Skip to comments.Military Action on Iran Likely to Come
Posted on 11/29/2005 4:42:25 PM PST by saganite
I was recently talking to an acquaintance of mine, an acquaintance from Saudi Arabia, who is connected with their government. When the subject of Iran came up, a look of gravity came over the mans face. Something must be done, he intoned. We are all afraid. Now this man is no friend of President George Bush or Israel, but he expressed the desire to see Israel do something. What an irony: The enemies of Israel looking for Israel to save the world. It is a perfect illustration of Ayn Rands point that the world depends on its producers, while simultaneously loathing them. Doubtless, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia would condemn any attack on Iran by Israel in the strongest of terms, while secretly breathing a sigh of relief.
What this conversation illustrates, too, is just how uneasy people are in the Middle East with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fear on my acquaintances face demonstrates just how seriously are taken Irans threats. This is no bluff.
Right now we are being dragged through what seems like an endless round of negotiations between Iran on the one side, and Europe and the U.S on the other side. China and Russia are in the middle, although generally favoring Iran. Threats are being made to refer Iran to the U.N Security Council if negotiations dont pan out. The negotiations have dragged on for so long because Iran has repeatedly reneged on past agreements, frustrating and stymieing negotiators. The latest proposal would have Russia handle the enrichment of Uranium and ship it to Iran, thereby ensuring that it is used only for peaceful purposes. But Iran has insisted on total control of the process.
If negotiations dont work, dont expect much from the United Nations. They were not exactly profiles in courage when it came to Iraq, passing toothless resolution after toothless resolution.
With the serious fears being raised by even its Arab neighbors, it looks like action against Iran is inevitable. The pressure on Israel and the United States by Irans Arab neighbors will force the issue. And remember, the Bush administration still considers Iran part of the Axis of Evil.
Expect military action to be taken before 2008, Bushs last year in office. Probably it will come in 2007, after the midterm elections are over. While Israel is the most likely candidate to attack, American forces may also be involved. Fears of a wider war erupting seem unfounded as Bush has effectively neutralized two terrorist states, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is now in the process of neutralizing another Syria. Iran will be surrounded, and cut off.
And if the U.S or Israel act against Iran, you can expect loud public condemnation, and quiet private glee.
I believe this article is accurate.
Perhaps this is the scenario depicted in Ezekiel 38...if it is, expect other nations to attack Israel first and simultaneously, not the other way around. Persia (Iran) is named as an invader. But according to the text, the attacking nations are all destroyed. Interesting.
LOL...You do know that all that has already happened eons ago, right? Give the Jack Van Imp stuff a rest for petes sakes!
What the F are we, king's of the world? Containment for a while might be a plan...
If Iran gets nukes and a liberal is horrified, remind him that if the liberals did not undermind the US staying power in the Middle East, a large US force would be next door in Iraq in position to do something.
I don't buy this by the USA, Israel possibly.
You really can't contain a nuclear power bent on the destruction of a neighboring state. All you can do is preempt it.
I've got this one bookmarked. :)
The islamics who rule rian are the type of people who WOULD use a nuclear weapon. The only way to defeat them is to preemt.
The US wants nothing to do with more war; they are simply too costly politically, unless a real opportunity presents itself.
Israel, perhaps, but a international containment and isolation plan would be needed first and the world's corrupt nations will not co-operate. It is an unpleasant situation, which is why Iran feels they can afford to push the envelope.
If Israel actually had serious concerns about Iran, then they would destroy Iran.
Containment for a while was a "plan" with regard to the Soviet Union. They were at least rational enough to care whether they lived or died.
Islamic fanatics are often suicidal death-cultists who cannot be trusted to understand or even fear the threat of massive retaliation.
Besides, a nuclear Iran would not hesitate to share its new toys with Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbolla, or Al-Qaeda.
No way. Even the Saudis see this more clearly than you.
Iran's nuclear ambitions must be eliminated before they become a serious threat. And the government should be bombed to smithereens in broad daylight while it is in session as well. That might give the people an oportunity to rise up.
We're sitting back and letting the Europeans flail at the problem proposing diplomatic solutions and UN resolutions. The neighboring countries know Iran is dangerous and the Europeans know it too. Eventually they will have to face the fact that something must be done.
Israel probably has the intel to do this job but it doesn't have the reach. We are the only ones who can do this job.
But this had better be part of a larger, comprehensive plan to take down the ayatollahs, because when we do this, the mad mullahs are going to be looking for payback.
We had better have covered all of our bases.
I wrote "containment for a while"
The US will need a much larger force if the decision is made to occupy Iran until a "nicer to the US" government is installed....
I have a feeling you will not see in Iran what we have done in Iraq. My guess is you will see some very nice bombing runs from a 1000's of feet in the air which will take out some very key installations.
""Probably it will come in 2007..."
I don't buy this by the USA, Israel possibly."
I agree with you. I think the author is too optimistic. I hope this happens, but there is no evidence that the Bush administration has the stomach for another attack.
I understand how they feel---but the situation seems to demand action.
In addition, Israel woudl need complete US backing to pull this off effectively, in my opnion (including political backing of some sort.) Without that, even they may decide to "sit tight."
"We're sitting back and letting the Europeans flail at the problem proposing diplomatic solutions and UN resolutions."
True. We are pretending we think the Europeans can solve it because we are unwilling to act. Everyone knows nothing will ocme of EU and UN efforts.
I don't think so; occupation won't be necessary, as the Iranian people are poised to take back their government if we do what we need to do.
You do know that Ezikiel 38 is latter day prophecy,as well as the rest of the following chapters in the book,right?
Give the replacement theology of chuch replaces Israel a rest,for goodness sakes!
That's what they thought about Iraq four years ago.
So we lob a few bombs in there, and the downtrodden civilian folks take over the Iranian Government... How neat and sweet your fantasy land is....
[We're sitting back and letting the Europeans flail at the problem proposing diplomatic solutions and UN resolutions. The neighboring countries know Iran is dangerous and the Europeans know it too. Eventually they will have to face the fact that something must be done.]
I fear they may face this fact as all liberals do by denying the problem will escalate or is even dangerous.Liberals are very French like these days.
If the US came in they could hit more targets but there is no guarantee they would get them all. Only "Iraq II" would get all those large installations and I doubt the country would stand for it.
What it boils down to is that we can hope for a successful revolution in Iran(Unlikely IMO), Rely on diplomacy to deter the Iranians(also unlikely), or try to exist with a Nuclear Iran. In that event, the Iranians must understand if they use a Nuke first, we would use them last.
And then? The UNSC discusses it? They continue to build. A harshly-worded resolution? They continue to build. International sanctions? They continue to build.
Frankly I don't see military activity in the form of air raids working either given what we now know about the Iranian tunnels. And Israel and the United States aren't going to do a preemptive nuclear strike. Checkmate.
There are a number of people who are just sure that a nuclear Iran is a healthy counterbalance to U.S. hegemony. Inasmuch as most of them are at a much closer range to Iran than the U.S. is that may prove to be an inconvenient point of view. Once Iran does go nuclear we will be in a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship between them and Israel. With the U.S. there won't be anything "mutual" about the assured destruction. Same with Great Britain, Russia, and China, and that's about it.
One day the United States may be forced to take on Iraq.
The truly sickening part of it will be one week later people like Hillary Clinton and Fat Ted and John Kerry will be saying there was no proof Iran had any Nuclear intentions and trying to divide the United States again for their own political power. Those common SOB's.
And none too soon. ".... and the states who harbor them ...."
Yeah right, kick the can down the road, it's the American way. Got us all sorts of wonderful things - Pearl Harbor, near disaster in Korea, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a fiasco in SE Asia, the Iran Hostage crisis, WTC-1, OKC, WTC-2 ..... I wonder what Pearl Harbor 2 will be like?
I agree that it will be Israel. Sharon is tightening up his defensive line and ceding some land to fight over. I think he has also built some nice fortifications.
The people of Iran must act now. There is no better time to petition for liberty when a US Marine stands astride your borders.
Is Hanoi john going to vote YES before he votes NO?
You're mistaken...it's the keyboard commandos that miff me...
I tend to agree. Unless we have men on the ground the probability of taking out Iran's nuke capability is pretty slim. But I'm not completely discounting the possibility of us putting men on the ground. .....spec ops with a narrowly defined mission, not a full-scale occupation/police action.
Once Iran does go nuclear we will be in a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship between them and Israel. With the U.S. there won't be anything "mutual" about the assured destruction.
Certainly not initially. But once they get ICBMs (and it's just a matter of time) and build enough warheads, the U.S. won't be in quite as invulnerable a position. Hopefully our ABM technology can make some strides. ....quickly.
Another concern is Iran's Islamist gov't giving (relatively) small warheads to terrorists, of course.
There's plenty of time to build up the need to hit Iraq over the next year and a half. If he started now with full blown sabre rattling, it'd turn into a political mess. Better to let the dems get backed into the corner and having to support Bush when he decides to this rather than give them time to raise too much stink about it.
That's the way I see it anyway.
That is complete hyperbole BS (with all due respect) - The fact is GWB won reelection based on the GWOT (including Iraq) - The majority of the pubic fully stands behind the GWOT to this day (including Iraq) - Useless "polls" put out by the MSM don't mean a thing -
The reality is those leaders who have stoop up and taken the fight to our enemies have all won reelection (GWB, Blair, Howard in Australia, etc) - Those who choose to sit on the fence or to not fight at all have mostly lost (France, Germany, Canada to name a few).
But more importantly here in America there is no political "cost" to standing firm for America's national defense (even if that means war). No cost in the since that it will lead to a defeat at the polls. Just the opposite is true.
since = SENSE - (Long day)
You make this statement based on what evidence?
Preach it brother!
OK, let's say we send B-1 and B-52 bombers and take out Iran's nuclear installations as best as possible, while at the same time we destroy other key military bases or installations.
What is Iran going to do? Attack Manhatten?
Send an armada to invade San Fransisco??
They won't do crap but complain, cause they don't have the resources for an intercontinental invasion.
oh yeah, they might take some token actions against the nearest US Army base, which I am sure would be on the highest alert possible.
Bottom line: We would have destroyed the nuclear threat temporarily, and we would have sent a message to the lunatic Muslim fringe.
What other choice would we have? Let Iran continue to build and build nuclear bombs until the entire world is threatened with anniliation?
Couple of problems with your scenario. One, despite all the talk we have never won a conflict on airpower alone. Your scenario would bomb the crap out of Iran and leave a hostile government in place. You don't think they won't find a way to get payback? Second, look at Iran's best customers for oil. UK. Japan. India. China. All are on the list. None are going to support us in this. So you would have us go to war while still trying to prop up Iraq and I'm pointing out that we don't have the troops, or the allies to do it.
Doubtless, all Hell will break loose.
This is something I have been pondering for some time now; Iran seems intent on proceeding with its nuclear program. Israel will never allow them to complete such a thing, which of course means overt military action. The world is an extremely dangerous place right now, and personally I see the Middle East as a powder keg ready to ignite. Iran will be the focal point.
More than one preterist than me here I suppose.
You'd have to give the scriptures themselves a rest then.
I think this is an overly optimistic statement.
"I think this is an overly optimistic statement."
quite agree. Iraq is looking shaky as the President talks of troop drawdowns.