Defining “war” broadly enough to include any kind of direct military action by either government on the other. E.g., an airstrike on Iran’s known or suspected nuclear facilities would count as war. (And, according to this wargaming scenario, would inevitably lead to something that would qualify as war by any definition.)
If the idea seems preposterous in light of the Iraq quagmire, consider that the neocons appear to have found their “Iranian Chalabi”; that Bush now wants to expand the total size of the military (a clearly futile approach to achieving “victory” in Iraq, but exactly what he would want to do if planning to take on Iran); and that the Bush Admin has accused Iran, truly or falsely, of supporting the Iraq insurgency.* And Iran does have a real history of supporting terrorists (but not al-Qaeda – Shi’a terrorists only). And Ahmadinejad’s “wipe out Israel” comments and refusal to bow to the UN on Iran’s nuclear program just add fuel to the fire. None of which would really require or justify an attack or invasion, but they’re good political selling points – even, perhaps, with a Dem-controlled Congress.
Meanwhile, Senator Arlen Specter, who (in defiance of the WH) met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus last week, wants to meet with Ahmadinejad next. Says he wants to give Ahmadinejad “a piece of my mind” regarding Israel and Holocaust-denial – but maybe once that’s out of the way, he can make some real progress toward settling differences. Couldn’t hurt, anyway.
Not going to happen. Bush’s popularity is so low right now that all Democrats and many Republicans in Congress would run away from any proposal to give him the authority to nuke Tehran. Expanding the conflict into Iran under current conditions would be seen as a last, desperate power-grab by the neocons before they get booted from their seats in '08, and would probably drive Bush’s ratings even lower.
But yes, any attack on Iran will come via proxy - Israel - once we exit Iraq. Unless Iran does something truly stupid, in which case all bets are off. And any response to that would be swift and devastating - as Iran most definitely does have a nuclear program Bush wouldn’t hesitate to use nukes. I don’t think the Iranians are that stupid.
Brainglutton said “airstrike”, not nuke ( not that Bush wouldn’t nuke them if he could ). What makes you think that he doesn’t have the effective authority to order such a strike ? It doesn’t matter if he has the legal authority; he’ll just ignore the law, as he always does.
They might not care; they might even regard it as their duty to get us into a war with Iran while they can, and let the Democrats clean up their mess. Even more of their mess.
As for the OP’s question, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
A single, surgical air strike against an Iranian nuclear facitlity may be an act of war, but it isn’t “war” in any meaningful sense of the word.
I think the chances are nil that we will be at war with Iran before January '09. It’s possible that we’ll make a surgical air strike or two between now and then, but I still those chances are quite small.
And I still have an open bet on this, as I have had for at least a year now. I challenge anyone to wager who thinks the US will engange in prolonged military action against Iran while Bush is in office. We can settle on what “prolonged” mean if anyone is interested. It could include something like the action we took against Serbia towards the end of Clinton’s term-- sustained airstrikes, but no boots on the ground.
You can’t seriously believe that Bush can order Israel to carry out an attack on Iran and have such an order obeyed.
As for Israel, even if its current leadership wasn’t so rudderless, it would not attack Iran. (It couldn’t anyway. A non nuclear attack by Israel is not logistically feasible).
He won’t have to. Israel is threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. Remember Osirak.
Not at the moment, no. Allied forces are between the two and would not allow overflight by Israeli jets, but once the Allies are gone, who’s going to stop them? The only issue is range, and I don’t know if Israel has tanker support for its planes. Equally, I don’t know if Israel has cruise missiles or other UAVs.
Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities for its bomb development are much further away than the Iraqi Osirik reactor, far more numerous, more dispersed, and much better protected.
A small number of Israeli jets could make it to Iran and back, with tanker assistance, but it would not be possible for them to destroy more than a few of Iran’s facilities, particularly those that need bunker busters to take them out. That rules out cruise missiles with convential warheads.
Yes, I do believe we will be involved in a land war in Iran by 2009.
Why do you think this cretin of a President is salivating over the Selective Service “readiness exercise” ??? And the VA Secretary says that there should be no loopholes for those called to serve, and he thinks this is a good idea. Hmm.
Please. America is really this stupid? Yes. Apparently we are. Its just…uh…a coincidence. Yeah. That’s it ! A big coincidence.
Bush cannot impose a draft without the consent of Congress (which is now in the hands of the Democrats). Barring WWIII voting for a draft is political suicide. Bush only has to worry about what historians will think of him, but 535 Congresspeople have to worry how their constituents will react to their sons being forced into state servitude! There are no circumstances where Iran would cause a draft. The worst thing Iran could possibly do is smuggle a nuke into an American city and detonate it, but that would in that case we’d likely respond in kind. Reinstating the draft would create more problems for the Army than it would solve.
Well, unless you know something about the recovery of that Congressman who just suffered a massive stroke that the rest of us do not know about his recovery, the balance of power is now at 50-50.
The Speaker is Ms. Pelosi. The Majority Leader is Harry Reed. Both are Democrats. It will take but one more health crisis amongst hundreds of middle-aged to elderly politicians in Washington to tip the balance the other way and immediately let Bush push through Selective Service.
Create more problems that it would solve? Only in the short-term. I recently heard an interview on CNN with a leader in the US Army who said that due to the time it takes to train up large groups in Basic, a very short-term shortage cannot be solved with a Draft but looking ahead more than 180 days, it will do exactly that- solve the shortage of soft assets.( Some Americans call soldiers their kids. Apparently the military likes to call them “Soft assets”. This amused and horrified me to no end. )
Anyone taking bets that the paperwork is already written up and has been for a while, awaiting that awful day so he can sign the order and know that Congress will not overturn it ?
Would either of you care to make a fairly substantial wager of whether or not there is a draft under Bush? I’m certainly willing to back my own side.
The notion is ridiculous…not only does the military NOT want a draft, but Congress would never authorize one. In addition, I’ve seen no indication that BUSH wants one for that matter. The only people who have talked about the draft (ironically) have been…Democrats. Fancy that.
As to the OP…I rate the chances of the US being at war with Iran (war defined by the OP) as slim…i.e. there is an outside chance that the US MIGHT use a few surgical bomber type strikes or even a wider air campaign against the Iranian nuclear program sometime before Bush leave office. Slim being somthing a big higher than ‘snow balls chance in hell’, but not all that likely. I rate the odds of the US being in a protracted ‘war’ (as defined by everyone except the OP) with Iran while Bush is in office somewhat below ‘snow balls chance in hell’.
Nitpick: The balance in the Senate (even assuming the stricken Senator is unable to participate in voting) is 50-49 in favor of the Democrats. Only if he steps down and allows the Republican governor to appoint his replacement would the Senate be 50-50. Don’t think that will happen.
How does the health of any Democrat in the Senate affect the Democrat’s control of the House? And what makes you think Bush could “push through” a selective service bill? Why wasn’t he able to “push through” Social Security reform or Immigration reform when the Republicans were in firm control of both Houses?
Yeah, and exactly how are we going to verify whether that is the case or not. Let’s just go for a straight-up bet on whether the draft is reinstated while Bush is president. Are you on board for that?
It’s mind boggling how people have to invent these fanatsy scenarios to justify their disgust towards Bush. Frankly, one need only stick to the facts to justify that position. But you sure do give lots of fodder to the folks who like to talk about “the loony left” when you posit something as silly as the idea that Bush is going to trick Congress into reinstating the draft.
I took a very similar bet with Bricker a couple of years back. Let this post be the first in which I say that I fully anticipate to start a crow-eating thread in a little under two years.
Uhuh. How about a gentlemans wager then for bragging rights? Assuming we are both still around in '09, winner gets to start a crowing thread and loser has to come forth and eat said crow. Hows that grab you Der? Or are you really just talking out your ass about this whole draft thing?
How about a gentlemans wager then for bragging rights? Assuming we are both still around in '09, winner gets to start a crowing thread and loser has to come forth and eat said crow. Hows that grab you Der? Or are you really just talking out your ass about this whole draft thing?