Is the attack on Iran Inevitable?

[InToTheRain]

Peace fellow forum viewers and know that your being able to read this is a luxury many do not have in this war torn world.

We all know the contingency plans for the war in Iraq where in place Months befor the deadlines or conclusions for the weapon inspectors reports where made. Indeed I vividly remember the warships making their way towards Iraq while inspections where half done.

Have a read of these articles then make up your mind, Is the war in Iran Inevitable?

tensions over Iran's nuclear plans

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

 

[Woodrow]

I do not think war with Iran is inevitable. It can be avoided and I do not think there is any big push for war. I think the build up in the Mediterranean is no more then to reassure Israel that they have no need to make a preemptive strike against Iran.

Iran is an uncooperative US allie without their realizing it. Iran can be seen as a buffer zone that keeps the Arab nations from becoming fully united. They are the largest non-Arab nation in the mideast and the location prevents physical unity of the Arab nations. It is very much to US benefit for Iran to have strength in the region.

I think people forget the many times Iran has either gone to war with or threatened war with it's Arab neighbors. In spite of all of it's anti-American noises I think Iran feels it needs to have Western allies to keep from being swallowed up by the Arab countries and for that reason I do not think they will push very hard to risk actual war with Israel. I see them as making a lot of noise to avoid the appearance of being pro-West.

My fear is that Israel will get too scared and take the first action. Even then if Israel were to make a strike at Iran, as long as it is clearly seen Israel is the aggressor, the US will keep out of the fray.

Plus Iran in spite of it's oil reserves is loosing oil income very rapidly. It can not get the oil wells into full production and it does need the cooperation of the big 7 oil companies if it is ever going to have oil income again. Iran need the oil wells in Iraq and it also need a pipline and sea port through Iraq if it is going to sell oil. Irans own oil wells need a full work over to even have a chance of producing oil again. the low cost surface oil is long gone. all that remains is the deep oil that is expensive to get out of the ground. I doubt if any western investors will even consider any major investment in Iranian oil at this time.

Iran also has strong desires to get into Iraq and right now it has the biggest opportunity it ever had for a full take over of Iraq. As soon as the foreign armies get out of Iraq it is inevitable that Iraq will be swallowed up by Iran. At the moment I do not think the Western world will come to the aid of Iraq when Iran finaly makes it's push. However, that attitude would change if Iran were to do anything to be seen as aggression against the West.

 

[InToTheRain]

Iran is an uncooperative US allie without their realizing it. Iran can be seen as a buffer zone that keeps the Arab nations from becoming fully united. They are the largest non-Arab nation in the mideast and the location prevents physical unity of the Arab nations. It is very much to US benefit for Iran to have strength in the region.

Thats true. But this can also be see a good cause for war as taking over this Iran would give them a strategic advantage in the Mid-east since they are no co-operating. Recently they Bush&co group made a move to send more troops in Iraq and now we have contingency plans which detail to two strategies which they can implement should they go to war in Iran. (Mentioned in the articles)

Maybe they will go to war and make a reason up as they go along (as they did with Iraq...)

 

[Woodrow]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

One of the biggest fallacies the world seems to have is that America wants to physically occupy the Mid-Eastern countries. I doubt if you could find enough Americans that would consider living there, to even have a token colonization.

Oil although constantly being tossed up as a reason, is not the reason. The western world is getting less dependent on Mid eastern oil and it is now being seen as too expensive and the better goals are to utilize western reserves and develop alternative energy sources for oil. The oil wealth of the mid east is in it's decline. The peak production years are in the past. Each year the cost of getting Mideastern oil out of the ground gets high and the cost of new wells in the area is no longer cost effective. About the only oil company you will see sticking with Mideastern oil will be Aramco. The Saudi national company.

 

[Woodrow]

I suspect that the US will continue putting up a fuss in Iraq until the world see's an Iranian overtake of Iraq as a good thing. I think will put up a big front and than withdrw from Iraq allowing an Iranian take over and it will be seen as the will of the people and a defeat for the US and be acceptable to the world.

A strategic defeat can often be the biggest victory.

 

[InToTheRain]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

Well for me to think they see sense like you would be wishful thinking Allahu'Allom

 

[Woodrow]

I doubt if the world would accept a US backed takeover of Iraq by Iran. But, I believe that there would be much support if Iran can drive the US out of Iraq and come in as the liberators of Iraq.

That is the scenario I see being set up.

 

[Keltoi]

I doubt if the world would accept a US backed takeover of Iraq by Iran. But, I believe that there would be much support if Iran can drive the US out of Iraq and come in as the liberators of Iraq.

That is the scenario I see being set up.

Iran can't drive the U.S. out of Iraq. If they try they have committed an act of war, and they will be attacked. That would be their bad, not the fault of the U.S.

The only goal the U.S. has at this point is providing some sort of security blanket until the Iraqi government can get its act together. There is a timeline. If by 2009 the situation hasn't improven dramatically, the U.S. will remove most of its forces, leaving behind a few highly mobile attack forces to deal with certain situations the Iraq Army cannot handle.

 

[NoName55]

'Removing Saddam strengthened Iran'

By Adla Massoud in New York
Political Islam expert Vali Nasr says the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq by the US during the invasion of the country in 2003 strengthened Iran's strategic viability and increased its regional popularity, especially among Iraq's Shia majority.



Nasr, author of the recently published book The Shia Revival, says despite its defiant rhetoric Iran is really seeking open and wide-ranging normalisation talks with Washington.
Professor of Middle East and South Asia Politics at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, Nasr was one several Middle East experts recently invited by George Bush, the US president, to brief him on internal Iraqi religious and political dynamics.
The following excerpts are from his interview to Aljazeera.net.
Aljazeera.net: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have voiced fears of a Shia revival in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Will a sectarian war engulf this "new" Middle East?
Vali Nasr: I think in individual countries they do fear the Shia revival because, unfortunately, Iraq, which is the very first stage of transfer of power from Sunnis to Shia, has gone very badly for a variety of reasons.
There was an enormous amount of blood shed in Iraqi politics for a very long time ... Iraq after 1991 became far more of a sectarian state than it was before, and the Americans mishandled many things - they weren't as prepared, which aggravated the situation.
As did also the influx of foreign fighters with their own agenda who may have thought the best way to get the Americans out of Iraq was to provoke a civil war by generating sectarian violence, hitting the shrines …
Secondly, the Shia want to avoid what happened in Iraq as do the Sunnis. So we are in a period of calm where the sectarian violence in Iraq is impacting all the debates about political transition, democracy, opening, and power sharing in the region.
Many have blamed Washington's policies for putting a defiant Iran in command of the Islamic street. Do you agree?
Yes and no. Saddam Hussein was definitely a bulwark against Iran because the Baathist government in Iraq was extremely anti-Iranian. It goes back to the days of the Shah ever since 1958.
But now Iran will definitely have a greater say in any Iraqi government that comes to power and is friendlier to Iran - especially if that government is a Shia government.
Secondly, the US has become bogged down in Iraq in a major way militarily and that takes away from its capability to contain Iran. And Iran knows that.

Part of Iran's power comes from the fact that it's very difficult to effectively contain it.
The public mood in America is not in favour of military activity abroad ... when Israel was not able to beat Hezbollah in a country of only 3.5 million people, when 130,000 US troops are bogged down in Iraq, obviously Iran feels it has a lot more room to manoeuvre and say "no" to the international community and to the nuclear issue.
Also, while the Iranian power was on the rise in the 1990s, nobody was watching, the economy was growing and the price of oil went up, it became very wealthy. It's a country of 70 million people.
There were many indicators that Iran was on the move during the [former Iranian President Mohammed] Khatami years. But the military edge of this, the more regional military edge of this, has only become evident now.
Iran's reading of the Arab street has been fairly good. At the time when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was in a stalemate, there was frustration and anger on the streets because of the fact that the peace process was not going anywhere.

"Iran is not anywhere close to having a nuclear bomb"​

There was increasing difficulty between Palestinians and Israelis and then Iraq was producing so much unhappiness in the region. The Iranians did not focus on winning support among the palaces of the Arab world.
They went directly for the kind of things that make them very unpopular in the West and very popular on the Arab streets. So Iranian President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad started to attack Israel and question the Holocaust.
That has damaged Iran greatly in terms of its diplomacy with the West. But these pictures were sold on the streets in Damascus and Beirut before the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
The recent conflict in Lebanon has boosted Hezbollah's popularity to an unprecedented level and has given the mullahs - Hezbollah's backers - greater leverage to use at the international bargaining table. What does Tehran really want?
There are big things that Tehran wants and there are little things that Tehran wants. Iran wants to be recognised as a great power in the region. It wants to be like India is in South Asia. They basically want their position to be accepted and acknowledged. And the nuclear issue is part of that.
Iran wants to sit as an equal with the US and not be talked down to.
That should be an outcome of negotiations rather than a pre-condition for negotiations.
Also, you are right, as time has passed particularly after the Lebanon war, Iran feels increasingly more confident not that the overall goal has changed but that they would like to make any kind of negotiation from a position of strength.
I personally think they want to talk. That's why President Ahmadinejad gave an interview to CBS's Mike Wallace.
That's why in his interview he complained about the fact that President Bush did not answer his letter, it's the reason why again he called for a public debate with Bush a few days ago. And they do condescendingly say they want to talk but not the way in which the West wants to talk.
Why won't the US talk to them?
There are multiple reasons. This Bush administration began by putting Iran in the axis of evil. There are domestic considerations for engaging in talks, for both countries. You become ultimately a prisoner of your own rhetoric.
Secondly, the US believes that Iran is not serious. And the US has not really made up its mind yet about normalising relations with Iran. Or what that means. What the US wants is for Iran to stop doing specific things that the US is bothered by: namely their support for Hezbollah, support for terrorism, stop meddling in Iraq, and above all suspension of uranium enrichment and ending the nuclear programme in Iran.

"The cost of a military attack on Iran may be higher than it is a benefit"​

But you know these are specific issues that the US would like Iran to deal with but it doesn't change the overall relation between the US and Iran.
The Iranians argue that if they were to do these things, they would still be in a position of difficulty. Once Ahmadinejad said in his own usual crude way, "If we gave up the nuclear programme, they will ask for human rights. If we gave up human rights they will ask for animal rights."
The US is refusing to engage directly with Iran, but will oil interests force US–Iran reconciliation?
I don't know if it will impose reconciliation but it is definitely a pressure factor. First of all, it's very difficult even if everybody at the UN agreed to punish Iran economically by imposing sanctions on Iran because ultimately those sanctions will include the oil sector.
If you include oil sanctions on Iran, then the price of oil is going to go up dramatically in such a way that will impact Western economies and Japan far more quickly than it will impact Iran itself. So oil is a limiting factor on the United Nations and the US.
Secondly, the easiest way in which Iran can always threaten any kind of counteraction is to attack oil tankers or to close off the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. And you know Iran does not even have to succeed there, just the threat of it will already send the prices up.
As a result, Iran has the ability to impact oil markets in ways that would constrict US policymaking. I don't think it's necessarily a path to reconciliation so much as it is a path to preventing further escalation of tension.
With Iran remaining defiant and ignoring a deadline set by the UN Security Council to suspend enrichment of uranium, do you think it's more likely Israel will attack Iran before the US does?
I don't think it would be too likely for two reasons. One, Iran is not anywhere close to having a nuclear bomb. In fact, the very fact that the IAEA just said Iran has been going rather slow on the uranium enrichment indicated that they are having technical problems.
Before Iran gets to a bomb it has to master many technologies, not just enrichment. They have to master bomb making and many other things before they can actually be a threat.
Many estimates, including US intelligence agencies, have put a time-frame anywhere from five to eight years away if all is well. So there is no imminent threat that would require a sort of military pre-emptive strike.
We might actually be at a time-frame right now - despite the hard talk from both sides - that the cost of a military attack on Iran may be higher than the benefit. In other words, an attack won't achieve much; it will only push the nuclear programme back. But the political, military and security cost of attacking Iran will be higher than the gains you are going to get.
What is the key to breaking up Iran's hegemony in the region?
There is no easy solution to this. In other words, there could always be a military solution, but I don't think there is a good military solution, and if there is a war, it's not going to even change the regime.
Like we saw in Lebanon, an attack will only stabilise the regime further, it will cause anger on the streets, and if Iran is attacked it won't have any incentives to play by the rules either. This will be tremendously destabilising to the Persian Gulf and to the whole region.

"Iran wants to sit as an equal with the US and not be talked down to"​

Secondly, the countries in the region don't have the capability to contain Iran because they don't have the military capability to do so. Once upon a time Iraq and Iran balanced one another out. Saudi Arabia doesn't have that capability so they are going to look at the US to provide that military capability.
The question is, to what extent is the US committed to staying in the Persian Gulf. But ultimately I think for the Arab countries, particularly the Persian Gulf countries and the US, the best way is to find a way to engage Iran, give Iran an interest in stability and order in the region.
When you keep a power like Iran out in the cold, you give it an incentive to try to show that it exists and matters. And that is something the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are better positioned to do with support from the West than the West on its own.

Source: Aljazeera

 

[karim]

i do not think that they should be a war in iran there is no justified reason

 

[Woodrow]

For many years the Shah regime of the Pahlavi family in Persia enjoyed many close ties with Washington. Perhaps the current regime would like to do the same?

Persia and Washington were very strange political buddies, but for some reason it served the Pahlavi family quite well.

I suspect there are some very interesting talks and negotiations taking place out of the view of the public.

In spite of all the talk and sabre rattling I think both countries have a need for each other and that need will most likely prevent war. The only situation I see that may disrupt the awkward stance is if a military confrontation takes place between Iran and Israel.

 

[libyanhero]

Would it not be much more cost effective and less risk to American lives to have Iran as an Allie? Even if they are a reluctant allie.

One of the biggest fallacies the world seems to have is that America wants to physically occupy the Mid-Eastern countries. I doubt if you could find enough Americans that would consider living there, to even have a token colonization.

Oil although constantly being tossed up as a reason, is not the reason. The western world is getting less dependent on Mid eastern oil and it is now being seen as too expensive and the better goals are to utilize western reserves and develop alternative energy sources for oil. The oil wealth of the mid east is in it's decline. The peak production years are in the past. Each year the cost of getting Mideastern oil out of the ground gets high and the cost of new wells in the area is no longer cost effective. About the only oil company you will see sticking with Mideastern oil will be Aramco. The Saudi national company.

lol brother Oil is the reason if the arab world ever cuts off supply then they know among them are people who can die from poverty and all that

Oil isnt the only richness in the medditeranean there is plenty more and yah is not the Americans wanting that but the Jewish lobby is heading the American government to catastrophe if they dont wake up and realize that the Jewish lobby is one of the greatest most powerful in the american congress and its the congress that gives approval to these things

The reason behind it is not to go to war with iran first is to undermine and isolate iran by its arab neighbours then to see what reaction iran will take probably to back down and become friends with the US but its not Iran thats gonna get it, its Syria but noone is actually seeing it right now, Syria is the target for Israel and Iran wont help the arabs anymore in this case cause it will feel isolated and hurt which would cause more division.

its a long plot u need to dig through

 

[Woodrow]

Mideastern oil is a thing of the past. Oil from the mid east is on it's death bed. Even the shipping companies know that. There has not been a super tanker built in the past 20 years and as they sink or are retired as being too costly to upgrade they are not being replaced. Very soon there will be no way to transport oil out of the mid east even if production does continue a few more years.

Iran currently is reducing production about 200,000 barrels per day and more reduction is seen.

It is no secret the oil fields have passed their prime and with each new well needed it has to go deeper and get lower quality oil. I doubt if oil production will last over 5 more years in that region. It is getting more expensive to recover and the quality is getting poorer.

Perhaps there is an agenda for Washington to want to be in the region. But, it is not over oil. No sane investor would invest a nickel into any new oil ventures in the mid east.

i do agree there is a long plot behind the mideast, but each day it gets harder to see who are the key players. Iran does have ambition to become a major power.

 

[Count DeSheep]

"But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran."

No diplomat, except one from an anti-Iranian War country, would have revealed anything about that. Someone who opposes the war wouldn't have had any knowledge about U.S. plans for Iran. Therefore, I must conclude that the reporters are lying (what a shock!) or the diplomat was a fake/traitor/spy.

Me am thinking that an attack on Iran is inevitable and justifiable. I would elaborate, but I gotta go for now. >.<

 

[Woodrow]

One factor keeps being overlooked. The US can gain by having Iran as an allie. Iran can gain by having the US as an allie. A strong Iran will do much to eliminate any Arab strength in the mid east. It is in the best interest of the US that Iran become a strong presence in the area.

A strong powerful enemy can be an asset as long as actual combat can be avoided. Our politicians are corrupt, not stupid. (Well that does not apply to all of our politicians we do have some that are not corrupt and one noticible one that is stupid)

 

[wilberhum]

Iran and the US allies? I think not in this life time. One or the other will need a radical change.

 

[Woodrow]

Iran and the US allies? I think not in this life time. One or the other will need a radical change.

Don't rule that out. I've seen several radical shifts in Iran in my lifetime. It is past time for another shift. Maybe the Shahs family wants to go home?

 

[Count DeSheep]

One factor keeps being overlooked. The US can gain by having Iran as an allie. Iran can gain by having the US as an allie. A strong Iran will do much to eliminate any Arab strength in the mid east. It is in the best interest of the US that Iran become a strong presence in the area.

With people like Ahmadenijad in control, no alliance between the US and the THEM (XD) can be made. Although, I wouldn't be totally shocked if another leader came to power and did something.

A strong powerful enemy can be an asset as long as actual combat can be avoided. Our politicians are corrupt, not stupid.

America won't be able to do that! You must know that by now! Something will happen. Something always happens. If Iran as it is today makes an alliance with America, Iran will backstab the states the first chance it gets.

(Well that does not apply to all of our politicians we do have...one noticible one that is stupid)

Cheney. If he was smart, he woulda taken over long ago...XP

 

[cleo]

I offer a question? Where is the proof that justifies attacking Iran? The investigators did not find any proof..they said so..plainly.
Iran has offered to sit down with talks with the US, and only has been turned down.
Why should Iran be bullied into bending to the dictator, because he said so?
He, Bush lied and lied, to go into Iraq...don't forget that.
He does nothing but lie, isn't that a clue, for everyone to wake up?
He does not have permission to bomb Iran, from the Congress, but he is going to, and touch off the worst disaster the world has known.
We should all look at the whole picture, not one or two words..seek the truth.
And that is, the war cannot go on slaughtering people for the globalist agendas. The truth is, we are all dead if this goes on...think of that.

 

[Keltoi]

I offer a question? Where is the proof that justifies attacking Iran? The investigators did not find any proof..they said so..plainly.
Iran has offered to sit down with talks with the US, and only has been turned down.
Why should Iran be bullied into bending to the dictator, because he said so?
He, Bush lied and lied, to go into Iraq...don't forget that.
He does nothing but lie, isn't that a clue, for everyone to wake up?
He does not have permission to bomb Iran, from the Congress, but he is going to, and touch off the worst disaster the world has known.
We should all look at the whole picture, not one or two words..seek the truth.
And that is, the war cannot go on slaughtering people for the globalist agendas. The truth is, we are all dead if this goes on...think of that.

What investigators?

Bush isn't going to bomb Iran unless he has no other choice.