How Likely Do You Rate the Chances of a US military Confrontation with Iran?

You shoulda made this a poll.

#5.

 

In the next 4 years?

When we finally pull out of Viet Nam.......Sorry, Iraq and have time to regroup before Bushs' tenure is up, we'll get 'em.

 

#6. Iran will collapse from within. Democracies will be springing up all around them and they already have a very restless youth. One of the most underreported stories in the news is the almost nightly anti-government vigils in Iran that sometimes turn violent.

 

If Iraq will end as a country lead by a shia majority, ie the most likely natural outcome... Iran will gain much more power in the region.

This crashes against neocon agenda and not only neocon agenda.

Iraq is a mess also because of this. The media are focused on sunnis now, everyone looks like they have forgotten about Al-Sadr for example.

But the main Iran guy is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Iran is even trying to moderate al-Sadr. They want the elections as soon as possible.

Iraq will likely turn into a big gift to Iran.

Iran changes towards a more developed democracy will certainly come from within, this will change very little in foreign policies though and geostrategical facts.
The same can be said regarding US and Iran relations.

So depending on what Iraq will be in the near future, the hypothesys of a military confrontation USA-Iran ranges from very likely to not likely.

That such a war would need USA to introduce again conscription it's not a big problem.
Neocons know well how to scare people in order to gain consensus.

I'd say #4 Strong Possibility.

 

2 Highly Probable.

Democracies will not be springing up. Back in the 1950s Iran was on track. Looked to the west, the USA, as an example. Then we screwed it up.

 

#5 Possible but unlikely. Iran has ALWAYS been a larger threat than Iraq, but I'm guessing the Bush administration thought that Iraq would be an easy knockdown that would scare others. Getting rid of Saddam was in fact easy, but Bush was frighteningly incompetant in underestimating how difficult it would be to stabilize the country.

Even in Rumsfeld's defense department, it looks like there were only a few hard line hawks that would even consider invading Iran. And even if enough people in the administration wanted it, it has spent too much political capital in Iraq. Most likely they'll let the EU negotiate some flimsy deal with Iran, then declare victory by saying that it's another case like Libya, where the terror supporting nations of the world were scared into giving up WMDs.

 

Some point of correction... "the knockdown" was easy. Its the "back-up" we're having trouble with.

I also vote # 5 - but my opinion is that alot of this depends on how the Iraq election plays itself out. If the US gets a favorable government with stability and democratic principles, Iraq won't need as much "outside influence" to moderate.

If civil war insues in Iraq and an Islamic government emerges, especially a pro-Iranian one, I think the likelihood of military action in Iran escalates.

On one level this doesn't make sense - the Bush government went into Iraq militarily to build a democratic government. If it doesn't work, why would they repeat the same mistake in Iran ? Because its the Bush government.

 

Sorry, I'm going for what's behind door 6

Even if we manage to extricate ourselves from this morass we're in, in the next couple of years. I can't see us letting Bush's admin sent us into another conflict anytime soon. Manpower, spiraling costs, the economy, the enormous debt that will never be paid off in my grandkids lifetime, is all going to take it's toll on the next crusade.

Richard the Lion Heart tried for the rest of his life for his second crusade. He couldn't do it for the same reasons. He'd almost bankrupt the country, taxed the crap out of the middle class and lost most of his fighting force. He was almost as powerful in getting his own way as Bush is now.

He tried to put down insurgents or counter attacks by killing every man in Accra by cutting off their heads. (Irony here) But it cost him trying to hold too much territory with to few troops.

Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It! [/contradictory]

 

As likely as IranianMonitor posting anything not about Iran.

 

The one and only correct answer is:

The chances are as high as the likelihood of success with first the economic hitmen, and, them failing, the coup fomenting /assassination-promoting jackals, is low, all skewed towards a post 9/11 intensifying pressure on process as exhibited by (a now free-reign, claimed "mandate") neocon Executive, and mollified by efforts by the EU to act as a counterweight to the US in a region alot closer to hoime for them.

 

The NY Times did a whole series on the restless youth of Iran. Protests also occur during the Iranian teams WCQ games.

 

I don't know about the next four years, but I would say "almost certain" in the next 20 years at least.

Why?
Because all these things about "terrorism" is just ****************. The Republicans have created an agenda that they made up, which is to fight this so called "war". It is a huge political tool for them to pump fear into Americans and gain from it. And Americans like sheep fell for it, like they always do.

It happen during the Cold War, it happened in Vietnam, it's happening now, and it will happen again in the future.

 

Democracies springing up all around them. Gee, that's cute.

The answer is: zero. We are bogged down in Iraq, to the tune of our current forces doing something like four or five tours each. We'd need a draft just to delay the inevitable in Iraq. And if Iran has a nuke, we'll give them the Pakistan/North Korea kneepad treatment in any case. We are entirely dependent on Iran's democracy movement turning out a hell of a lot better than Iraq's.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Tell that to the 15,000 family members who lost a close relative on 9/11.

Just for a minute, sit back and try to separate yourself from your own prejudice about the Iraq war and look at any of the 7 significant terrorist attacks prior to 9/11.

 

Unlikely, but certaintly possible.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-11-2004_pg1_8

BTW, I agree with Iranian Monitor that Abizaid's comment about American nuclear capabilities was unconscionable (not to mention, counterproductive).

 

Ok. sure.......now tell me.....How did invading Iraq solve USA's problems? If anything it's made USA's problems 10x worse. No weapons of mass destruction found = more see absolute no reason for this war = more muslims p*ssed off = more terrorism.

USA's problem is their support of Israel. Israeli's in my opinion is just as bad as the Palestinians if not far worse. Take Spain for example, they took away their troops from Iraq. You know what happened? A Spanish governments car was shot at in Israel, and several Spanish companies or buildings belonging to Spanish people bulldozed over. This was Israelis.....Now if they did that to Spain, a friendly country. What would they do to their enemies?

 

As I suspected, you are not capable of separating Iraq from the fact that the US was attacked previously by terrorists.

So...how did not responding to any of the previous attacks prevent 9/11?

Answer: It didn't. The terrorists had an agenda prior to the Iraq invasion.

 

When you're making stuff up, why not go all the way? Maybe Israel poisoned Spanish babies?

 

It depends a lot on the progress made on the Iraqi front. For now, I'd go with #5.

 

I think that most posters are laboring under the false notion that Bushcorp actually cares about keeping America safe and that they have America's best interests at heart when forming foreign policy. Policy is made based on its effect on the economic interests of big companies like Halliburton and Enron. Sure, there are some true believers like Feith and Wolfie but they're just along for the ride.

Iraq wasn't about WMD or Saddam's imminent threat but about how much of the Treasury's money Bushcorp and friends could steal and about possibly controling the future of Middle East oil. Why else would we be building all those permanent military bases in Iraq if we are really going to turn control over to the newly elected government?

Iran will remain unmolested if they play ball with Bushcorp's oil interests and stay away from directly selling to China or Europe. This whole nuclear thing is a play to scare Americans into going along. This is why Bushcorp pulled out of the NTB treaty and are currently developing tactical nukes. They want to be ready for the next arms race.

This is all just my opinion.

 

Them things DID happen. Just because it wasn't reported in your American biased media doesn't mean it's not true.