Military Action on Iran Likely to Come

American Chronicle ^ | November 26, 2005 | Joseph McHugh

[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 man’s 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 Rand’s 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 acquaintance’s face demonstrates just how seriously are taken Iran’s 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 don’t 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 don’t work, don’t 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 Iran’s 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, Bush’s 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.

[wtc911]

"the Iranian people are poised to take back their government if we do what we need to do...."

------------------------------------------

You make this statement based on what evidence?

[streetpreacher]

Preach it brother!

[Edit35]

That's what they thought about Iraq four years ago.

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?

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[BigFinn]

Preterist.

[He Rides A White Horse]

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.

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.

[ALWAYSWELDING]

LOL...You do know that all that has already happened eons ago, right? Give the Jack Van Imp stuff a rest for petes sakes!

More than one preterist than me here I suppose.

Postmil too?

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Give the replacement theology of chuch replaces Israel a rest,for goodness sakes!

You'd have to give the scriptures themselves a rest then.

[He Rides A White Horse]

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.

I think this is an overly optimistic statement.

[strategofr]

"I think this is an overly optimistic statement."

quite agree. Iraq is looking shaky as the President talks of troop drawdowns.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Your scenario would bomb the crap out of Iran and leave a hostile government in place.

I didn't realize that we have a friendly Iranian government in place at the present time. That is indeed new information.

[strategofr]

"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."

Are you looking clearly? It is we who are backed into a corner, not the Dems.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I think our best hope is securing Iraq before Iran develops nuclear weapons, and perhaps using it as a spring board for an invasion if we have to. I believe that with Korean help they may accomplish that goal before we are ready. Which leaves Israel to strike first, and I don't things are looking good with that scenario.

[A. Pole]

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 man’s face. “Something must be done,” he intoned. “We are all afraid.”

There are several churches open in Iran and ZERO in Saudi Arabia. 9/11 bombers did not come from Iran either.

[strategofr]

"Israel will never allow them to complete such a thing, which of course means overt military action."

I'm not sure. Israel is totally preoccupied with Gaza---a tremendous security problem.

Taking on Iran depends on US support I think, which may not be forthcoming.

You could be right, I agree, but it seems things might slide.

Israel might look at it this way: an Arab state is bound to go nuclear eventually. Iran is developing ICBMs along with nukes, directly threatening the US. Wait and let the US handle it.

When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant, the whole world condemned them, including the US.

[ASA Vet]

an Arab state is bound to go nuclear eventually

The Persian state will be nuclear before any Arab state.

[Sunsong]

With the serious fears being raised by even its Arab neighbors, it looks like action against Iran is inevitable.

What kind of logic is that???

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. For your reading pleasure.

5.56mm

[DragonMarine]

Not big enough.....

7.62mm NATO Ball
M14 out of mothballs
M60 from the hip
John Wayne Style

[reagan_fanatic]

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.

The last scenario seems the most likely. There's no way we can occupy Iraq, keep forces in Afghanistan and maintain our military commitments around the World while invading and occupying Iran. Especially since we would most likely do it alone without much help from our allies.

The real wild card in this game will be Israel and what it may do.