>>>>WHEN WILL THE U.S. TAKE IRAN?<<<<

When or Will the U.S. invade Iran like they did Iraq?
They have sent an Additional 20,000
troops to "Stabilize" Iraq? Maybe to
'Re-inforce' the existing force in Iraq.

Never. Not the way you're thinking, anyway. I'll bet it can be done by an uprising of the populace.

I couldn't see the point of this: Iran, both as a Shiite countryand as a non-Arab country, is relatively isolated. It is also much bigger and far more heavily populated than Iraq; and the Shiites in Iraq could be a most unpleasant Fifth Column.
The fact that it appears pointless is of course no guarantee that US hawks won't do it; but I should have thought patience was the watchword.

Actually, there is a very good chance that the US will take Iran: the timing depends totally on when the US is ready, and when they can set up an appropriate excuse to attack (likely will be another 911 style terrorist attack with info leading to Iran harboring Al Quaida, ect... wait, they are already putting that line in the water, arent they???)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian officials Thursday told a U.N. representative that Iran has several unnamed al Qaeda operatives in custody, CNN has learned.

www.cnn.com...

The reason for taking Iran has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, WMD, or helping/hiding Al Quaida, although all of the above will likely be used as appropriate excuses when the time is right.

The real reason the US will likely take Iran is for its vote in OPEC (I believe Iran is the 4th or 5th largest oil producer), and because Iran is currently committed to forcing a vote in OPEC to change the oil standard currency from the US Dollar to the Euro.

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview published Sunday that he doubts the existence of al-Qaida, the terror group blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks and recent strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
"Is there really an entity called al-Qaida? Was it in Afghanistan? Does it exist now?" Assad asked, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba.



Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born Islamic extremist who heads al-Qaida, "cannot talk on the phone or use the Internet, but he can direct communications to the four corners of the world?" Assad said. "This is illogical."

www.sacbee.com...

It is beginning...

A top-level United States policy document has emerged that explicitly confirms the Defence Department's readiness to fight an oil war.

According to the report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defence, "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security".

Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged.

Although the policy does not forecast imminent US military conflict, it vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.

www.smh.com.au...

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the administration has cut off contacts with Iran and "appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy of trying to destabilize the Iranian government." The White House offered no comment Sunday.

www.oaklandtribune.com...

[Edited on 5-26-2003 by William One Sac]

An attempt to thaw relations between America and Iran - estranged for the past 24 years - has broken down, complicating US efforts to stabilise the Middle East and form a democratic government in Iraq.

The dialogue collapsed after the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, with American officials accusing Iran of harbouring al-Qa'eda terrorists allegedly involved in the attack.

Washington is now considering "an aggressive policy of trying to destabilise the Iranian government", according to the Washington Post.

news.telegraph.co.uk...$sessionid$22AU1RT01YOE1QFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/05/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/26/ixw orld.html

having just read about Iran from a visiting amercian academic, I don't think that there will be an uprising at all even if it was supported by the CIA.

The revolution has raised literacy rates, cleaned up their cities, and reduced corruption to very low levels. Certainly they can be oppressive but there are definite benefits in the way they live now, than under the shah from the 70's.

They are becmming increasinly western and open towards the west, and a war or action by the west will only serve to drive them back to fundamentalism and extremism.

Its a bad move, by people who seem - based on past evidence unable to predict how cultures other than their own will act.

I agree with Netty on the position that a war with Iran would do much greater harm in the region than good.

As far as the crime rate being lower, cities are cleaner, etc., which would be better, to live in a clean but oppressive city or to suffer some litter in a free environment?

I dont think you guys really understand... the US doesnt give a rats a$$ about whether a war would make the situation in the region better or not.

They are interested in one thing and one thing only... making sure that OPEC does not have the capacity to change oil standard currency away from US dollar, and in the process destroying the US economy.

It is nice to think that some people still believe the US has peoples rights and well being in mind, but in the real world, such considerations are secondary at best.

Make no mistake, I don't think the government, or any government, is interested in individual well-being but the well-being of the nation.

It seems to me that in the intermediate and long run causing such waves in that region will do more harm than OPEC going Euro. They have a tendancy to remember things for centuries, not decades.

What do you think, Dragonrider, which do you think would be more detrimental?

I think that long term instability in the region is a non-issue, at least in the minds of the planners of these campaigns... Their main interest is to eventually (as soon as feasible with positive public support) control as much or all of OPEC as can be gained through financial, political, or military means.

Originally posted by dragonrider
I dont think you guys really understand... the US doesnt give a rats a$$ about whether a war would make the situation in the region better or not.

They are interested in one thing and one thing only... making sure that OPEC does not have the capacity to change oil standard currency away from US dollar, and in the process destroying the US economy.

It is nice to think that some people still believe the US has peoples rights and well being in mind, but in the real world, such considerations are secondary at best.

Do you have figures which relate to oil transactions using the US dollar ?
I can't see the US economy being destroyed by a devalued dollar.