|
I've heard much talk about the U.S. attacking Iran, initially through a series of air strikes.
I've also heard much discussion about Iran trying to assemble a nuke which would threaten nearby neighbors, including Europe, given Iran's ballistic capabilities.
I have to say, I've heard this song and dance before and it didn't work out too well for anyone.
There are some key differences between Iran and Iraq however, that give me a great deal of concern:
- Iran has not had it's infrastructure, economy or military decimated by a previous war with the U.S.-- they have a functioning Navy, Air force and Army
- Iran has a decent sized military (I looked it up on the CIA website). About 1/2 a million troops (includes reservists).
- They have ballistic missile capabilities and can reach as far as Israel and Europe
- The youth in Iran are REQUIRED to serve... which means even those who are not in the military presently have already been trained and are capable soldiers
- Iran has about 15 million able bodies capable of serving in combat
- Iranian youth (18-25, the largest segment of the population), while they may not agree with their current leadership, are EXTREMELY patriotic to their country
- Russia and China (who have been holding joint military exercises over the last two years) have been in political discussions with Iran outside the scope of the U.N.
- It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. would gain support from the U.N. for an attack against Iran. In fact, more than 1/3 of the IAEA board members opposed a U.N. security council referral
- Iran has only stated they would resume pursuit of nuclear weapons capability as a response to threat of preemptive strike against Iran by U.S. They have not actually resumed their program at this point, but will unless the U.S. tones down it's War stance against Iran.
If the U.S. attacks Iran, it is very likely that Iran will respond with
- A ballistic attack against U.S. troops in Iraq
- A massive invasion force (several hundred thousand if not millions) into Iraq
This response would result in potential nuclear strikes by the U.S. on Iran. If Iran does have any WMD capability, it would certainly be unleashed as a response. An entire nation would be erased and the U.S. military would take on serious casualties (upward of 100,000).
If Iran does not respond with aggressive military action, which is also plausible, they would respond by
- Request action by the U.N., declaring the action illegal by international law
- Only respond with defensive military action (anti-aircraft, ground defense on Iranian soil only)
In this case, what will the U.S. do? I could see they would not be able to continue a bombing campaign against Iran and it's likely that the U.N. would be forced to respond. Politically within the U.S. there would be huge pressure to stop any military action. Any action would have to go without Congressional approval (let's face it, BushCo has ZERO credibility when it comes to saying a country like Iran poses an imminent threat), and that being the case, there would be internal political pressure to stop. Externally, countries like China, Russia and Venezuela could certainly pressure the U.S. to stop via economic force. Europe would also not be very happy with kicked over bee's nest on their doorstep, which Iran certainly would be for them and they would likely pressure the U.S. to stop as well. Given that, I can see further international action being taken against the U.S. afterward for an illegal military action against Iran. We become a pariah nation in the world.
Does anyone see any good that can come from military action from Iran? Is there a rosy scenario like the Bush admin painted about Iraq that I'm missing? Could BushCo really get away with unsanctioned military action by saying they are protecting us from Iranian WMDs?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
