It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will Iran go for a preemptive strike on the US?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:34 AM
While no one can say what the future holds with absolute certainty of course, I do not feel inclined to believe that Iran would attack U.S. interests first unless it were assured that its goals would be met, or unless it was the result of a miscalculated escalation of its potential involvement in Iraq. Iran's government does not appear to be unaware of the costs that would be incurred in any direct military engagement with the U.S. or its allies.

It also occurs to me that with our president's approval rating as low as it is, and with the international perception of our intelligence capabilities being either imprecise or dubious, that even if the U.S. were to make a case for war with Iran, proceeding with anything more than extremely limited air strikes could potentially result in broad international condemnation and greater regional antipathy for the U.S., if not outright sympathy for Iran's position. This could, at least in theory, make it easier - rather than more difficult - for Iran to take bolder steps, particularly if the results of any U.S. strikes were seen as underwhelming, insufficient, or unwarranted by some in the region and elsewhere.

That said, let us sincerely hope that - perhaps due in part to the above factors - both nations can refrain from direct confrontation, and find it within themselves to place the pursuit of diplomatic progress above the prospect of security at the cost of peace. I do not look forward to the day when American, Iranian, or any other blood is shed due to an inability to resolve the present impasse. It is my hope that it never comes.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:43 AM
The diplomatic approach is a closed door.

On more than one occasion, working through Swiss diplomats (the US refuses point blank to engage in direct talks with Iran) they have been rebuffed.
Is this still sour grapes for the American Hostage crisis at work?

When you look back at how the US/UK financed and organised the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government in the 50's, allowing the Shah to take power and then brutally oppress the Iranian people, then perhaps it's understandable that some Iranians still feel pissed.
Without all the past meddling, it's even possible that there would today be no Islamic clerical power governing Iran.

Unfortunately, it's us serfs that have to reap what our leaders sow, for the sake of power and corporate gain. We die, they get rich, that's the way it's always been.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:56 AM

Originally posted by zurvan
Do we want to realise this simulation?

That video was apparently removed for terms of use violation.

Originally posted by el_madmaster
You would think it is up to the people. But when you consider facts like Al Gore won the popular election and Bush completely ignores polls on Iraq and stem cell research, it becomes more evident that power to the people isn't exactly true in all cases.

All true, Bush & Co. have no interest at all in what the American public, the congress, or anyone else thinks. They do as they will to further their agenda of money and power.

However if, as Awake and All Seeing wrote, literally 1,000,000 americans showed up at the door and handed him his pink slip (forcibly, if necessary) he wouldn't have a lot of choice in the matter. The return of being "ridden out on a rail". Not a bad idea, actually.
To bad I don't know a million people.

As to whether Iran will go for the pre-emptive first strike, I think it's a distinct possibility.
I don't think Iran is as militarily inept as a lot of people here seem to think, and the possibility of a submarine-based missile attack gives them, I think, the capability to attack the US directly, not just our interests in the middle east.

Actually, one could hardly blame Iran if they did initiate a first strike.
As it becomes more and more obvious that Bush & Co. are gearing up to hit them, it would just make sense to disrupt the massing of forces in the near-by regions.
Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense, and Iran knows that Bush has no problem launching his own "pre-emptive" strike. I know if I had an ever-growing group that wanted my blood(oil), I would wade in and start swingin' before the group got to big to handle.

Come to think of it, why hasn't Iran launched a first strike?

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:17 AM
I will chime in on this one.
What the US is doing right now is sabre rattling, and flexing its muscle to get Iran to back down, which it is not doing. The US is right now in a bind, as its military is stretched thin between Iraq and Afaganistan, and if the US were to go to war with Iran the causalties would be very high.
Now the sequence of events would first be this: An incident would happen, Iran will blame the US and the US will blame Iran. Even though the president of Iran is not popular with its people, the country is governed by the clerics and they do like him. So as long as he has their support, he has somewhat of a free hand. As the tensions increase, Iran will first cut the flow of oil through their part of the world, including the bay where a major pipeline goes through. This will affect US interests around the world, as they will simply state that if the US backs down, they will turn it back on. The US then has 2 choices, back down or not. Any military fighting and you can bet that the first target will be the OIL pipeline. Iran has stated it will use OIL as a weapon. And I also believe that right now Iran is currently going out and finding as many allies as it can for that kind of event. I do not believe that Pakastan will continue to allow the US to use its country if war breaks out with Iran, nor do I see any of the other Major powers supporting the US, namely China and Russia. What makes this even more touchy is that those 2 would probably come to the support of Iran.

Just something to think about.

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:58 AM
I don't think Iran is really that stupid-save for it's horses arse of a president.

If Iran attacks the US and it's allies across the world, they have to know 10-20 ICBM's with 4-10 warheads each will vaporize every city in Iran.

Furthermore, there is not a thing in the world Iran can do about or even the dumb arses Russia and China, who are providing arms to Iran.

If their leaders want to bring the end of the world, they will not.

They, might, however, bring the end of the world to Iran.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in