War with Iran?....

[infamous]

Is Bush seeking a war with Iran. Yes or no?

[Tormod]

I think yes. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I think no.
In all honesty, I think the initiator will be Israel. I do not believe that Bush is specifically trying to create a conflict, but if Israel gets involved, we most likely will also...

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I think yes. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, and I also hope I'm wrong. Nevertheless, the way I see it, Bush would like to see either Iran or Israel make the first move so he could be excused for a reciprocating action. It's certainly true that 911 proved that radical Islam is determined to destroy the west. What has evolved since is a chess game with both ideologies seeking the check mate. Whether we were drawn in or whether all the conspiracy theories have some real bases, we may never know. What has become clear as crystal is, this conflict may lead us into WWIII. The movement to withdraw troups from Iraq may have already come too late. That is another point of view that I can only hope I'm also wrong about............................................. ........Infy

[CraigD]

I suspect that US Pres. G. W. Bush wishes to invade Iran.

Although many have suggested that Bush professes to be a “born again” Christian and a “fundamentalist” only to win the votes of a large constituency, my assessment is that his beliefs are genuine, heartfelt, and were acquired in their present form around 1986. In keeping with a particular kind of Christian thinking, I believe he expects “Armageddon”, the end-of-days as described in the Christian Bible’s book of Revelations, to occur within his lifetime. As such, I think his long term policy goals are to further conflict and tension in the Middle East consistent with the interpretations of various recent Armageddonists (eg: Hal Lindsey).

This is not, I’m confident, a belief and desire held by the majority of Americans. I hope I am wrong in believing that they are held by Bush. In any case, I will be relieved when he is not longer president.

[Buffy]

It appears to be the same neo-con train of thought as Iraq. Its pretty well established that the current regime really has only minority support, and the ability of the theocratic oligarchy to manipulate elections and secondarily their control of the armed forces are the only things that are really maintaining their control. This allows various "we'll be greeted as liberators" theories to form.

Fortunately (I guess), we're so bogged down in Iraq and have no ground forces to spare, so planning appears to be limited to air assault plans which are always pointless: you do not gain any control without boots on the ground. Unfortunately the lesson not learned here is that people do not appreciate being attacked or even threatened and this can only be counter productive. It's really hard to come up with a scenario where the Iranians would simply "learn their lesson from being bombed into the stone age." You'd have all those practical moderates in the center hating the US for a very long period of time.

MB's right in saying the Administration would support an Israeli attack, but there is a recognition in Israel that this is an order of magnitude riskier that bombing a well-identified single site in Iraq 20 years ago. In order to have an impact on Iran's nuclear program which is spread out across a country many times larger in fortified and hidden facilities would take a *massive* attack, arguably *beyond* Israel's capabilities--at least without going nuclear themselves. So its likely if they do it at all, they'd have to coordinate with the US.

As with Iraq the decision to go ahead seems to be predicated on the opinion that radical Theocrats in Iran will forever have a stranglehold on the actions of the country (cf. the fact that virtually all of the candidates promoted by Ahmadinejad in the last election lost and there is indeed wide skepticism within the country, even among conservatives about the current path), and they would feel impervious to retailiation of using such a weapon (if a nuke went of mysteriously, how many candidates for retaliation would there be?). This in addition to proof that such weapons were "close to operational" and even the cherry-picked intelligence is not supporting that.

It would be so nice to think we have smart, thoughtful people running these things for us, to see the things like Douglas Feith yesterday on CNN practically apoplectic in his insistance that the administration's wilful misreading of Iraq intelligence was "all the CIAs fault" is kinda scary.

Some say its being planned for Spring though. Cross your fingers and hope that wiser heads prevail.

Debate rationality,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

He's seeking the benefits of a successful war with Iran, not the war itself, nor the myriad issues which will result from it.

To Buffy's point, "It would be so nice to think we have smart, thoughtful people running these things for us," it would be even nicer to actually have that (as opposed to just thinking it).

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

it would be even nicer to actually have that (as opposed to just thinking it).

Soooooo true.....

More on the attitude of the leaders:

Originally Posted by UPI via Talking Points Memo

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

Liberals just don't have a sense of humor,
Buffy

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Soooooo true.....

More on the attitude of the leaders:

Revealing article Buffy,....With the likes of Chirac constantly changing his position in an attempt at political correctness, the pleasers/appeasers have exposed their lack of resolute purpose. It appears the only group that really knows what there doing and where their going is the radical side of Islam. Not a comforting thought to say the least......................................Infy

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

In all honesty, I think the initiator [of a war with Iraq] will be Israel.

Although a limited-purpose IDF attack on a specific Iranian target (similar to the 6/7/1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak research nuclear reactor) does not seem implausible, I doubt that Israel would initiate a protracted war with Iraq.

One reason is that Israel is a much smaller country than Iran, with about 1/10th the population, and 1/4th the GDP. Although the 2 nations have similar air combat capabilities in terms of numbers and technology of fighter aircraft (Iran has a substantially greater air transport and ground attack capability, mostly in helicopters), a protracted modern war between the two would, based on population and GDP, be similar to one between the US and Canada.

Another is geographic. Both nations have militaries dedicated primarily to border and air defense, with limited capability of launching attacks far from their own borders. Between them, depending on the route taken, lie Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. None of these countries would, I expect, be cooperative in allowing Israel to cross their borders to reach Iran (nor, one hopes, Iran to cross them in an attack on Israel).

From all the current worldwide rhetoric bemoaning the terrible tension and violence in the Middle East, and the saber-rattling of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it’s easy to conclude that the situation there could not be worse. Fortunately, in my analysis, since the quelling of Iraq’s expansionary ambitions following the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990), the nations of the region currently have predominantly defensive, not expansionary, military policies. Things could be worse.