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

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Iranian Monitor, Nov 28, 2004.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    How do you rate the chances of a serious US military confrontation with Iran in the next 4 years?

    1) Almost Inevitable ... 90%-100%
    2) Highly Probable ... 70%-90%
    3) Likely ... 50%-70%
    4) Strong Possibility ... 25%-50%
    5) Possible but Unlikely ... 10%-25%
    6) Very Unlikely ... 5%-10%
    7) Virtually Impossible ... 0%-5%
     
  2. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You shoulda made this a poll.

    #5.
     
  3. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    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.
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    superdave, Never done a poll here, so I don't know how that works? If you want, you can post the same questions as a poll. I would be voting for #5 too, btw.

    usscouse,

    So which option are you choosing?
     
  5. Ian McCracken

    Ian McCracken Member

    May 28, 1999
    USA
    Club:
    SS Lazio Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    #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.
     
  6. sardus_pater

    sardus_pater Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Sardinia Italy EU
    Club:
    Cagliari Calcio
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    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.
     
  7. TeamUSA

    TeamUSA Member

    Nov 24, 1999
    Tianjin, China
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
     
  8. JPhurst

    JPhurst New Member

    Jul 30, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    #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.
     
  9. Dr Jay

    Dr Jay BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 7, 1999
    Newton, MA USA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    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.
     
  10. usscouse

    usscouse BigSoccer Supporter

    May 3, 2002
    Orygun coast
    Sorry, I'm going for what's behind door 6 :cool:

    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]
     
  11. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    As likely as IranianMonitor posting anything not about Iran.
     
  12. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    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.
     
  13. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    I want to offer some perspective on Iran's internal situation, since like so much about Iran, the easy answers are usually the wrong ones.

    The level of support and opposition to the regime cannot be generalized without subdividing the population in regional and socio-economic terms. Attitudes about the regime differ significantly depending on which part of the population you focus on.

    The divisions that do exist within the secular middle class aren't about support versus opposition to the regime. Real support for the regime among this group is almost nonexistant and among them the regime is almost universally despised.

    Rather the divisions that exist here are between proponents of secular democracy under a republican form of government, those who want a constitutional monarchy, extreme nationalists who sympathise with secular far right agendas including fascist parties, as well as the left ranging from more liberal socialists to the dwindling number of die hard communists. Theoretically, if these divisions could be covered up, this group could form a formidable base of opposition to the regime.

    Yet, even among this group, the appetite for another "revolution" or any other form of radical change is somewhat dimmed, ironically, by economic considerations. While these folks know that their economics situation would improve significantly if the regime was changed, the price tag involved in such changes (unless achieved peacefully) seem prohibitive for many of them. After all, they have investments, own property, and hence have a natural bias in favor of economic stability. The only ones who don't have the same restriction on them are the students, who are not yet financially beholden to "stability" and share little or nothing with the theocracy ruling over them.

    Outside the students and youth, the truth is that most of Iran's secular middle class have turned to political apathy. They want change, but they don't want to either pay the price nor sacrifice much to see change come about.

    Just focusing on this group, as some American and Israeli analysts often do, does not give a complete picture of Iran's political situation either. While influential and most visible in large cities such as Tehran, the other half of Iran's population are poor or live in rural areas. Yet, the picture that emerges in studying this group is not all that clear or one sided either!

    On the one hand, the poor folks and those from rural areas were the mainstay of support for the regime until very recently. That is until Iran embarked on "market reforms" in the past decade. These reforms have improved Iran's economic situation in aggregate numbers, but they have seriously widened the gap between the 'haves and have nots', leaving many feeling they are poorer even if they are not. While Iran's secular middle class, despite the pressures and gripes, are able to live a life that largely mimicks what you find in Europe and elsewhere, the poor in Iran are finding their situation increasingly desperate. Hence, this group is economically the least invested in stability and is hence most susceptible to being wooed towards radical agendas, yet their political and religious attitudes share very little in common with the secular middle class!

    In Iran, among the hardliners, the fight and effort is to win back this group and bring them back to the mold. To win this group, the hardliners don't need to make too many concessions on social issues. Rather, they need to focus on promising a better economic condition. Bellicose talk from Washington, which stirs nationalistic feelings and allows hardliners to better scapegoat reformists, along with promises to combat "corruption" and an agenda that focus on economic issues, are what the hardliners are banking on to win back this group. If the hardliners succeed in that endeavor, Iran will suffer greatly in the long run, but for now, the regime will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
     
  14. Dyvel

    Dyvel Member+

    Jul 24, 1999
    The dog end of a day gone by
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    The NY Times did a whole series on the restless youth of Iran. Protests also occur during the Iranian teams WCQ games.
     
  15. bloon

    bloon New Member

    Oct 25, 2004
    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.
     
  16. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    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!
     
  17. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    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.
     
  18. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    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).
     
  19. bloon

    bloon New Member

    Oct 25, 2004

    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?
     
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Well, at the moment, all sides have decided to punt. Having read the actual text of the Iran-EU deal, and now the resolution being offered regarding Iran's nuclear program, the only conclusion is that no one is ready to face the issues seriously. Neither the Iranian part, nor the Europeans, nor even the Americans.

    Iran has made concessions to be sure, most of which I don't support, but all those concessions are then essentially taken away by a clause that says Iran's commitments are not legally binding and are purely voluntary. The EU, on the other hand, has made some vague promises (including recognizing Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy including the nuclear fuel cycle), but then made statements that are at odds with those terms.

    Anyway, the latest "broo haha" regarding the Iran-EU deal appears to have reached a similar conclusion.

     
  21. dj43

    dj43 New Member

    Aug 9, 2002
    Nor Cal
    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.
     
  22. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    When you're making stuff up, why not go all the way? Maybe Israel poisoned Spanish babies?
     
  23. dreamer

    dreamer Member

    Aug 4, 2004
    It depends a lot on the progress made on the Iraqi front. For now, I'd go with #5.
     
  24. Section106

    Section106 Member

    May 1, 2003
    Hampton,VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
     
  25. bloon

    bloon New Member

    Oct 25, 2004
    Them things DID happen. Just because it wasn't reported in your American biased media doesn't mean it's not true.
     

Share This Page