If the U.S. strikes, Iran could invade Iraq.

[Cascadian]

If the U.S. attacks Iran in any way militarily, I am convinced that they could send thousands upon thousands of troops, elite, regular, and conscripts across the border into Iraq. Thus creating a wider conflict that could even involve Iranians rolling into Afghanistan.

Iran has warned the U.S. not to attack. According to The Hindu newspaper, Iran's intelligence chief said that invading Iran would be a "stupid mistake."

http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/25/stories/2005012501551400.htm

It would also be a mistake as I am conviced no other country would go along with it. Not even Britain would invlove themselves. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said that attacking Iran would not be a good idea and that a negotiated settlement would be preferable.


http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/405214.htm

With this I am convinced the U.S. would be fighting a larger scale war if the Bushites go ahead and attack Iran. It is a larger country than Iraq is in terms of population and land mass. Also, it's military is good sized and better than whatever Iraq had for their army. What is sad is that Bush and his band of jackals do not see it nor cares. I would even dare to say that an attack on Iran will truly be the start of World War III.

John

[rooboy]

1. I doubt they'll invade with regular troops... it would stretch them.

The way to do it would be with more insurgents (young fanatics), and flood the Iraqi countryside with more advanced munitions than the Iraqis are using now.

But your general idea that Iran would merge the conflict into Iraq is something I had also considered.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. If things get a little out of hand, (as if they haven't been since

selection 2000) we can resupply them with VX and perhaps a wee bit more.... in order to ensure that we "win" no matter the cost, no matter the rules, no matter world opinion, no matter what. The only important detail is that we "win".

Win exactly what I don't know, since we have been winning by overthrowing governments both covertly and overtly, both militarily and economically since time immemorial. (sp) (gr)

What we will inevitably win is a world in total that hates Amurka enough to do something about it. Play through George, the ball is in your court.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[The Traveler]

2. Attacking Iran is a high risk proposition

If we do it, we better not fuck it up. This is so high risk only an idiot tries it without compelling reasons. Bush's judgment in that regard can only be considered highly suspect.

1) High value US Naval assets are operating in waters which are constrained by geography ... it can be hard to escape the Gulf if the exits are covered by missiles.

2) The Iranians can field approx 1 Million riflemen in less than a week.
That's a lot of riflemen.

3) In our first war with Iraq, no one had seen our new tactics and doctrine in action. No one had any idea it would all work as well as it did. Well, the Iranians are no slouches and they have had two examples and 13 years to consider their counter-tactics. It is unlikely they will be as easily defeated as Iraq was in the first Gulf war. (The second war doesn't really count. Iraq's military power was a fraction of its 1991 strength.)

4) Don't forget Syria. If we hit Iran, they are at our back door.

One can only hope that at some point it ocurrs to these assholes that there are other options than running off an killing a bunch of people.

[jmatthan]

3. British troops in Basra would be the frontline!!

I do not think the British people would like that very much to pay for Bush's empire building with the lives of their troops.

I hope Bush is foolish enough to do just this.

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[henrik larssonisking]

12. uugghh

so you hope that bush starts it, why, do you want to see more british and american troops killed, i think you should be hoping that tensions calm down.

[jmatthan]

16. If people are foolish to do these things

then they and their puppets who kill for their leaders should get what they deserve.

I don't wish they would do anything but get out of the Middle East. If not, let them get what they are entitled to.

Why should I sympathise with murderers just because they wear an US uniform?

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland

[illflem]

4. The smart thing to do

is just accept the fact that Iran will be a nuclear power and threaten nuclear deterrence.
Worked during the cold war right?

[necso]

5. The Iranians may well respond

(in some way) against US forces (or other interests) even if only Israel attacks. -- Few in the region are going to believe that Israel would act in this way unless the US approved.

A direct attack on US (and "coalition") forces in the theater is certainly an option, but this could lead to (radical) escalation, whereas other forms of retaliation more likely would not. And any attack on Iran would strengthen the position of the current leadership, which, if it decides that an actual invasion is unlikely, might well use more covert means to retaliate. (One can make a good argument that "strikes" would mean that an actual invasion is off of the table at least for the time being -- and maybe for good -- at least in the absence of some further "justification".)

Certainly, we are not in an optimal position to deal with an Iranian incursion (into Iraq or Afghanistan) or with certain other possibilities for direct (Iranian) military action, but the crazies in power might have few qualms about nuking the hell out of them. With US forces in some jeopardy (real or imagined), this might not even be hard to sell to the American people (as hard as this may be to believe). -- And there are all sorts of intermediate options like a massive conventional bombing campaign.

The Iranians are no dummies, they are talking tough, but I am betting that they will act in a calculated manner -- to obtain maximal results at minimal cost and risk.

[sweetheart]

7. naah, not likely.

More likely is that they'd hit all US bases in the region with a
massive cruize missile attack... and an ongoing barrage of such intense
proportions that the US capability to wage war in the region would be
severely diminished. It is "their" neighborhood truth be told, and
they know exactly how to cut the white men off at the knees.

The US could respond with long distance bombing, but as iran HAS an
airforce and a rather large country, there would be lots of shot down
aircraft, and a standoff in any airial war. The net loser would be the
US, as there is already overstretch in the military, and by hitting
all the US bases, iran would push this over the top, that the US would
lose iraq, afganistan would become stressed as well, and likely, russia
would help iran with intel and "silent" support to help eject the US
from the region.... and without going nuclear, there is not much the
US could do so far away....

Methinks tennyson captured a future iran war rather well... "in to the
valley of death rode the 600..."

[Wright Patman]

10. Going nuclear

is not a moral dilemma for the madmen in charge. Many believe the U.S. has already used neutron-like munitions at the Baghdad airport battle. Plus, there're all those DU (depleted uranium) shells which are contaminating and killing friend and foe alike.

The other point I'd make is that, while I understand your "white men" reference, it doesn't work as well in opposition to Iran since the Persians are also considered "white" by anthropologists.

[sweetheart]

11. Keeping a nuclear war regional

If the US uses nuclear weapons in asia, it will spark a world war,
not one of these poorly defined "maybe" world wars like the cold war,
or this iraq invasion, no, a clear, global war with all nations
taking sides in a massive middle eastern mess.

This will surely finish in a quagmire, and lead to a global nuclear
war short on... and then the bush nazi's can get what the've been
asking for all along. They want someone to check their hubris, to
show them up and give them god's will in fire and brimstone.

Surely the blue states will be nuked the most, and then the bush
nazis can be even happier that they'll have fewer opposition voters.
Its win-win with this evil felons... no question indeed.

[Nihil]

15. On your second point ...

> The other point I'd make is that, while I understand your "white men"
> reference, it doesn't work as well in opposition to Iran since the
> Persians are also considered "white" by anthropologists.

Unfortunately, the Commander in Chief of the US forces can't define,
spell, or even pronounce "anthropologist" so I think logic takes the
back seat on that one.

The phrase "lions led by donkeys" was coined for a different country
in a different era but is starting to shine with truth again ...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. if the US invades

then we've kissed our forces over there good-bye. And I really don't think Bush cares a bit. So much for 'supporting the troops'.

[12345]

9. I wonder if we're baiting them...

Every other major US conflict that I've read about has had MANY more troops (500,000+), even the first Iraq war... We have about 175,000 right now in Iraq. I'm no military buff, but it makes me wonder how we could be strained. I thought that the US military was prepared to fight 2 wars at once. My instinct tells me that they're holding back...

[henrik larssonisking]

14. problem is

that the standing army of the US is actually pretty small at the moment compared to the past, the technological advantage is huge though, our armour for instance is generations ahead of most of the iranian stuff, th eonly real equaliser they have is AT missiles etc. It wouldnt take long to gain air superiority and that is a huge advantage especially if the iranians did muster huge amounts of men, the more men the more supply lines and concentrations that there are to bomb. The iranians would be nuts to openly engage, using terrorists etc would be the more strategic way to go.

[htuttle]

17. About that air power we have in the region

Iran has long range conventional ballistic missiles which are no doubt trained at most of the air bases the US has in both Iraq and Kuwait (and Israel). Plus, their Sunburns can either sink our air craft carriers, or keep them from getting too close to shore (and very, very nervous).

And after all that attrition is over, they still will probably have a fair amount of newer fighter planes, such as the SU-27, which is a very nice plane. Their air force has always been respected -- they kicked Iraq right out of the skies during the Iran/Iraq war, with Iranian pilots winning dogfights against much greater numbers of Iraqi planes.

And don't forget the militias they already control inside Iraq. So far, the Badr Brigades have been cooperating with the US for the most part. An attack on Iran would instantly change that (and the Badr Brigades are far better trained and equipped than Sadr's militia's, for example). Conventional air power is little use in a close-in urban battle.

We are in a far more tenuous position there than most people realize. Attacking Iran in any way right now would be a monumental military mistake.

[theblasmo]

13. Scary

This sounds more legitimate than almost any other scenario I've seen. The rest of the world might leave us out to dry if they do attack. Might be the best lesson for the Powers That Be.