Should the US invade Iran?

[Wakie]

According to Colin Powell (and I believe him on this one) Iran is pursuing the technology to create a nuclear bomb.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20041118/ts_washpost/a57465_2004nov17

Should the US invade Iran?  Is such an invasion inevitable?  And does the US have the military resources to maintain order in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq at the same time?

[ATFFL]

No, just hit all their nuclear sites, liek a certain country did to the Iraqi program.

[A18]

We don't have to invade. We just have to blow up the threat, or better yet, have Israel do it for us.

[John Dibble]

We don't have to invade. We just have to blow up the threat, or better yet, have Israel do it for us.

If Israel did it, they would likely be attacked by other ME nations, and the level of terrorism they go through would likely increase. Still, I say no. Just blow up their nuclear sites if we absolutely have to.

[A18]

If the middle east wants to die, they can go ahead and attack Israel. I don't really care, because we all know who would win that war.

[afleitch]

Keep your noses out of this one for now. Europe and Britain (especially Tony Blair) are working on it. If Iran refuse- then in we all go. But not now, and not until we know for sure. If Iran has nukes it's likely they could target Turkey/Greece etc. America is never directly threatened by Middle Eastern weapons programmes, Europe is, we are in firing range.

[John Dibble]

If the middle east wants to die, they can go ahead and attack Israel. I don't really care, because we all know who would win that war.

Israel, as kick ass as their army is, probably couldn't win against the entire Middle East, especially if they are trying to go on the offensive. With our support, yes, however you must consider that wars cost lives on both sides. Just because we are stronger and would win doesn't necessarily mean the sacrifices made to win would be worth it.

[Dave from Michigan]

how big is Israel's military

[A18]

The Arab nations have ganged up on Israel before.

When people talk about the end of civilization, 90% of the time they talk about nuclear catastrophe. There's a reason for that, and I think we'd be wise to keep it in mind.

[John Dibble]

The Arab nations have ganged up on Israel before.

When people talk about the end of civilization, 90% of the time they talk about nuclear catastrophe. There's a reason for that, and I think we'd be wise to keep it in mind.

I'm quite aware of both of those facts. Like I said, Israel's military kicks ass. However, the ME was not quite a hotbed of terrorism at that time - it has grown in that respect. Terrorism is much more difficult to fight than standing armies.

And you know, maybe a couple of the bad guys should have nukes - the Cold War spurred technological development out the wazoo, we could use more of that. One day we'll likely have a defense against nukes, better sooner than later.

[afleitch]

I think we are in the midst of Islam's 'last stand' as a political force, i.e religious war. Democracy and capitalism grew out of Christianity and eventually outgrew it all together, but all European and Anglo-Saxon nations are in essence Christian Democracies. Islam is both a political ideology and a religion and they find it hard to seperate the two, even in constitutionally secular Turkey. Islam as a political force has been in decline since the 1600's and now its on its last legs. It will be defeated. Islam as a religion will remain, but not until after serious theological challenges. I support Israel as it is the only democratic 'bolthole' in the middle east.  A nuclear attack on Israel is an attack on the West as a whole.

[Bogart]

At this point, contemplating an invasion of Iran is extremely premature. We must see what, if anything, comes of the European efforts. However ineffective they may prove to be should it come to that, we must pursue international sanctions. If military action becomes necessary, air strikes against the installations being used to build the nuclear weapons should come first. Likely, this would end Iran's nuclear capability.

[angus]

Keep your noses out of this one for now.

agreed. 

[ATFFL]

Keep your noses out of this one for now. Europe and Britain (especially Tony Blair) are working on it. If Iran refuse- then in we all go. But not now, and not until we know for sure. If Iran has nukes it's likely they could target Turkey/Greece etc. America is never directly threatened by Middle Eastern weapons programmes, Europe is, we are in firing range.

Bush has cited this as a chance for Europe to take the lead in international diplomacy.  Right now Europe wants the US needs to be the unstoppable force that Europe is keeping in check.

[Confabulator]

Iran has never threatened us, have they?  We have no reason to invade them.  Though they have good reason to hate us, what with us supporting Saddam against them and all.

I notice nobody is talking about invading India or Pakistan, both of whom definitely have nuclear weapons and would most likely use them in case of a war.

[A18]

And neither of which will pass them on to terrorists, which would be the one qualification that actually matters

[Confabulator]

Pakistan is the reason why Iran has nuclear weapons. 
What makes you think Iran is just going to give up their nuclear weapons to some terrorist group, despite having spent millions and millions on them?  They want nukes for leverage, not revenge.

[A18]

You know, it is possible to make more than one nuclear weapon.

[angus]

Keep your noses out of this one for now. Europe and Britain (especially Tony Blair) are working on it. If Iran refuse- then in we all go. But not now, and not until we know for sure. If Iran has nukes it's likely they could target Turkey/Greece etc. America is never directly threatened by Middle Eastern weapons programmes, Europe is, we are in firing range.

Bush has cited this as a chance for Europe to take the lead in international diplomacy.  Right now Europe wants the US needs to be the unstoppable force that Europe is keeping in check.

good.  let those bastards spend some money on containment for a while.  We're 300 billion into Iraq, for heaven's sake.  An Iran invasion is not a gift I want to buy for my president just now.  Let the brits buy one of those for Mr. Blair, if they want.

[ATFFL]

Pakistan is the reason why Iran has nuclear weapons. 
What makes you think Iran is just going to give up their nuclear weapons to some terrorist group, despite having spent millions and millions on them?  They want nukes for leverage, not revenge.

Iran has said in the past they would immediately use nuclear weapons against Israel, if I am not mistaken.

[Julien]

I would rather the U.S. invade Iran than Iraq.

[Confabulator]

Too late now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you believe them?

[Erc]

Iran with Nuclear Weapons...

The same country that held however many of the US Embassy staff hostage for however many days back after the Revolution?

The same country that has either aided Al Qaeda directly or at least looked the other way as its operatives have passed through its country from Afghanistan?

The same country that has been directly aiding armed insurgencies in Iraq?

The same country that has been directly funding and supplying Hezbollah and other terrorist groups?

With Nuclear Weapons...

Even if they don't use them, and I doubt they will, it gives a country which is probably the Number 1 threat to Middle East Peace dangerous amounts of leverage.  As they'd be holding the entire Middle East hostage, they could do pretty much whatever the heck they wanted to with impunity, as no one wants to be the person who provoked a nuke in Tel Aviv.  We wouldn't be able to take down the regime by external means (you don't invade a nuclear-wielding country) and we couldn't topple it internally (the last act of the crumbling theocracy would be to launch its nukes at anyone and everyone).

And Iran knows this.  Which is why they have no reason to give into the IAEA.  I hope for a peaceful solution as much as anybody else here--and even if one does occur, I have a distinct feeling it'll turn into another North Korea eight years down the road.

Of course, if we do take out their reactors, then it'll only provoke more anti-American feeling in Iran and decrease the chance of an Iranian Counter-Revolution...

[Apologies for my tone--I'm just in a very anti-Ayatollah mood today.  Two years ago, I was critical of Bush even including Iran in the Axis of Evil...

[cwelsch]

No, we don't have the manpower to do this and everything else we're doing, and Iranians are tough.  They haven't been worn down by war, uprisings and sanctions like Iraq/Afghanistan.  They're doing okay right now and would fight an invasion strongly.  We should just emphasize alternative methods.

[Silent Hunter]

Let's do sanctions first.

We are making progress, they've suspended most of the enrichment programme.