What will happen if we bomb Iran?

[kentuck]

You don't have to use your psychic abilities unless you wish. But, just using your common sense, what do you think would happen? Consider that the Iranians are Persians and not Arabs. Who will support the Iranians and who will support Bush and the American military? Who will be seen as the aggressor, Iran or America? Would that relieve the pressure on the Iraq debacle? Would Iran be capable of hitting back? Would they hit the US or Israel in retaliation? What consequences would you foresee in such an attack?

[monktonman]

1. I will be in my undisclosed location

[Blutodog]

18. Not going to happen

The military is nearly in revolt. people have no idea how pissed off the Top Brass is with the whole wacked out bunch of Bu$h/Chney, Rumsfield and Rice. They hate these people and I'm not so sure they'd willingly attack anyone with nukes.

[BigYawn]

43. Obviously you do not understand military protocol...

Just take note, NOT A SINGLE ACTIVE general has dared
speak against Bush* and cheney. Only the retired ones,
safe from court martial.

In military, insubordination (refusal to take orders)
is meted out swift court martial resulting in brig time,
loss of pay, dishonorable discharge, not to mention
humiliation. Never will happen at the "general" level.

[DavidMS]

77. Remember its also illegal for a person under the UCMJ to follow an illegal

order.

So there would be quite a few memos sent expressing disgust with the possibility and many resignations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. The only way they can stop it

is for a mass refusal to obbey an ilegal order... it is far harder than it sounds... and it is harder the higher you are in the hierarchy.

I do hope though that we have exactly this, a mass refusal.

[Seabiscuit]

104. As Al Franken put it on Air America this morning:

He's had active military generals tell him "Off the record, I will tell you that I am required to follow orders from the Commander in Chief, but if I had Rumsfeld in my sights I wouldn't hesitate to squeeze off a few rounds."

[BigYawn]

109. And I completely and wholeheartedly believe your statement...

but it still holds that no active general will
ever commit insubordination.

[Seabiscuit]

117. True. Unless, of course

the top brass is finally so convinced of this administration's insanity and the destruction of Congress and the Courts that it stages a military coup to save the country from destruction in a WWIII.

[Jaqcues]

38. a recipe for a world war

honestly I think it is a great recipe for a third world war. any way you look at it a lot of people are going to get killed and the USA will be hated for it regardless of the outcome.

I am however a bit afraid of what Iran would do with a functional nuke.

[Bandit]

103. Why, when has Iran been an aggressor nation?

Who have they attacked without provocation? Why do you think they would change their behavior patterns? I suspect the propaganda has you believing things without rationale..:shrug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I don't think Iran would be capable of hitting back, but other countries

may be. I am of the thought that we would receive world wide censure, and start the third World War...Thus ensuring the end of our Super power status.

[breakfastofchampions]

3. What are the consequences if we don't destroy their nuclear capabilities?

If Iran get the nuclear bomb and attacks Israel with one, as the President of Iran has said he desires, then Israel will of course retaliate and a nuclear World War 3 could be set off. Then everyone will lose.

[paul_fromatlanta]

7. That's the worst possible outcome

That we attack Iran but leave them with working nuclear weapons. Fortunatley, I dont think they have nukes.

[breakfastofchampions]

12. not yet

the only goal of attacking Iran should be destroying nuclear capabilites.

Regime change, democracy etc. would be, of course, an abysmal failiure.

[TheBaldyMan]

51. you say an attack on everything but that to deny Iran a nuclear

capability will be a failure. Why should any attack to deny Iran a nuclear capability be an exception? If anything it will also be a disaster and one that echoes the fiasco in Iraq, remember their WMD programmes ?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Iran is lawfully developing a nuclear programme to enrich uranium, Bush may not like it and Secretary Rice has said that further actions will be taken against them. Yet again the west displays a double standard. One law for Israel and India while demanding a completely different standard for Iran, this is why US foreign policy is so unsuccessful in the Middle East. Every Muslim nation looks on with disgust as the west penalises the Palestinians and seeks an ebargo on Iran while blithely ignorning far worse transgressions of others when it suits them.

Call a spade a spade. It is one law for countries that ignore the NPT and another for those that are complying with it. This includes Bush tearing up the test ban treaty or have you forgotten that? Yes he is attacking Iran for non-compliance of a treaty that he has broken himself. This is a matter of fact and not conjecture. Any non-compliance with the NPT on Iran's part still remains unproven.

[breakfastofchampions]

52. Yes there is a double standard, as there should be

The leaders of Iran are too beligerent and irrational to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Yes, Bush is bad, but nowhere near the level of Mahmoud.

[kentuck]

53. That is debatable...

I think he is just as bad if not worse...however, I don't think he will attack Israel. Everybody else, watch the hell out!

[TheBaldyMan]

55. Says who? Even Ahmedanijad says he doesn't want nuclear weapons

the Defence minister says he doesn't want nuclear weapons and the clergy has said use of nuclear weapons is un-islamic. All of them are in agreement about civilian development being open to IAEA scrutiny.

Believe it or not the only countries that are at fault here are America and Israel. Israel still refuses to even admit it has the bomb, refuses to allow any oversight or inspection of their facilities. America will renege on it's NPT commitments this August when it shreds the treaty and starts to develop new bombs and test them.

The deplorable rhetoric is equally bad but one side has weapons and has publically said they would be willing to use them. I'd be bloody mad if someone threatened to nuke my country as well.

Don't you think your comment is ingenuous when Israel and America are both clearly in the wrong. I'd like to see Israel open it's nuclear programme to internatonal scrutiny in fact I'd like to see that as a precondition for Iranian inspections and I'd like to see the USA give a firm commitment to halt it's ill-judged nuclear testing halted to match a firm commitment from Iran not to develop a weapon.

I'd say the leaders of Iran(perhaps), Israel and America are too belligerent and irrational to have a nuclear weapon. The difference between them is this: Israel and the USA actually have nuclear weapons and they have the ability to reach Iran.

[breakfastofchampions]

56. The difference between Iran and Israel

No current leader of Israel or America has said they wish to see Iran destroyed in one great storm, wiped off the map forever etc.

I challenge you to find one quote to the contrary of this. If you can, I could change my mind. If you can't, you should examine why you believe the leader of Iran is more responsible.

If you choose neither then I can only assume you are suffering from some Kool Aid related illness.

[TheBaldyMan]

63. So for one statement you would gloss over all the things that have been

done or are currently being committed by the West. Not statements but acts.

Consider these other statements made in the last two days:

from Iran Daily News:

TEHRAN, April 16--Majlis Speaker Gholamali Haddad-Adel said on Sunday Iran is opposed to anti-Semitism and the massacre of Jews, while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced fresh humanitarian suport for the oppressed Palestinians.
The speaker made the remark at a press conference attended by domestic and foreign reporters on the sidelines of the International Conference on Qods and Support for Palestinian Rights, IRNA reported.
Haddad-Adel noted that Iran has a long history of coexistence with Jews and showed that it has no dispute with them.
“Iranian Jews enjoy equal rights just as others,“ he said.

from Tehrantimes.com:the Arab league urged Hamas to recognise Israel

CAIRO (AFP) -- The Arab League has asked the Hamas-led Palestinian government to adopt the Arab-Israeli peace initiative after a meeting between Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar and League Secretary General Amr Mussa. The representatives of the 22-member organization "have asked the government of Hamas to accept the Arab initiative," Zahar told reporters after the meeting, adding that he would relay the message to his government "to examine the issue."

The Arab Initiative, adopted at the Beirut summit in 2002, calls on Arab governments to normalize ties with Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories according to the 1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The proposal has been rejected by Israel.

and lastly a rather quirky translation from Jam-e-Jam online:

Sunday, April 16, 2006
15:35

JAMEJAMONLINE - The Iranian President Dr. Ahmadi-Nejad announced, in the Mashhad city of Iran, to the world the acme of the ability of the youth of the Islamic Republic of Iran in reaching the high tops of science and technology, saying the Islamic Republic of Iran achieved to access the production circle of nuclear fuel.
Dr. Ahmadi-Nejad added Iran joined the 8 countries of the world enjoying nuclear fuel, expressing accession to nuclear fuel has been the national request of the whole Iranian nation, and this is the start of more and greater developments and achievements.
He stipulated 20 of Fravardin will be recorded in the history of Iran, being an inspiration for the Iranian youth.
He furthermore mentioned the entire nuclear activities of Iran will be under the thorough supervision of the International Agency, and we are interested in continuing our activities under the supervision of the agency.

Strange that Iran maintains that it's nuclear programme is purely civil and promotes religious tolerance, in fact they are quite proud of the number of Iranian Jews that have reached high office in Israel. I could give you more links perhaps not so current but if you have IE6+ or opera visit Channel4 News who ran a week long series of special reports concerning Iran and broadcast nightly from Tehran. It's a bit of an eye-opener. Then tell me if you think Israel should still be allowed to operate in secrecy and the US is justified in flouting the NPT.

[kentuck]

64. And a misinterpreted statement at that...

I wonder if the previous poster believed Iraq had WMDs and was going to use the aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons??

[TheBaldyMan]

67. I believe in fairies but I still find it hard to believe there is so much

hostility directed towards Iran. I'd think twice about developing a bomb if Bush was coming out with half of the crap he has already and it was directed at me.

[breakfastofchampions]

68. I expected something even more than this

in your previous post you claimed that Israeli and American leaders are more belligirent than Iranian leaders. I asked you to provide some kind of evidence to back up your belief and you give one quote that opposes anti-Semetism yet shows no support for the one Jewish state, Israel. The second quote offers a proposal that both Israel and Hamas would reject, so it is useless. THe third says the Iranian President claims to have nuclear fuel.


I don't know what you are trying to prove with these but I think you failed.

[TheBaldyMan]

89. Check the LAST quotation ... Ahmedinejad: Sunday, he said he only wants

to develop within the IAEA remit. Admittedly the translation is eccentric to say the least but that is what he said.

[breakfastofchampions]

106. you said Israel and America have more belligerent leaders than Iran

you still have not shown that.

And Mahmoud says he only wants nuclear fuel for energy in one sentence, then he says the Holocaust is a myth, and Israel must be destroyed in one storm in the next sentence.

[TheBaldyMan]

112. no you said provide a quotation for Ahmedinajad that said he didn't

want a bomb. Please read your own posts. Then read my answers.

Then you can come back and change the subject again because you are running on fumes.

[drthais]

69. pardon ME

..but I beg to differ

belligerent?
irrational?

and how much do you actually know about 'Mahmoud'?
because it is apparent that you have not applied
these words to your own president

how unfortunate that our own president
is indeed beligerent and irrational
and in fact DOES have nuclear weapons at his disposal

I believe you have posted on the wrong board

if you do not see the relevance of your accusations
as applied to the current administration
then you are either grossly uninformed
or have not given any serious thought
to the antics (past, present, and potentiallly future)
of those who now hold power in this country

it is time for you to read and to think

[ladjf]

47. Nuclear weapons are for sale right now from more than one

source. Iran wouldn't have to develop their own if they needed nukes. The same could be said for any other country with enough money to buy one. Get real. The exclusive nuclear community idea is dead. There are ways to prevent a nuclear war, but, preemptive bombing of a country that doesn't even have nukes, just because they might get them is a bad plan. It was bad in the Iraq situation and will be far worse in the Iran case.

[bdamomma]

119. they (Iran) does not have nuclear weapons but

Israel does.

[kentuck]

8. Is there any other scenario for WWIII

that you could envision? Other than Israel getting attacked? Would it be possible to set off WWIII by attacking Iran??

[tridim]

9. So we should just let Bush nuke them?

Has everyone forgotten the meaning of diplomacy? Why is it always assumed to be our job to defend Israel?

[madrchsod]

15. why should we care ?

so the iranians and israelis decide to nuke each other what is it to us? of course the waste of human lives for some tribal/religious war that goes for thousands of years is tragic beyond words but other than that why should we care. there is no strategic value in either nation and we receive very little trade with either. it`s not our problem and i think the regional states should solve the problem if they don`t want to become radiated..

actually nothing to is going to happen because both states have more to lose than ever win. they know this but it keeps the home folks eyes diverted from the real enemy of the country-the ruling elites that profit off the fear and repression of the people.

[breakfastofchampions]

20. LOL! we should care about nuclear war

not caring is lazy and irresponsible.

if you don't care about the loss of lives, and you don't care about the environmental damage, and you don't care about the religious and historical significance of these two areas, and you don't care about the immense technological output of Isreal, then I don't know what it takes to make you care.

[kentuck]

23. So therefore we should drop tactical nuclear weapons on Iran?

Or do you think the world will sit by and watch us drop nuclear bombs because we did for a "good" reason? Do you realize how irrational that might sound?

[breakfastofchampions]

24. we don't need to nuke Iran to stop them from getting nukes

their nuclear capabilities can be stopped with a targeted air bombing campaign.

[kentuck]

26. There are assumptions that we know where all the targets are...

..and it is my understanding that many of them may be concealed. We do not know what assistance they may be getting from the Russians and their new friends, the Chinese? Some intelligence will say that the Russians have been helping Ira arm themselves since the invasion of Iraq? Take this to the bank: Nothing in war goes according to plan.

[BigYawn]

45. The new class of bunker busters will bust open anything out there...yap no

need to use nukes on Iran, unless Iran uses them first.

[NickB79]

49. Even new bunker busters have limits

For example, a fortified bunker several hundred feet underground is fairly safe from any conventional bunker buster we have.

[BigYawn]

44. We dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, burning thousands

of civilian people alive. What happened? Which country
attacked us?

I don't think Bush will nuke Iran, but if Iran keeps
developing nuclear weapons, I believe Bush will attack
the nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs, NOT nukes.

[TankLV]

46. And just what form do you think those "bunker busters" will be?

Hint: Tactical Nukes.

They're the only ones that can penetrate over the 16 feet that the "non-nuke" ones can.

The only way the "bunker busters" can work as intended is if they're nukes.

[BigYawn]

72. What is the radiation circle size of tactical bunker buster nukes?

It may be only a mile or less.

[hailmary]

41. true, we should be neutral instead of taking Israel's side...

but it's way off base to say we shouldn't care....that there is Republican-like talk.

[BillZBubb]

27. YOU ARE LYING!!!!

The President of Iran NEVER SAID HE DESIRES TO ATTACK ISRAEL WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Get a clue.

[kentuck]

31. I have read that his words were twisted in interpretation...

although I don't doubt that he has no love for Israel.

[breakfastofchampions]

33. you are ignoring11111

The President of Iran has stated
1. That he wants to destroy Israel
2. That they will be destroyed in "one storm"

In other news,
2+2=4

[BillZBubb]

37. That's absurd. You can't be that gullible can you?

The Pretzeldent of the United States has stated:

1. That he is a compassionate conservative.
2. That war is always the last option.
3. That he was going to have a "humble foreign policy".

In other news, whatever a right wing politician, in the US or Iran, says is bullshit and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone with a working brain.

Get a clue.

[Jaqcues]

40. how does anything that dubya said have to do with Iran's prez?

seriously, Iran's prez is definitely not a fan of Israel. IF he decided that he wanted to destroy Israel, I dont doubt that he would want to use nuclear weapons if he had them availible. Arab nations have hated Israel since day 1(well Israel version 2.0 anyway) and honestly if they wanted to rid themselves of it, why not use the most effective weapon in their arsenal?

[BillZBubb]

42. Et tu, Jaqcues?

Because Bush and the Iranian leader are both right wing nuts. They both lie to appeal to their base. The Iranian wingnut is saying nothing new. Attacking Israel in the harshest, most threatening terms is good for rallying the base. BTW, Iran IS NOT AN ARAB NATION. By the time Iran has usable nukes, this dumbass will be long gone.

Even if he had them, he wouldn't use nuclear weapons because Israel has them as well--and Israel has a way to deliver them accurately. He may be a wingnut, but he's not an idiot.

[breakfastofchampions]

58. U needz mor logic

How could Iran possibly want to destroy Israel? DOn't you know Bush screwed up with Katrina??

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons"

snip: "November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

[Capn Sunshine]

39. nothing

because their "nuclear capabilities" are about as advanced as the University of Maryland.

They can't even get uranium enriched to the point where it's useful in power generation, and conservatively,they need about 12,000 centrifuges in a cascade to make THAT happen.

So far they have like 175.


The most optimistic case you could make is ten years fro now they MIGHT have theability to MAYBE enrich uranium to weapons grade of 90+ %. Then they stiil need the parts, delivery system and testing.

[nickshepDEM]

70. Good point... Take it out before they get to that point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. launching an attack on the basis that a country might eventually

become a threat would constitute under international law a crime against peace and the waging of a war of aggression. This is what Brig. General Telford Taylor, a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial called the supreme international crime.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2005/issue4/0405p26.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. looking at the reality of the situation

The Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons.And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This whole idea is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Iran in spite of its far less than desirable government, imprudent President and theocratic system has never in modern times launched a war, an invasion or initiated an attack against any other country. This cannot be said for some other countries in the region.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebro

[Dogmudgeon]

4. I posted about this just the other day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x926759#926980

It's also in my Journal as "Fire in the gas tank".

War with Iran would be ... bad.

Heck, I'm surprised that Iraq hasn't turned into a much worse fiasco than it already is.

--p!

[Ezlivin]

5. Expect more bestselling "End Times" books by Fundamentalist authors

Gas prices will rise precipitously.

The economy will take a nosedive in all areas except defense contracts.

More terrorist attacks will take place on American soil in ways "no one could have imagined."

We will see endless video loops of our precision munitions at work.

Bush will preside over the final dismantling of the Constitution.

China will make its move to retake Taiwan and we will react with military force. Chaos will ensue.

This veteran and his veteran wife will be in an undisclosed location, watching "The Big Lebowski", munching on Cracker Jack and smoking from a six-foot bong. We will be one toke over the line, sweet jesus, one toke over the line.

[serryjw]

19. Not bad........

You forgot Martial Law when gas goes to $5-10/gallon and there are riots in the streets

[grottieyottie]

6. These two graphics kinda' sum it up for me.

if you're wondering why the Ayatollahs are acting a touch, um... cagey about their military plans, then perhaps this handy pic of the region with countries where the U.S. has military bases (or has been granted overflight rights by a friendly regime) might help clear things up:



Do you think Do you think Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wants to end up like Saddam, or thrive happily like Kim Jong-il? It’s not a hard choice.





This takes a fair amount of reading but these links have helped me shape my opinion.

[breakfastofchampions]

11. From the POV of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you're absolutely right

If he does aquire a nuke he will have much more power. And that is good ... for him.

But I don't take the point of view of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I believe his desire to destroy Israel with "one storm" is not something I can get behind.

[kentuck]

13. We are to assume he has complete control of his military...

or that he would personally pull the trigger himself? Or, like George W Bush he is the President, so everyone will do whatever he says or requests?

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. the facts:

from:

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

[serryjw]

21. Welcome to DU

I will read your links.Do you think that MAD would work in the region? Pakistan has nukes and a very unstable gov't. IF the luni decide to nuke Israel they and US would come down on Iran with all the military power we both have. IS he crazier than Bushit?

[grottieyottie]

48. I don't think he has any intention of nuking Israel

Nor do I feel he can make that decision.

He's not really in charge.

Iran is a complex country that contains Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen, Armenians, Assyrians, Persian Jews, Kurdish Jews, Bakhtiaris, Khamseh, Lurs, Qashqai, as well as others.

It is a well-known fact – except among the American media, the American government, and about 98.7 percent of the American people – that Iran is not a monolithic state where sheep-like masses bray with a single voice in chorus with their demented leaders, but is, on the contrary, a complex society where many conflicting opinions on matters political, religious, social, historical, etc., contend with each other in open debate.

A couple of weeks ago Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, railed against the ignorant Holocaust revisionism mouthed by his successor, Ahmadinejad, but the MSM did not report that of course. Now why would they?

Iran has never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations and have not invaded another country in over 250 years. Can the same be said about the US or UK?

I'd say Ahmadinejad is turning up the stove because HE CAN. The US military IS vulnerable in Iraq.

George and friends have played a BAD chess game.

Iran has 15 million men between the age of 19-49 with military training (everyone has to serve) and aren't lightly armed thanks to the Chinese and Russians. The Iranian army currently has 350,000 professional men (and 200,000 conscripts), the Revolutionary Guard has another 125,000, chuck in another 15,000 in the Navy, and 20,000 in the air force.

There is no dispositive source of information on Iranian air defense deployment - though the Russians and Chinese have been arming Iran for some time. They have some serious rocket power including the Sunburn Missile.

With Burlesconi gone, the only real ally is the UK and with Bolton stepping on everyone's toes at the UN, I don't think there's going to be much support there either. There's no political support for this in the US.

Politically Bush will have his hands full bypassing congress (which he may have to do) in the first place in order to attack. Secondly, an attack with completely shock the global economy if Hormuz gets corked and no oil gets out. If Bush nukes Iran there is really going to be some problems - in the international community and in the Middle East.

Iran can pretty much say what they want right now. Methinks.

And they will build a bomb - eventually joining their neighbour Pakistan as a Mideast nuclear power. I have no problem with Iran obtaining nuclear power or weapons.

Sure George can use tactial nukes but current estimates have the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) possibly killing a few million people. The B83 they plan to use for the RNEP is the largest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and nearly 100 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb used on Hiroshima. And they probably won't even succeed in wiping out what they want. The Iranian's have buried deep and the US can't even really tell where.

[serryjw]

32. Loved the last OP

You may want to fix the link. I figured it out already

http://www.billmon.org/archives/002375.html

[LibertyorDeath]

78. Careful with the Logic, you'll fuck up all the trolls

Welcome to Du

GOOD post!

:toast:

[Jacobin]

116. This needs its own thread

Exceedingly well done graphic. Good bottom line.

[sleipnir]

128. Excellent post and point.

Welcome to DU.

This does deserve a separate post. Please consider reposting this under a full post soon.

[madrchsod]

10. china would be pissed off-wally bucks useless

up to three million dead
pakistan and india would receive increased radiation levels
all petro based products would increase dramatically in price
russia would rearm itself
total disruption in europe
world wide attacks on everything that is american

the iranians are capable of putting up a good fight for at least one to two weeks during a convention air and sea attack. we would not stand a chance on the ground.

life as we know it in the united states would be altered for many years into the future

[Turbineguy]

14. All those reasons

are good reasons for Bush to bomb Iran.

[madrchsod]

16. hmmmm....i forgot

in bush`s delusional mind those are good reasons. scary isn`t it....

[pretzel4gore]

17. look how tiny iran is.....militarily speaking

Here's how political leaders are
spending the discretionary budget.

World's Largest
Military Budgets:
($U.S. Billions)

United States 416.0
Russia* 65.0
China* 47.0
Japan 42.6
U.K. 38.4
France 29.5
Germany 24.9
Saudi Arabia 21.3
Italy 19.4
India 15.6
South Korea 14.1
Brazil* 10.7
Taiwan* 10.7
Israel 10.6
Spain 8.4
Australia 7.6
Canada 7.6
Netherlands 6.6
Turkey 5.8
Mexico 5.9
Kuwait* 3.9
Ukraine 5.0
Iran 4.8
Singapore 4.8
Sweden 4.5
Egypt* 4.4
Norway 3.8
Greece 3.5
Poland 3.5
Argentina* 3.3
U.A.E.* 3.1
Colombia* 2.9
Belgium 2.7
Pakistan* 2.6
Denmark 2.4
Vietnam 2.4
North Korea 2.1
Czech Republic 1.6
Iraq 1.4
Philippines 1.4
Portugal 1.3
Libya 1.2
Hungary 1.1
Syria 1.0
Cuba 0.8
Sudan 0.6
Yugoslavia 0.7
Luxembourg 0.2
Source: www.cdi.org.

[kaygore]

22. Consequences: Distraction from treason at the highest levels

of the U.S. government

Consequences: Distraction from the culture of corruption in Washington and the selling of America

Consequences: Distraction from the poisoning of America from agribusiness, the pharmacitical companies, the lessening of standards for food contamination, GMO, etc., etc. etc.

Consequences: Showing the world that once again we will NOT tolerate any country selling oil for anything but dollars (Iraq and then Iran..then...)

Consequences: Ending the threat by Iran to the control of oil by the US and the UK when Iran established a third oil market in the world to vie with New York and London.

Let's get serious, the TV season is winding down. Americans LOVE reality shows. War, to the Neocons, is just one big reality show.

As I see it, there is no downside to nuking Iran for the administration, especially if they first nuke the US and blame it on Iran!

[stellanoir]

25. gee and I thought mutually assured distruction

was like "so last millennial."

In short. . .all hell will break loose.

This cannot happen. IMHO

[eauclaireliberal]

28. Bush will succesfully decimate about 80% of the population

as for the remaining 20%, they will be around to foster two or more generations of hatred towrds the West. But hey, as long as Israel is okay, nothing else matters, right?

[oneighty]

29. If Iran

had a goodly number of deliverable nuclear weapons they might pose a problem.

A few clumsy uranium bombs would be of little use as defensive or offensive weapons.

Germs would be their best bet.

180

[CarlSheeler4U]

30. Missing the bigger picture here folks

First, the draft would be initiated. Why? Because Iran cannot be controlled from the air and sea. These folks were not weakened with sanctions after Desert Storm. What would prevent the other Arab nations to weigh in as they would see it - we're next....

China and Russia will not sit by and if they do - they would have an opportunity to "annex" surrounding countries because we would not have the combat resources to stop them. By Belarus, Taiwan, N. Korea....... Perhaps Venezuela would see its opportunity to do the same in Central and S. America.

China could opt to stop buying Treasuries and bring our economy to its knees. If they sign a pact with Russia, we'd have real problems on our hands.

Our domestic picture would be in very bad shape and we'd be vulnerable to an attack with our own military forces spread so thin.

Iran is expected not to have the capability for ten years, so alternatives are available. Why do we think Pakistan or India are more stable?

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate
www.carlsheeler.com

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. I agree with most of your points

However I do not believe there is any evidence of any aggressive intent on the part of the very popular and democratically elected government of Venezuela; a country which according to every credible independent international human rights organization has one of the highest levels or freedom of expression and human rights in all of Latin America. I might also mention that their controversial and charismatic President is acknowledged even by his critics to be widely popular throughout the whole region and undeniably the most popular political leader in Latin America. Although certainly his political model of trying to develop a democratic socialist alternative to either neoliberal "free market capitalism" and authoritarian Marxism is catching on throughout the region.

The good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)in their weekly radio program CounterSpin had a special on Venezuela on 3 March 2006. It is available for downloading or streaming online -- link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

[Neil Lisst]

34. assuming no nuclear weapons ...

What will happen if Bush launches a full scale aerial attack on Iran, aimed at knocking out all its nuclear facilities and anti-aircraft/anti-missile capabilities, without using nuclear weapons?

His poll numbers will go up in America at first, but as the world condemnation and reaction follows, his numbers will drop again. He'll create some POWs being held in Iran, and that's always good for his ratings.

The Arab and Muslim worlds will be outraged. Russia and China will welcome with outstretched arms all the states that hate Bush and are repulsed by America under him.

[BigYawn]

73. You forgot to add----Israel will hea ve a sigh of relief

and so will most jewish Americans.

[BillZBubb]

35. It will be an act of war against Iran. Iran will respond.

Iran will retaliate in the methods most strategically viable for them. They will not use their ground forces directly against the US unless the US forces are on Iranian soil. They don't have the capability to directly strike back inside the US. I doubt they would attempt any action against Israel unless Israel participated in the bombing.

What they will do is introduce special operations forces into Iraq and spearhead a major Shiite move to expel the US and conquer the Sunni areas. They will leave the Kurds alone for the time being unless they actively support the US. Expect a dramatic resurgence of the Taliban/Warlordism in Afghanistan as well, as Iran will actively aid and support them.

The Iranians will also disrupt the economies of the West by playing the oil card. They will make shipping from the Gulf region very dangerous and not cost effective. They will hit pipelines and terminals in the region. If the Saudis so much as talk nice to the US, they will hit Saudi assets as well. The Iranians will curtail their oil output and they will no longer accept dollars for oil.

Diplomatically they will attempt to further incite Muslims against the US. This will not be difficult. The Iraq situation will badly deteriorate and the Musharriff regime in Pakistan will be in big trouble. Egypt could explode as well.

Should the US invade Iran with ground forces, there is no doubt the Iranians have learned much from the Iraqi debacle. They will not allow their conventional military to be decimated by US air power. Instead they will disperse into resistance cells. It will make the Iraqi insurgency look like amateur hour.

It will not end well for the US.

[Chulanowa]

36. It all depends

I'm going on the hopefully correct assumption that we would stick to conventional weapons, despite washington rhetoric.

If all we do is throw missiles at them, then nothing will happen. If they're lucky they'll shoot a fair number out of the air - Iran at least has a missile defense system, which is more than most states in the region can claim. If that's all we do, there will be a brief world outcry before they get back to not really giving a damn. Iran will take it on the chin, probably seek measures through the UN - Which is unlikely to happen (Is it just me or should an aggressing nation be exempt from Security Council votes?)

More likely is a Reagan-Style central America operation. We soften the target with missiles, and use hired goons to formulate terrorism and attmpted revolt. The Kurds would be good for this, but i'm sure the CIA could make inroads into Iraq's Sunni population and cut a deal: "You help us out with Iran and we'll let you rule it and forget this insurgency thing ever happened". This will no doubt result in another messy Iraq-Iran war, again at American behest. Expect this to go down six weeks after Bush pulls our troops from Iraq, if he does.

If we actually invade with our own troops, though, America is screwed. Don't get me wrong, we will not lose a military conflict with Iran... But it'll break our backs economically and politically. Iran is three times the size of Iraq, better-armed, and with more foreign relations. If you think Iraq is a quagmire... Iran will make Veitnam look like Grenada. An American invasion of Iran (or really, any other semi-capable country at this point) will be the death knell for our superpower status, just like Afghanistan was for the USSR.

Worst case scenario, we use nukes. This combines #1 and #3 together. Iran really can't do much in retaliation, but this time the world WILL care, and suddenly America will be even more ostracized than North Korea or Israel are in the world community. There's a chance that such an act will trigger an uprising against Musharraf in Pakistan for the sole purpose of gaining the nukes to throw at us - Which means we would undoubtedly launch a few at them, too, in case of such an uprising. America's global placement goes down hte toilet, even though there is not a single power who would retaliate against us militarily - Barring the rather goofy chance of a Sino-Russian attempt at formulating their "Allies" to our "Axis" or something.

Our "Allies" in the region - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, and Israel, will probably give us support. They really don't care much for the Iranians. We would of course need to give them support in return, since their owndomestic uprisings would need to be crushed. Syria would take Iran's side, while Jordan and Turkey, in pure self-interest, will proclaim neutrality.

[GOPS Worst Fear]

50. Foe One:Gas Prices will go further through the Roof

Does anyone here think otherwise?

[AJH032]

54. Yep

Unless we can somehow figure out how to eliminate or drastically reduce our demand for foreign oil.

[killerbush]

57. I'm not worried about the US

I'm worried about Israel.

[breakfastofchampions]

59. You shouldn't be

Israel loves the USA, one of the only middle eastern countries that does.

[kentuck]

60. And it's always been good over the years...

to have a friendly country there so as to protect our oil interests in that part of the world. Oh, I forgot! They are there to fulfil the prophecy of the Bible...

[breakfastofchampions]

61. Other reasons

Israel contains very little oil and the Bible is just a story so you're wrong! Once again!

Rather, Israel is a friendly country that produces a lot of important technology and one of the few places people can live freely in the Middle East.

[kentuck]

62. I'm glad you're keeping count of all the times I was wrong....

Once again.

Yes, Israel is our friend and we have given a lot of US taxpayer dollars to Israel over the years, as well as nuclear bombs, most likely. I think Iran could be a good counter-balance to the nculear weapons of Israel or perhaps they could negotiate away all the nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Why should one country have them and no one else? Because they are our friend? Now, that's a real strong argument.

[breakfastofchampions]

65. another wrong one for you

Giving Iran a nuclear bomb would not be a "good counter-balance". The Iranian leader is a crazy, irrational man. He has stated he wants Israel destroyed with "one storm". How do you not see that he shouldn't be able to have a bomb? You must try very hard to believe such foolishness.

[kentuck]

80. Since when did "one storm" = nuclear bomb?

We know these folks tend to speak in a language different from our own. But you want to bomb his ass because he used the words "one storm"? Who's irrational? The Iranian leader or you??

[breakfastofchampions]

125. he's said a lot more than that

try reading the newspaper once in a while

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. "one of the few places people can live freely in the Middle East" ?

I guess that depends upon what ethnicity one happens to be is this place where people can live so freely. But racist assumptions are fundamental to the justification of all imperial wars.

[breakfastofchampions]

110. absolutely

Israel is without a doubt THE most tolerant country in Middle East.

This is for religion, gender, sexual orientation, AND ethnicity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. the people of the West Bank may not share that rosy picture

[breakfastofchampions]

124. I"m talking about areas that aren't under constant missle attack

obviously a near war zone isn't going to be a fun place to live in, but for the rest of the country, even with the constant threat of suicide bombing, it is a very liberal place

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. we are getting into a complicated subject with a complicated history

The Admin of DU request that we avoid this subject except in the Israel/Palestine forum.

but if you would be interested in here a calm, civil, balanced and fair discussion on the whole issue of Israel and Palestine may I recommend this one and a half hour debate between Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein - you can stream it online or download it or read the transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

[Eric J in MN]

66. Attacks like September 11, 2001 will happen every year

for years to come if the US nukes Iran.

[BigYawn]

74. You may be wrong on that-------->here is why----->

Right now Iran is the main funding source for
islamic fanatics. Iran is the only "rich" country
out there which is ruled by islamic mullah's.

If Iran is neutralized, funding sources for terrorist
operations dry out drastically. IMHO that is the main
reason Saddam was removed from power since he was a
funding source for suicide bombers in Israel.

[Eric J in MN]

76. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran won't "neutralize" them,

it will make them use their big pile of money from oil revenues for revenge.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. what evidence is there that Iran is the main funding source for "islamic

fanatics"? Granted they are a supporter of Lebanon's largest and most popular domestic political party; Hezbollah -- not my favorite group of people -- but certainly not the most violent Islamist group. Hezbollah certainly has a relationship with Iran but I don't know of any evidence that they can be said to be in any way a proxy of that regime.

The entire Al Qaeda type movement including the Jemaah Islamiyah and the Muslim Brotherhood are Sunni Muslims who are arch-enemies of the Shiite Mullahs who dominate Iran. The Iranian regime were strong supporters of the anti-Talaban resistance in Afghanistan long before the U.S. got into that act. Of course since Al Quada and the Talaban were extremely hostile to the Shiites -- they had their own political and religious reasons.

It would be hard to imagine that the Iranians are supporting those who are fighting their Shiite brothers and allies who now are now leading the elected government in Iraq who U.S. and British troops and resources are now protecting.

In spite of their numerous short coming, authoritarian theocratic system and outlandish rhetoric, Iran has never launched a war of aggression or started a military attack against anyone. I'm unaware of any credible evidence of even one single terrorist event at least in the past several years that can be directly attributed to Iranian intelligence services.

[BigYawn]

96. I am sure you are aware of Ahmedinejad's numerous statements

declaring Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the map.
If that is not an overtly aggressive policy, I don't
know what is. Even the French and Germans have sided
with the US on this.

Why do you think Iran insists on enriching Uranium?
Why do they need nuclear bombs? Who is threatening
them now that Saddam is history? If Iran comes clean
on their nuclear program, do you think Bush & the
neocons will have any legitimate excuse to attack Iran?

I understand your point about historical animosity
between Shia & Sunni. But when it comes to non-
believers of Mohammed, they have a common goal...
conversion by sword or if that fails killing any
non-believer. Is'nt that explicitly spelled out in
their holy book Quran? Yap, the shia and sunni both
report to the same prophet in the end.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. no this is ABSOLUTELY NOT true at all, NOT at all

Conversion by the sword or killing all the nonbelievers is certainly not an Islamic belief. I suspect certain fanatical racist in the Western world have made careers out spreading this kind of ludicrous propaganda. In fact Jews in particular faired far better off in Islamic countries over the past 1000 years than they did in Christian countries. Christians and Jews are both considered "people of the book". And in Iran in particular and in most of the Middle East Christians and Jews lived in relative peace with the Islamic majority for most of the past 1000 years. There certainly have been tensions at times. But nothing, absolutely nothing in the league of the religious conflicts of Europe.

Iran even during the most rabid early days of the Islamic revolution still recognized the Christian and Jewish minorities. A very sizable Jewish and Christian minority is still active in Iran now and hold governmental positions and elected offices. There are numerous churches and synagogues throughout Iran with active communities.

Again there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Iran is the leading supporter of international terrorism. And certainly there are no known links between the Iranian regime and any of the Sunni terrorist groups. That would be unthinkable. Quite frankly most fundamentalist Sunni clerics do not consider Shiites to be Muslims at all and probably vice versa as well.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue."

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. the French, the Germans and even the British would oppose military action

[TheBaldyMan]

90. And the Saudis just give money to 'educational' charities and groups

that 'promote understanding of Islam'. All perfectly above board and NOT connected to terrorist organisations at all.

It's true Saddam gave £25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber but it is naif in the extreme to suggest that was the reason for war.

Remember the first Gulf War was the result of Kuwait attempting to call in it's debt owed by Iraq. A debt incurred while fighting the Iran-Iraq war.

The current war has more to do with basing rights enabling the US to move it's forces out of Saudi Arabia into an area that is even better placed strategically and politically. Lots of muscle readily availiable to keep the Saudi oil flowing in the event of any uprising in the Arabian Peninsula.

[BigYawn]

95. Saddam's overtly rewarding $25,000 to suicide bombers was

just the defining action of his mentality. The real
reason ofcourse was that every major intelligence
service had concluded Saddam was developing nukes,
and if successful could have passed them on to the
terrorists.

[TheBaldyMan]

97. So where are Iraq's nukes?

[BigYawn]

107. Most likely in Damascus

After Israel destroyed Iraq's atomic reactor, Iraq
was set back in nuke development by atleast a dedcade.
Iraq obviously had the knowledge for nuclear technology.

Saddam probably did not actually finish making the
bomb, but had the knowledge in place to accelerate
the actual bomb making once the inspectors were done
and gone.

[TheBaldyMan]

111. You are seriously deluded if you think that nebulous nuclear

expertise and knowledge can be equated with an actual weapon system.

Not only that, there is no monopoly on the laws of physics. Every country has the ability to develop a nuclear weapon because neutrons are not affected by the political persuasion of the government running the programme.

The country that has been spreading nuclear thechmology, particularly the Zippe-type centrifuge technology is Pakistan with the blessing of the ISI and with the full knowledge of the Americans.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

120. You need to turn off...

FOX and/or Rush, because everything you have said is pure RW propaganda pushed by the Bushies to cover their asses.

BTW, when asked point black about it Condi Rice herself admitted there was ZERO evidence that Saddam's alleged WMD were sent to Syria.

You can look that up.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. Dude, you've been here since October of 2005...

and you still believe this bullshit?!?!?

"The real reason of course was that every major intelligence
service had concluded Saddam was developing nukes,
and if successful could have passed them on to the
terrorists."

What a steaming pile of RW crap you just spouted there. Have you learned nothing during your time here???

[BigYawn]

108. Nope, I firmly believe your information on this matter is far more

accurate than the combined conclusion of US, UK,
France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Egypt and other
intelligence services.

[Douglas Carpenter]

113. no it ABSOLUTELY was not agreed even in the CIA that Iraq

had a nuclear weapons program. Even so there were inspections going on at right up to the last minute that revealed nothing.

No pre or post war inspectors found ANY evidence of WMDs much less a nuclear weapons program. The idea that they were all moved to Syria is ludicrous. Again there is and was NO evidence; Syria and Iraq were not friends-to put it mildly.

Just as there is NO evidence that Iran is anywhere near a nuclear weapons capacity, no evidence that they would use nuclear weapons (which they are no where near having)in violation of the Fatwa of their supreme leader Grand Ayatollah Khamanei-- against a land considered sacred to all Muslims that would kill countless Muslims including countless Shiites in Southern Lebanon, and destroy some of Islams most sacred holy sites and guarantee a retaliatory strike that would wipe out their own existence

Although I do agree that since Iran is surrounded on all sides by hostile forces committed to the destruction of the current regime and the Bush Administration refuses any face to face discussion they would have very real reasons to feel threatened.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

118. Thank you...

I just didn't have the energy. :)

I'm still flabbergasted....

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. flabbergasted is the right word

Just last week when the Sy Hersh's story broke - a number of people here on DU were saying that there was no way that Mr. Bush could sell another massive military strike especially against Iran. Now we are reading advocacy for war action right here on DU

Never underestimate the power of the war propaganda machine. I suspect they could nuke Hawaii and we would have posts here on DU defending it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

100. Uh...

I guess you've never heard of the Saudis, huh? :eyes:

[High Plains]

105. Another canard: Saddam was a "funding source" for suicide

bombers.

No. The Iraqi government provided money to the families of suicide bombers whose homes were destroyed by the Israelis in an act of collective punishment.

[many a good man]

71. The purity of our essential bodily fluids will be preserved

for the next generation of Americans.

[kineneb]

75. bad things

1. They will retaliate with whatever is available and shut down the Straits of Hormuz
2. If for some insane reason, BushCo decides to use the Bunker busters, all the countries east of Iran will get pissed (check which way the fallout would blow)
3. The dollar will become useful as toilet paper and what is left of the economy will tank
4. Oil prices will go through the roof (see #1)
5. BushCo will not be able to pit the various tribes/factions against the Iranian leadership
6. Any troops on the ground will discover that Iran is like Iraq on steroids (have fun with the 4000'+ elevations, guys), and that the Iranians actually have an organized military

etc.
All in all, bombing is just a bad idea.

[LibertyorDeath]

79. What could possibly go wrong.

AND :grouphug:

[sutz12]

86. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

hic....go wrong?

hic....go wrong?

hic....go wrong?

hic....go wrong?

hic....go wrong?

With Bush & Co, shouldn't we ask what could go right?

[sutz12]

85. I live in the Seattle area

I Worry about what N. Korea would think of an attack on Iran.

He claims to have missiles that can reach us. Since he's #3 on Bush's hit list, he might try some pre-emption of his own. Sure, we could level them, but not until after he's erased Western Washington. :scared:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

94. Short Term/Long Term Predictions

Assuming an attack is not IMMEDIATELY followed by an invasion:

Short term:Iran will likely retaliate militarily against our forces in Iraq and probably lash out at Israel.
Long Term:Iran will likely STEP UP their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons, which they will be MUCH MORE likely to use against us and/or Israel offensively, and they will probably encourage/sponsor terrorist attacks against us and Israel throughout the world (including here at home I'm afraid).

In either event, to put it mildly, an attack on Iran would NOT be in our best interests and can only have far reaching negative consequences for us and the rest of the world for the foreseeable future IMHO. Unfortunately, I fear that Bushco knows this and will do it anyway. :(

[peacetheonlyway]

101. agreed... most likely scenario is 'everybody loses'

if we do anything to Iran, the most likely scenario is everyone loses...

a. americans in bagdad are as good as dust (roads into and out of bagdad bombed make our guys sitting ducks for ground attacks)...
b. americans in all major cities attacked senselessly by hamas and other terrorist organizations who without even Iran's backing, are determined to curb american imperialism
c. israel and large parts north/south Iraq will light up like a candle (as someone in the alternative media pointed out) and it will ignite a middleastern war the likes of which will be bigger than World war II with syria, jordan, egypt, saudi arabia joining in,
american properties and embassies destroyed throughout the middle east
d. china/russia will hold hostage either economically or thru weapons threats other military bases close to home

our stock market will finally crash as it has been propped up on air for many years now

and overnight we will go from superpower with military and economic might, to dustbin, with hundreds of thousands innocent civilian casualties and a bankrupt government coffer and economic punishment from no less than the 3 other superpowers (russia, china and india) as punishment for our aggression.

overall, if you see a 15 year old boy or girl, tell them to enjoy their life now, while it lasts, because from that age downward, Americans will never have the economic buying power they once had during clinton's era and pre-bush....

and trust me on this, everyone loses... nobody wins....

[wiggs]

102. Let's remember that the larger discussion is a false dichotomy

The OP asks about the consequences of bombing Iran.

Fine, but many are discussing Iran as though we have only two choices: 1) bomb Iran or 2) let them have a nuclear device. This is a false dichotomy promoted by those wanting confrontation and is an example of the simplification of issues characteristic of public discourse over the last five years.

The OP didn't frame it that way, but Iran discussions tend to head that way on their own. There are any number of possible pathways to resolution on Iran aside from one bombing the other. Apparently, the two leaders want us all to think otherwise, but we should remember the big picture and demand something different.

[mmonk]

121. The international community is going to act

at some juncture of the progression of neocon policy. Appeasement won't last. New coalitions both military and economic are going to produce a bi-polar world. The US will continue to fall in stature. This is all going to facilitate the decline of the US.

The more immediate problems will be oil prices no one can afford. Many deaths will occur. Terrorism will increase at a rapid weight. All international organizations will be in temporary chaos. The troops in Iraq will be in much more severe danger. Many meetings around the world will convene on what to do with the U.S.. Oil embargos, sanctions, etc. against us are a possibility though I think a more slow approach of divestiture in the US will occur. Either way, our well being will be more threatened in the future.

This is my speculation of course.

[Clarkie1]

122. There will be lots of fallout. n/t

[Rocknrule]

123. This: