So when do we invade Iran?

[Thorn]

Well since even the French are rejecting talks with them... ahahahahaha.... that's a good one (too bad its not a joke)...... When will the grand coalition of allies form and military invasion take place.... Bets anyone?

I despise Iran so much.... I'd be the first to get off the landing craft if they'd let me..... we have always should have invaded them instead of Iraq. Iran has been a problem for decades and now they want nukes..... for gardening, to feed ponies, for little children to dance around in the streets? -I think not-- they want TO NUKE US ALL!!!

[Thorn]

drats I meant to make this a poll.

[SlowwHand]

I say a week from this coming Tuesday.

[Thorn]

I still say nukeing them would cost less, require less effort, and yield immediate results. I like my nuclear detterent policy..... you get nukes, you get nuked!

[SlowwHand]

What's the use of having a bat, ball, and glove and then not play baseball?

[Seeker]

While I don't think there will be an 'invasion' anytime soon, I think there is a strong possibility of Israeli airstrikes of uncertain effectiveness in the near future.

So you're going to enlist? You know it takes a while before they let you go near the 'bang bang ka-pow' if that's what you really want.

And they usually have this crazy thing for mental stability and long-term committment. I know, freaks me out too.

I wish that people could 'customize' military volunteering like a modern vacation packages...

"I want to risk my life to protect my fellow citizens...but only in Iran...and only if I get a flashy job with lots of boom-boom, i don't wanna be struck driving some truck through minefields for a year in the middle of a fly-infested desert...and maybe lighten them packs a little...I gots me a bad sacroriliac..."*

*the army of the future...

[SlowwHand]

[Berzerker]

I watch FOX to see where Bush et al is going and they've ratcheted up the vitriol and claims about how most Iranians would welcome us as liberators so I suspect Bush will invade before his 2nd term runs out and leave the mess to his successor.

[Drake Tungsten]

I know this isn't a serious thread, but I would be interested in discussing America's military options vis-a-vis Iran. Would airstrikes do enough damage to set the Iranian weapons program back significantly? If so, does America let Israel do it or do they join in? If not, what are the other options? There's been some talk of a limited invasion to overthrow the Iranian regime and destroy the nuclear sites, then a quick withdrawal to avoid the nation-building that has been the difficult part in Iraq. How likely is that?

The easiest solution, of course, would be to do as Thorn suggested and threaten to nuke Iran's weapons production sites if they don't end their program and actually follow through on the threat if need be. That would be brutally effective (especially if we've perfected those nuclear bunker busters people got up in arms with), but I seriously doubt that's an option that's on the table. Even Bush doesn't have balls that big...

[Seeker]

Well that's really the whole issue ain't it Drake.

Nobody really knows for sure. Israeli posters on apolyton (with their direct connections to the International Jewish Conspiracy) have said that this situation is worse for them than the 81 Osirak bombing because Iran's sites are widely distributed, often 'dual' use, not all identified, better protected, etc...

Also there is the risk factor. If your goal is to stop Iran from nuking Tel Aviv and Haifa, and you go in bombing them, you'd better be damn damn sure they don't have a missile and bomb ready to go that US intel didn't know about or the whole thing will be counter-productive.

Who knows what NK may have sold them? Or how many sites they may have? Or how far along they really are? Or whether airstrikes alone would be a)effective b)not disastrously counter-productive.

It really is a nightmare situation and it would be much easier to have go away if Serb's Lord and God in Moscow would pitch in more strongly...

[Pekka]

You could always use the South Korea scenario, well kind of.

That is, land the troops in Israel, let the Israel take the lead in the assault meaning air strikes taking the capabilities out. Massive air strike, with the goal to have it done right there and then.

Threaten Iran that if anyone attempts to attack US troops that are in Israel, are facing war against the US that is met with fast counter attack.

Then put the troops near the borders and key positions, meaning if and when Iran retaliates, after it says 'cat', the US troops invade Iran. This would be a measure if the Israeli strike fails, otherwise it's not necessary anymore.

Then Iran has to either suck it up, the air strike, or face massive war, where their enemy is lined up right next to them and has already caused significant amount of damage.

This is, of course, unrealistic

[Wycoff]

What good would nukes do for Iran anyway? They're already pretty much invasion proof, and their country would be utterly destroyed if they launched a nuclear attack on Israel or the United States. I think it's nothing but sabre rattling.

[GePap]

1. Nukes are not an option, at least, not a rational one. Any use of nuclear weapons in that scenerio DRake laid out would make the Bush amdin. a total international outcast, would forever end the NPT system by showing te US to be utterly irresponsible and giving every nation out there just cause to have their own nukes to use vs an clearly irresponsible state actor, and in the end, the Iranians would simply rebuild their nuclear program.

2. Air strikes would be ineffective in ending a program as widespread as the Iranian one. Even if the US hit EVERYTHING in terms of equipment, Iran would just rebuild, and it would havecomplete justification in its action. The fatc is that under its treaty obligations, Iran has every right to have nuclear power, nuclear reactors, and to enrich nuclear fuels. Its treaty obligation is to do this all transparantly, under inspections, and to never cross the weapons threshold. What Iran violated was transparency and having all its activities monitored, but it still has the right to nuclear tech.

3. There is no such thing as a "limited regime change invasion" with a regime like Iran. Only a total an complete takeover of the country would do, and besides, any Iranian regmie after thye clerical one would STILL have every reason to make nuesk, specifically, to avoind more regime change invasions. This could only be stopped by nation building.

Given the size of Iran and its relative international and economic position in the world, no military option is going to solve anything. Air strikes would be ineffective, invasion is too costly, long, and would be too disruptive of the oil and gas markets, and nukes are simply not a sane option.

[KrazyHorse]

The Osirak bombing was a piece of cake compared to this.

Osirak was:

one site
out in the open

I truly doubt the ability of airstrikes (even by the USAF) to take care of a significant amount of Iran's weapons-oriented development capability. The IAF doesn't have a chance. Not enough planes, not enough bombs, not the right kind of bombs.

[Vince278]

I believe we will go through the "last ditch allied diplomacy" and the "refer to the UN" phases before any actual shooting starts so nothing will happen very soon. Before Bush's term is up? Probably. He will want to start that particular quagmire before he leaves in case a "weak-kneed" successor follows him (ie Hillary).

Anyone care to start a football pool on the date and time either the US or Israel fires a shot?