It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

How would U.S. fight Iran??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Because of Bush's apparent lack of intelligence, it appears we may never go to war with iran. however, the possibility still exists.

With this newly re-shaped Middle East, how would the U.S. go about invading a nation such as Iran?




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
What do you mean by his "apparent lack of intelligence"? Are you suggesting that if he was more intelligent the US would invade Iran?

Western analysts believe that Iran will self-reform in 15-20 years. There is no real reason for the US to invade. It's more a policy of bottling them up until they assume a less agressive posture. This can be accomplished with sanctions and a Naval blockade if it becomes necessary. If things really get bad, the US may take action in the form of airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites and maybe a couple airbases, but that is really not a good solution because it will solidify the position of the hard-liners in power, which is something we don't want to do.

Remember, the US has troops on both sides of Iran, and Pakistan does not want to anger the US. Also, Pak does not want a nuclear Iran on their border with close ties to India. So both India and Pakistan have to conduct a balancing act wrt Iran and the US. It's really China that has the most to gain from a conflict between Iran and the US.

It's in Iran's interest to destabilize Iraq. The busier the US is in Iraq, the less we can focus on Iran. Also, a democratic Iraq will not toe the line from Tehran, and the mullahs know this.

But the US will not invade Iran. There's too much to lose and too little to gain.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I would tend to agree, Iran will implode upon itself as the non-arabs that they are (#e) to boot, want more freedoms and if Iraq were to be successful in the shortrun, it will just bring this to the forefront more quickly.

Syria on the otherhand is being way more cooperative than they let on publically, they know they could easily be the next target and Assad wants to keep power at all costs.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I would tend to agree, Iran will implode upon itself as the non-arabs that they are (#e) to boot, want more freedoms

Mmm this echos in my mind the same arguments for not going to war with Iraq, and hey guess what , yeah we are .



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsingerSyria on the otherhand is being way more cooperative than they let on publically, they know they could easily be the next target and Assad wants to keep power at all costs.
This is correct. Witness the recent movement of Syrian troops out of Beirut to the Syrian border, also the statement from Damascus following the assasination of the Hamas leader by Israel. "No retaliation would be permitted from Syrian controlled areas". Meaning, you can have offices here, but you cannot conduct military operations against Israel.

Syria has seen the writing on the wall.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
What do you mean by his "apparent lack of intelligence"? Are you suggesting that if he was more intelligent the US would invade Iran?


Bush invaded Iraq based on conjecture. If he invades Iran, at least he can say "See? They were developing WMD!"

That's a very stupid way to handle things, Mr. President. Go to war on a guess but hold back when someone slaps the proof right into your face.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I would tend to agree, Iran will implode upon itself as the non-arabs that they are (#e) to boot, want more freedoms and if Iraq were to be successful in the shortrun, it will just bring this to the forefront more quickly.


Is this a wish or do you have any proof they're really that unstable?



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
So we should try and fight against any country that invades other soverign countries. That wages war on lands with no threat or threat of invasion on itself. And the same country must have a WMD capability.

Oh I know who fits this criteria...America...also the ONLY country to use so called WMD on another country in history!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The TellerMmm this echos in my mind the same arguments for not going to war with Iraq, and hey guess what , yeah we are .
Politically, Iraq and Iran are very different. Saddam did not permit any dissent at all, and his power was not expected to be challenged from within without outside intervention.

Iran is a much larger country, and the younger people there do not remember the revolution of 1979, they were not born yet. In 15-20 years, these people are going to be the ones taking over, and they want democratic reforms. The internal pressure in Iran will come from them.

The last election in Iran solidified the hard-liners to some extent, but it will not last, especially if the Iranian people see a successful democratic Afghanistan and Iraq as their neighbors. That is the real key to the puzzle. If the US can be successful in creating stable and democratic neighbors, Iran will follow on her own.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
why would Bush want to declare war with Iran right now?

Iran has enough missiles
SAM's . Anti ship missiles and so on to

destroy a few ships in the golf
kill a few thousend troops
launch a few at israel

all before it goes down

unless the US has the man power to take out all Iraninan forces in one go?



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Knock Knock
Hello!

You started this thread yourself already:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
engineer-although I agree with some of the points you replied with I think you missed my point.
To say well there will be no war with Iran because it will implose upon itself, is exactly the same argument used before the Iraq war. There were other arguments then that people would have pointed out hat were different, but the thing is, war will be waged wether right or wrong, weather a good idea or bad, so to say no there is acase against the preconcieved sensible thought does not wash anymore.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by engineer
What do you mean by his "apparent lack of intelligence"? Are you suggesting that if he was more intelligent the US would invade Iran?


Bush invaded Iraq based on conjecture. If he invades Iran, at least he can say "See? They were developing WMD!"

That's a very stupid way to handle things, Mr. President. Go to war on a guess but hold back when someone slaps the proof right into your face.


He didn't go to war based on conjecture. He invaded Iraq to pressue ALL arab governments and set an example and to isolate Iran. He did it to exert financial and internal intelligence pressures on Al Quiada. Everything else is just fluff for your consumption.

He was actually very smart to do this and it HAS had the desired effect. I don't think he even cares if Iraq ends up a democracy as long as the Arab world toes the line.

The current fighting in Iraq is because Iran tried a power play using the Sunies and some other smaller groups. The US co-opted the other groups and formed a new government and isolated the sunnies politically. It's actually going very well for us over there.

The goal in Iraq is NOT to establish peace but instead lower the level of violence. These battles are accomplishing that. If you look at the scope, organization and intensity of the insurgency's attacks you'll see a dramatic lessoning of thier abilities over the last 6 months.

So far so good.....



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   


If you look at the scope, organization and intensity of the insurgency's attacks you'll see a dramatic lessoning of thier abilities over the last 6 months.

So far so good.....



What data are you using to make this determination?

If you look at coalition casualties there really is no definite conclusion there. Some months are lower than others.

Here's a timeline up to the current Fallujah assault. Link

And currently, there is fighting in four major cities instead of just the normal popshots along supply lines that defined the scene 6 months ago. (Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Ramadi)(The green zone is no longer green)

I cannot see how you have come to your conclusions.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join