future

that is Tommorrow-10 years

Discuss and FLAME!:sunny:

except the flame.

[The Avon Lady]

1-3 years.

This topic starts up every few months.

[Yahoshua]

Depends on the Iranian economy and how much the hardliners will alienate their base. With the current crackdown on "immoral dresscodes" it doesn't seem as if the populace will be very willing to go to war, although they may be dragged into it by ahmadinejad. And we can expect the increasingly draconian rule in Iran to get worse. This will be a literal repeat of history in the ascension of dictators who circumvent the rule of law to create a dictatorship.

Ahmadinejad himself, I believe, is literally insane to willingly declare that he's working toward open war with the west when he knows the Iranian people will suffer greatly and the end result will most likely be that Iran will be in ruins and left with a bitter and angry people who will have to slog through a collapsed economy and an incompetent and war-mongering leadership.

Make no doubt about it, Ahmadinejad is hell-bent on war with everyone who is not on his side. The lack of action on the part of the U.N. and the U.S. serves only to goad him further along this route. We still have a couple of diplomatic cards to play on Iran, if Bush is willing to use them, to avert disaster and hopefully avoid a war while removing Ahmadinejad from power. Among those cards is circumventing the U.N. and demanding that european nations suspend all trade with Iran, freeze Iranian assets, and completely drain their economy of any ability to produce war material in order to pressure Ahmadinejad to step down.

To do nothing, is to set the final pieces for a full-scale world war. Any actions that a nation wishes to do to prevent war must be done NOW, if solutions are continually delayed until "tomorrow" eventually there will be a "today" to make action on the issue.

[KevinB]

I remember reading one of the conspiracy sites last year where someone "knowledgeable" would give a date as the US would attack Iran in April, then it was changed to October.
Then a top Russian general said some forseeable date in 2007.

Who knows? Personally I don't think it would be in their interests to attack right now. They've too much invested in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[bradclark1]

We don't have the force necessary for boots on the ground in the foreseeable future plus I don't think the public would stand for another war for a long time.
If we do anything it will be strikes with cruise missiles and aircraft.

[Oberon]

I thought we were already at war with Iran? :hmm:

[Jimbuna]

We don't have the force necessary for boots on the ground in the foreseeable future plus I don't think the public would stand for another war for a long time.
If we do anything it will be strikes with cruise missiles and aircraft.

I agree :yep:
I just hope Bush doesn't make it his swansong :nope:

[Smaragdadler]

latest 'spam':
...the surprise appearance of year award should go to Mahmood Sariolghalam, Associate Professor of International Relations, School of Economic and Political Sciences, National University of Iran. What is an Iranian doing at a NATO alliance controlled Bilderberg conference? We will know soon enough. Bilderberg 2007 is indeed a good time to look behind the scenes.
[...]
Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.
That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.

[...]
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&noticias=ver&id=318&idioma=en

[The Avon Lady]

latest 'spam':
...the surprise appearance of year award should go to Mahmood Sariolghalam, Associate Professor of International Relations, School of Economic and Political Sciences, National University of Iran. What is an Iranian doing at a NATO alliance controlled Bilderberg conference? We will know soon enough. Bilderberg 2007 is indeed a good time to look behind the scenes.
[...]
Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.
That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.

[...]
http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&noticias=ver&id=318&idioma=en

The usual rant.

[Heibges]

We would have to draft middle class white kids to fight it, so not likely.

[Fish]

Bilderbergers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4Tg_uR_Bg&mode=related&search=

[CCIP]

I agree with Avon Lady on this one. I don't think it will be anything like the Iraq war, however, and I really hope there is no major ground campaign. There is a pretty high chance of a very extensive air campaign against them however in that period.

I'm sort of surprised Israel hasn't been more vocal about this. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Smaragdadler]

They have ********* u* the final rehearsal last year, that's what you are missing...

[CCIP]

They have ********* u* the final rehearsal last year, that's what you are missing...

Don't think that was a dress rehearsal... at least I hope we're not gonna be seeing any Merkavas in Iran anytime soon. Otherwise I think they showed themselves as capable of bombing down things as usual.

[Jimbuna]

Not much chance of a ground assault because you need to keep them in situ to police the country afterwards...not only are the US and UK (as an example) currently stretched to the limit....also look at the high cost of an occupation in monetary and casualty terms (Iraq being a current prime example) :hmm:

[bradclark1]

I'm sort of surprised Israel hasn't been more vocal about this. Maybe I'm missing something.
PR. Anything they say would be wrong so don't say nothing at all. Not to mention the US probably asked them to.

[bradclark1]

Make no doubt about it, Ahmadinejad is hell-bent on war with everyone who is not on his side.
I doubt it. I think he just likes wagging the tail of the dog.

[Tchocky]

Make no doubt about it, Ahmadinejad is hell-bent on war with everyone who is not on his side. I doubt it. I think he just likes wagging the tail of the dog.

Agreed, he knows that the US Army won't have a Green Zone in Tehran anytime soon, so he's mouthing off.
Unfortunately, this gives a lot of dud ammo to the regime change cheerleaders

[CCIP]

Yea, Iran doesn't have a cause for war, and I'm not really seeing them going there anytime soon. It has plenty of means of extending its foreign interests and messing things up for their opponents right now that don't involve its regular army: see Iraq, Lebanon. The current situation largely favours them; just the fact that the US took out their biggest enemy (Hussein) has quite buoyed them. Ahmadinejad is a happy bastage right now, no doubt.

[Subnuts]

If Ahmadinejad gets voted out in the next election?

Not very high.

[CCIP]

If Ahmadinejad gets voted out in the next election?

Not very high.

But he's not the one setting the policy, is he :hmm:

Personally I think his role is widely overestimated.

[Skybird]

Tensions between orthodox Mullahs and Ahmadinejadh are very high. His aggressiveness has caused them more problems to push their agendas silently, than it served them well.

[Yahoshua]

Yea, Iran doesn't have a cause for war,....

Don't worry, they'll find one or invent one.

[Yahoshua]

Make no doubt about it, Ahmadinejad is hell-bent on war with everyone who is not on his side.
I doubt it. I think he just likes wagging the tail of the dog.

He's already pushing crackdowns on the populace for wearing "western" clothing and listening to "western" music. That would be one thing to start off in alienating the voting base.

Veering off here a bit: The people of Iran may be intensely patriotic about their nation but intense economic pressure may change how they think of Ahmadinejad.

[Seth8530]

I found this kinda funny, but you know how anti american americas skater boys are? well i watched a video and these iranian skater boys were being rebilloius with an AMERICAN BIKE. and alll this american stuff. I found that intersting. :o

[bookworm_020]

One quater of Iran's population is under 25 years old. THis makes the Mullahs worried as it's lot people to find job's for and keep happy. I think they have enough problems brewing at home. When the oil runs out (10 to 15 years left) It could become very unstable.

I don't think the US will do a ground invasion, but might do a limited air war if pushed or if a diversion is needed at home (Wag the Dog anyone?:lol:)