Will US invade Iran?

[tommyedison]

Since a lot of US soldiers are currently in Iraq and considering the public opposition to the Iraq war by various crackpots, do you think that the US under Bush will at anytime invade Iran or will Iran be able to achieve its dream of nuclear weapons?

[punk]

I voted "no"

The US doesn't have the manpower available to invade Iran at this point, and will not in the forseeable future without a draft.

I believe the US will try to launch a prolonged aerial bombing campaign in Iran like the one in Serbia, and try to get Iran to agree to some sort of inspections to halt the bombing.

[hopeful]

The US doesn't have the manpower available to invade Iran at this point, and will not in the forseeable future without a draft.

It would be more correct to say that "The US doesn't have the manpower available to invade Iran" ... [and convert it to a free nation that respects individual rights]... "at this point, and will not in the forseeable future without a draft."

On the other hand, the US probably has the manpower to destroy Irans nuclear facilities.

[ex_banana-eater]

America is perfectly capable of defeating Iran. Bush will never invade Iran, he wants to satisify the liberals, moderates, God, the UN, and not look like a warmonger. We might be lucky if he gives Israel the go-ahead to destroy their nuclear reactors.

[Alon]

I believe the head of the Mossad or perhaps the Defense Minister already said that Israel will destroy Iran's reactor once it is deemed a threat. I don't have a source.

As for invading Iran, I strongly doubt it. The US can sufficiently threaten Iran by its military presence in Iraq and can aid the democratic movement within Iran.

[Thoyd Loki]

I voted absolutely NO.

Manpower my left foot, we don't have the will power. I don't see a single indication that we would ever dare lift a finger against Iran. Or any other state for that matter, we've run out of wimps that we fake we're doing favors for. Our current leaders don't have the moral certainty to do something for the self-interest of America.

I can see us giving them loads of money. Didn't we do so when they had their earthquake? Don't you see Bush falling over backwards to help Indonesia right now? Like bringing flowers to the schoolyard bully, he hopes this will buy off the muslims by our show of generosity...that we really are a sensitive people. We be good people, massa!

War? In your dreams.

Besides, don't you think Iran, as a state, makes too much sense for Bush? Iran is his goal, he would just do it better...nicer. To paraphrase his father: "A kinder, gentler, fundamentalist state."

You know how the liberals would do their communism better, Bush would do religious state better.

[Alon]

Despite Bush's religious orthodoxy, let's not fall into the leftist trap of equivocating him, or any other evangelist, with fundamentalist Muslims.

[ramKatori]

Despite Bush's religious orthodoxy, let's not fall into the leftist trap of equivocating him, or any other evangelist, with fundamentalist Muslims.

I agree. Bush's "religious orthodoxy" is very mainstream. He is more like a mainstream muslim.

[stefano]

Ok, I voted yes. I don't think there will be a direct military campaign, but air raids are possible next year. According with declassified and public informations, both Israel and US are very concerned on nuclear facilities and they know where they are. Israeli Air Force has a lot of difficulties to accomplish this kind of mission (no invisible planes, hostile and neutral airspace to cross over Saudi Arabia or Syria...). American planes are perfect for this task: F-117 from the Gulf and B-2 from Diego Garcia. In case of Israeli air strike, Americans must be involved in any case, because their consent is necessary to open Iraqi air space. Ok, I'm speaking about an air strike and not about an invasion. But what if an air strike occurred? If there will be an Iranian answer or if armed opposition will rise inside Iran, developments could be very interesting. I don't think the war is very likely to happen, but I think that there is a possibility at least.

Personally I think that a war with Iran is necessary. It's better to fight mullah's now, before it's too late. Does the Pentagon agree?

[CriticalRealist]

No. We have too many resources tied up in Iraq. Our actions against Iran will be more covert.

[MisterSwig]

I voted "no" on an invasion. I believe the Bush administration will beg the world community to allow him to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. He may even do that, but at some point we will hit a "milk factory," and that will be the end of the bombing.

Bush will declare success: we've destroyed their nuclear capability. And then we will focus on some other half-ass action against Islamic terrorism, which only further concretizes the notion that we are morally weak.

[EC]

I voted yes because I want us to invade Iran before it's too late. But with the problems that the left is causing us to have in Iraq at the moment I don't know if it will happan soon enough. Hopefully we won't have to wait for another 9/11 (this time with Iranian nuclear weapons) before we do what needs to be done.

[JeffreyH]

I doubt that Bush will order the military to invade Iran. In fact, I suspect he's hoping to find a way to get out of Iraq. As I see it, an invasion of Iran is not politically practicable for the Republicans right now. The time to have done it, along with an invasion of Iraq and Syria, would have been in the months following the September 11 attacks when the wound was still fresh. However, I don't think his ordering a bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is out of the question.

[Sturmgeschutz]

I doubt that the US will invade Iran, with boots on the ground. I would expect any US action against Iran, at least in the next couple of years, to be through the US Air Force, and possibly offshore Cruise Missiles.

I am a firm believer that the Israelis will take action against Iran before the USA will, and that the Israeli Air Force is more than capable of destroying what they want to. Why? Because the Israelis will have nothing to lose if they identify Iran as an actual nuclear threat, and there is nothing standing in their way to prevent them from bombing Iran except the irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons that has not been provided, yet.

[AisA]

I doubt that the US will invade Iran, with boots on the ground.  I would expect any US action against Iran, at least in the next couple of years, to be through the US Air Force, and possibly offshore Cruise Missiles.

I am a firm believer that the Israelis will take action against Iran before the USA will, and that the Israeli Air Force is more than capable of destroying what they want to.  Why?  Because the Israelis will have nothing to lose if they identify Iran as an actual nuclear threat, and there is nothing standing in their way to prevent them from bombing Iran except the irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons that has not been provided, yet.

Do the Israelis have the aircraft & weapons for this mission? From Israel, Tehran is almost twice as far away as Bagdad, so it will be a considerably longer mission than the 1981 attack on the Osirak reactor in Baghdad. An additional problem is that Iran's nuclear facilities are reported to be underground, which will make them more difficult to destroy than Osirak.

I sincerely hope the Israeli's do take action before Iran acquires a weapon. How sad that we have to hope that the tiny nation of Israel will do what we apparently lack the will to do.

[ex_banana-eater]

A is A, I can only assume the Israeli's are fully capable. They have a highly advanced air force, and the American government recently sold them 5,000 missiles. 500 are bunker-busting missiles designed for an attack against underground weapons factories in Iran or Syria. According to this article, Israeli capabilities, the Israelis flew long ranges from different angles to attack Iraq.

[Sturmgeschutz]

Do the Israelis have the aircraft & weapons for this mission?  From Israel, Tehran is almost twice as far away as Bagdad, so it will be a considerably longer mission than the 1981 attack on the Osirak reactor in Baghdad.  An additional problem is that Iran's nuclear facilities are reported to be underground, which will make them more difficult to destroy than Osirak.

The F-15 I, one of the attack aircraft of the Israeli Air Force, has a range in excess of 5000km, which makes it capable of hitting anywhere in Iran without being refueled in the air. I don't know about the payload capabilities, or the ordnance that is their inventory. As ex_banana-eater just pointed out, they do have bunker-busting capabilities. And, now that Iraq is "friendly" airspace (I don't forsee the US objecting to the IAF flying through to drop some ordnance.) That would allow for their fighters to be refueled over Iraq, increasing their range and/or payload capabilities.

In short, the Israelis are more than capable of doing this with conventional munitions.

On that note, I, personally, do not rule out the Israelis using nuclear weapons, especially if they feel threatened, and they fear their pre-emptive air-strikes have a high probability of failure.

(Edited for clarity on F-15's range)

[Praxus]

As for Israel hitting them with nukes, it would have to be an air strike. They do not have Ballistic Missiles (at least not publicly) with the range to hit the target. This means they would have to drop them from the air, which makes them just as vulnerable as a conventional strike, and therefore has the same chance of failure. So it seems there would be no reason to nuke the reactors.

[Al Kufr]

As for Israel hitting them with nukes, it would have to be an air strike. They do not have Ballistic Missiles (at least not publicly) with the range to hit the target. This means they would have to drop them from the air, which makes them just as vulnerable as a conventional strike, and therefore has the same chance of failure. So it seems there would be no reason to nuke the reactors.

I I were israel I would have dispersed al of my nuke facilities.

So I dont think air strikes will work, unless you have lots of VERY GOOD intel.