Is war with Iran imminent?

Great Debates
21

You assume that Bush and the neocons would consider that a risk, and not a benefit. That would bog us down further in Iraq, and commit us to war with Iran, which they want.

“Unsupported” ? We have the whole war with and occupation of Iraq, and innumerable other decisions. He’s proven his poor judgement as few other people ever have.

:rolleyes: This Bushian “we create our own reality” stuff is garbage. If we attack them, it’s an act of war. If we massacre a bunch of them with air strikes, it’s still war, even if it isn’t officially declared. By your “logic”, we could kill them all with nukes and call it a “peace settlement”, and everyone is supposed to just nod their heads and say, “Yep, that’s what it is.”

22

Bill Clinton lobbed missiles at Iraq for 4 days. Does that mean we’re currently in Gulf War III? Just because you commit an act of war (lobbing missiles would constitute an act of war) doesn’t mean you will go to war. **Xtisme **has it exactly right. We aren’t go to go to war with Iran unless we decide to do so. “The Mouse that Roared” is work if fiction.

23

‘Busian’, ehe? :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s an act of war…but it’s not a war unless, you know, a war thingy is actually declared or at least fought. And no war would transpire if the US launched air strikes on Irans nuclear program.

Of course, since no such strikes are going to happen except in the feverish minds of the most rabid anti-Bush/anti-US crowd (aren’t you the chapter president?), it’s moot…just an academic question.

So, if we ‘massacre’ a bunch of em and nothing happens afterward except some heated rhetoric back and forth…is that still a war to? If not, why not? What definition of ‘war’ are you using here exactly?

Well, by your lack of reading comprehension I suppose you could call it anything you like. I of course never said if we nuked them that this wouldn’t be an act of war…that is your own hyperbole talking. What I actually said is that a theoretical air strike by the US would not necessarily result in war with Iran…while the converse would certainly result in war with the US. Past history seems to be on my side in this…unless you want to cite some examples of a larger, more powerful nation using limited strikes on a radically weaker, less powerful nation and then having said less powerful nation declare or otherwise fight a war with that more powerful nation. I’m sure there ARE examples (though none spring to mind)…but generally for acts short of invasion or a threat to the very survival of a nation, most such strikes do not result in weak nations going to war with superpowers and are generally given a pass. Simply thought on this explains why…if I am a 98 lb weakling and a 6’6" muscular linebacker type bumps me in line and spills my beer all over my shirt I’m probably going to give this a pass no matter how mad I am. The converse is not necessarily true though…

Sorry that reality doesn’t conform to your world view. It’s a bit ironic (and IMHO inaccurate as hell) to associate reality with ‘Bushian’ worldview…but whatever floats thy boat.

-XT

24

Do you honestly believe Bush would lob a few missiles. ? That would show a poor grasp of Bush and his tactics.

25

Well, I don’t know what you consider to be “Bush and his tactics”, but we aren’t going to war with Iran.

26

But a bombing/missile strike is the only thing that Bush can pull out of his ass with total secrecy from the US public. If he wants tanks rolling across the Iranian border, he’s got to mass US troops on the Iranian border, he’s got to stockpile gigantic amounts of fuel and ammo and spare parts and supplies ahead of time, and so on.

Troops can’t mass on the Iranian border in secret. But planes can be made ready in Diego Garcia in secret, and those planes can take off and bomb Iran and we don’t know about it until the bombings are reported on CNN the next morning.

Remember the buildup to the invasion of Iraq? There’s no way to keep the logistics neccesary for a ground invasion of Iran secret, not from the Iranians, and not from the American people either. You’re not going to wake up tomorrow and read in the New York times that our tank divisions are punching across the border and headed for Tehran, unless you’ve already been reading for months how tank divisions have been preparing on the border, and tensions are rising, and cross-border incidents are occuring, and speaches are being made and so on.

I’m sure Bush wishes he could just pull a couple armored divisions out of his ass and send them down the road to Tehran, but the fact is that even the president can’t get such a thing simply by wishing for it. A squadron of bombers, yes. Tank divisions, no.

Now, what’s gonna happen if we bomb Iran? The trouble for Iran is that while we can’t do much about militias and insurgents that blend into the civilian populace, we surely can bomb and destroy any conventional forces that attempt to move across the border. Iran might wish that they could simply declare war on us after we bomb them, but that just allows us to destroy their conventional military.

So the more likely response is howls of outrage in the UN, and dramatically increased deniable support for anti-US operations of all sorts all across the globe. Why send the Iranian army across the border to be slaughtered, when you’ve got folks fighting the Americans for you just across the border?

27

They don’t “want” us to be bogged down in Iraq. They want to win, but since that’s impossible, they’ll settle for treading water until they can pass the buck.

28

The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate made public in December said that Iran had abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003.

29

Temporarily halted for a time, not “abandoned”. And the NIE was unclear as to whether they had recently started up again.

30

No, no, no and yet again, no.
It did nothing of the sort, and that is the damnedest meme I’ve ever seen.

The report judged with “high confidence” that there was a halt that lasted “several years”. They only found with “moderate confidence” that the halt has lasted until the middle of 2007. On the subject of whether or not Iran “currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” they said, simply “we do not know”.

More to the point, the NIE went to great lengths and spent a large percentage of their report scrupulously defining the difference between strong and moderate levels of confidence. They went to great lengths and explicitly stated that it was only judgements made with “high confidence” that could produce “a solid judgment”. They explicitly stated that conclusions made with “moderate confidence” could only be taken as “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence.”

Changing 'We can render a solid judgment that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program for at least a few years, but on that matter of whether that halt lasted past those few years, we do not have intel of sufficent quality or that is corroborated sufficiently to come to a solid judgment. On the subject of whether or not Iran still intends to develop a nuclear weapons program, we simply do not know." into: “Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003?”

That sure aint playing straight.

On preview: John already addressed this point, but fuck and blue blazes, if the spread of this meme isn’t an example of creeping ignorance fighting back, I don’t know what is.

31

Imminent? No. Probable? No. Somewhere between “possible” and “likely”? Definitely, unless direct steps are taken by the antagonists.

We are once again witness to men who like to think of themselves as hard-headed realists, patting the worry-warts on the head and offering a lollipop. We are offered the tenuous comfort of their reasoning: this thing cannot happen, because it would be stupid.

Here we are, neck deep in a turd-infested fever swamp, five years after a cascading series of the most spectacularly retardo decisions evah!…and we are expected to presume the benefit of intelligent leadership.

Of course a war could easily happen, there are powerful people on both sides, morons and mullahs in positions of power, who crave such an eventuality. Both likely crave the same scenario, something happens that makes it plausible to claim that the other guy started it. Both are eager to believe in the implacable and certain hostility of the other. A better recipe for unintended and drastic consequence does not exist. One dumb move, one overreaction and we’re off to the races.

Ask yourself this: if there is some unfortunate incident involving American casualties, or even if one could be plausibly cooked up…do you think the neo-cons will sit quietly and urge prudence and restraint? Or will they start in screaming themselves hoarse and waving the bloody shirt?

So long as we maintian this pointlessly belligerent policy, the longer the window of opportunity remains open.

It may be intended for show. In what way does that mean it cannot happen, simply because it isn’t intended? Guns of August, anyone?

Perhaps you could save this classic bit of snark until someone actually does so, until then, you are putting words in your rhetorical opponents mouths, you are attributing opinions nowhere put forth. Belittle them for what they say, if you can, but not for what you project they might say, as if they had.

32

The only “neocon” left is Cheney. I hear his influence in Congress is not what it used to be.

The old neo con, he ain’t what he used to be…

33

You raise a good point, that there is always the chance that something could happen that provokes a war that nobody wants. But I take it that you’re implicitly acknowledging that neither the US nor Iran wants a war, in contrast to what folks like Der Trihs on one had and the most extreme elements of neoconservatives may think. It is worth noting that WW1 was unintended, but that countries were pulled into the war by a variety of factors: binding alliances that forced a “chain ganging” of nations being pulled into the war; a belief that war would probably be short; and the belief that the chance of a short, decisive war actually increased the perceived threat to each country, which forced them to mobilize their forces to hedge the risk against a surprise attack by one’s enemies which, in the general calculation, would probably cause annihilation. That set of facts and perceptions made war more likely, even though nobody really wanted it. That’s more or less what the Guns of August argued.

But we see none of those situations or perceptions today. Setting aside the “Bush is insane” argument, I think it is pretty clear that nobody thinks the chance of war against Iran is not an existential threat for Iran. Nobody thinks that war would be short and decisive – even airstrikes would cause huge complications in Iraq. And nobody is pulling either country to war because of external factors: Iraqis don’t want a war in Iran, Iran doesn’t want a war, and again setting aside the undebatable “Bush is insane” argument, it seems clear that the US doesn’t really want war with Iran.

Yeah, something could happen that could spin things out of control. But the preponderance of facts concerning today’s situation most likely leads both Iran and the US to exaggerate, rather than minimize, the potential harm caused by war.

34

Not true. There is McCain advisor Robert Kagan, for example.

35

I made a much smaller leap than “a solid judgment that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program,” and “whether or not Iran still intends to develop a nuclear weapons program, we simply do not know,” to “…launched air strikes on Irans nuclear program.”

36

Again, you make the argument that war with Iran would be stupid. I don’t disagree, I just don’t think it matters that much.

37

I don’t understand your point. You think McCain is going to win?

I didn’t mean to imply that all the “neocons” were dead, just that most are no longer in positions of power.

38

The last thing I want to see is war with Iraq. I had two modestly close calls against a third-rate military with generally antiquated equipment. Iran is better than that. Much as I admire the men buried in Arlington, I have no burning desire to join them anytime soon.

Besides, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose by going to war with Iran. If we beat them we face Iraq on a larger scale with regard to the aftermath. Even if we win, we lose.

39

And the launching of cruise missles or sorties of bombers can be done silently? No.

And, assuming somehow that a total press blackout occurs (unlikely… remember the press meeting SEALS landing on the beachs in Somalia?) and that the US soldiers/airmen involved are totally 100% commited to secrecy, once the bombing is over, Iran will take the remains of bombs and missles, and run SCREAMING to the UN. And if the UN doesn’t listen, I guaran-damn-tee you that Russia and China will.

There are few places left on the planet that are blacked out. While a small team of soldiers or individuals may be able to take decisive actions (as it is reported the Iranians are doing in Iraq), sending in airstrikes or cruise missle hits is something else entirely.

40

If Iran seriously wanted to wage war our helicopters would be plummeting from the skies. There has been no evidence presented that the Iranian government is arming insurgents. I don’t doubt elements of the Iranian state are engaged in low level activities but no more than we are doing while we arm terrorists and point them at Iran.