Kind of early for this thread, but I say February 26, 2006.
The administration, to me, seems eager to do so, but of course has no resources and no domestic/intl. support for it. I think by 2006 they’ll be in position, and a late winter new moon seems a likely time.
IF Kerry is elected, it will be at least 9 years from now. I really dont think Kerry will invade Iran. If Bush gets elected, probably in 2 years. If Bush is reelected, we will still be in Iraq, so it is just a hop skip and jump to invade Iran.
I still say Bush is more likely to attack Cuba. It’s a lot smaller and closer.
Forgive my ignorance. Why would he attack Cuba?
Or was I whooshed.
Anyway, what carolynnjulie said.
If Kerry gets in office, definitely not w/in the next four years. We may have to reinvade Iraq before then.
If Bush stays in office I still don’t see us going after Iraq too soon. Our military needs a bit of a break, as well as the American people.
There is still plenty of oil, drugs and instability in Latin America & Africa. Both places are a little overdue for some US attention. If it weren’t for 9/11, I kinda thought we’d be in Columbia by now.
So I figure Iran has at least four years.
Define “invade”.
When will will three armored divisions roll across the border into Tehran? Never.
When will teams of Navy SEALS be conducting clandestine missions on Iranian soil? Probably for quite some time now.
Airstrike to take out their nukes within six months if Bush re-elected.
If Kerry elected, airstrike within two years after an Iranian nuke blows up in the U.S., if France permits us. 
Won’t happen, because no one would authorize it. Look for air strikes, backed by UN, with effort to topple from within.
Mid-2006, in order to whip up hysteria for the midterm elections.
Unless there is another major attack by Al Queda on American soil, not ever.
Look at the financial side. Bush told us that we would only spend two billion total reconstructing Iraq. We’ve overshot that total by a little bit. So if Bush wins in November and wants to drum up support for a new war, everyone will suspect him of being dishonest about the costs again.
Here’s the scenario. It’s 2006. The deficit has just soared past 8 billion. Interest rates are rising. Inflation is growing problematic. And suddenly Bush shows up and demands that we spend a lot more money on another invasion. Anyone who understands the dangers of massive deficit spending is going to see warning bells going off. He could drum up some popular support with the media, but hopefully some Congressional Republicans would by then have realized that wars in our current situaiton lead to out-of-control spending, because once you have 150,000 troops over there you can’t not provide for them.
Besides which, invading Iran wouldn’t help the oil companies all that much.
Why else? Weapons of Mass Destruction.
They’ve recently backtracked a wee bit on groundwork layed in establishing the existence of Castro’s clandestine weapons programs, though, after just about everyone called “Shenanigans!” a couple years ago.
Not to be flippant, but so what?
Here’s the current scenario; it’s 2004. Poverty has increased three years running. The invasion of Iraq is wildly expensive and increasingly appears pointless. The deficit is way up. The warning bells should already be going off.
Sadly, I agree with Rick Jay. Mr. Bush’s fans are loyal enough to let him get away with any fool thing. It would be easy to say that a new war couldn’t be started in Iran when all of our available military is tied up (and pinned down) in Iraq and Afghanistan, but will that stop him? Maybe not.
When one guy is cutting you up in a bar fight, it’s not wise to kick the balls of the fellow standing next to him. Would GWB do it? I can’t say.
Okay–I’ll admit I got it wrong. (Although, now that I look at my wall calendar, I see that the New Moon is actually tonight … still a couple of hours to fit in an airstrike …).
But I still think we’re on track to an attack vs. Iran. I think, however, that with the UN mtg. on 3/6, it will take at least another 2 months beyond that to work up the fervor and declare the UN “irrelevant” when they don’t advise any military response.
So my new vote is for … airstrike on May 24, 2006. (I don’t think that we’ll commit ground troops until after Iran counter-attacks our troops/ships in the Gulf region, so that would be another few months.)
Any new takers?
Side poll: Will Israel strike Iran before the US?
You can’t be serious. That’s absurd.
My vote is: not while Bush is president, unless something catastrophic happens (on the level of the 9/11 attacks).
I think it would take Iran invading Israel, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Hey, I admire somebody who searches for an old thread in order to prove himself wrong…
But methinks you’re gonna be wrong again on May 24. It just isn’t possible.
Israel did it to Iraq 20 years ago—but that was an easy target. Two bombs on one building, and it was all over in 10 minutes…
Iran learned the lesson–they have perhaps hundreds of buildings to target,and most of the serious stuff is deep underground.
We’ve had a massive change in terms here. We’ve gone from “invade” to “airstrike” with barely a bat of an eye.
I’ve heard more than one person say that Iran will be on the receiving end of some heavy airstrikes right on their enrichment program. One opinion was in October. The other was sure that it would be sooner. Is it true that the military are restocking on Joint Stand-Off Weapons? If so, that’s a bad sign for Iran.
By “takers,” are you offering a wager? I’m game for bets on both the US not attacking and Israel not attacking before… ah, heck, let’s say August 1, 2006. I’m in a generous mood.
If there’s no attack (whether airstrikes or invasion) by that date, I win. If there is, I lose. I leave it to you to propose stakes for the wager.