The stage is pretty much set. There's just one problem--two problems, actually. The first problem is one of public support. It's all well and good for a carefully crafted poll to ask about a "last resort," but if the US were to actually attack Iran, what "last resort" would satisfy public opinion?

The second problem is one of law. While it seems that the US cares little about international law, it still tries to appear to operate within it's boundaries...hence all the semantic handwringing in the leadup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This time, the US is in a much worse position with regards to law. There is no resolution on any table supporting the use of force against Iran, save the broader reading of the UN Charter's article 51 which would allow for a pre-emptive strike against imminent attack, and China and Russia are clearly prepared to block any Security Council resolutions against Iran which are in any way connected to the use of force.

The Neocons know they have to attack Iran while Bush is still in office. After that, all bets are off. Perhaps even a radically altered "antiwar" Congress, which looks to be a possibility following this November's US mid-term elections, could be an insurmoutable barrier to the neocon plans to attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

I see only one path to politically and legally facilitate a US attack on Iran: a response to the world's first instance of nuclear terrorism. The terrorist act doesn't even have to be directly linked to Iran. It will be enough to show that terrorist groups and the nations that support them (read: Iran) must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons again.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, has any terrorist group managed to get its hand on a working nuclear bomb from the old Soviet stock? Has the CIA been able to purchase a couple of Soviet nukes for study and other purposes?

One way or another, I predict that before the end of Bush's term in office, a nuclear bomb will be exploded somewhere in the world, it will be blamed on "terrorists," and it will be used as the Causus Belli for a U.S. military strike against Iran, a strike whose purpose will be to completely wipe out every suspected Iranian nuclear installation.

This will of course trigger an Iranian response, which will be far more destructive than anything that's happened in Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Actually yes, and a draft. I'm not sure but would not another war keep Bush in power longer??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Actually yes, and a draft.

---

Oktoberfest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I'm not sure but would not another war keep Bush in power longer??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by drgoodword:

This will of course trigger an Iranian response, which will be far more destructive than anything that's happened in Iraq.

---

Firstly, Iran is a pretty tough nation to take on. They have one of the larger armies in the world and unlike Iraq, they're (relatively) well equipped... so much so that that they have the rare ability of being able to (mostly) defend their airspace against warplanes. This (mostly) limits a US or French strike in Iranian territory to a missile attack and thus runs the risks of such (ie. being inaccurate, being unable to penetrate the Iranian bunkers)... there are tons of logistical challenges for the US to take on Iran in the US's current state. With most of it's active forces already deployed, they can't handle a war with a competent enemy and a civilian population that would make Iraqi mujadeen seem like good hosts. The moral of the story? France, Britain, the US and the rest of NATO have been posturing about Iran's nuclear capabilities since Ahmenihijad (?) was elected last year. This tense sort of language has been the norm throughout. But I think that the general consensus is that they're all pretty freaked out about the notion of taking on Iran and that's how the Iranian nuclear program has gotten so far ahead.

As for a-bombs, etc... someone mentioned India and Pakistan. Well, they didn't blow each other up when they had the chance... and seeing the wonderful little detente that's going on between the two nations right now... I think we don't really need to worry to hard about that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghlobe:

I seriously doubt the Iranian government would dare responding to a limited US attack on its nuclear installations.

The Iranian mullahs are evil, but not suicidal.

---

Other than Israel, Iran is the best-equipped and positioned country in the middle east to give a serious response to an attack. Most analysts that I've read on the matter state something along the following:

quote:

---

A strike against Iran's nuclear program would probably be met with an effort to choke off oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, military planners and Middle East analysts say. The goal would be to trigger a market disruption that would force President George W. Bush to back off.

The Iranians hope the mere threat of such action may lead oil-consuming nations to pressure the U.S. to resolve the dispute short of a military confrontation. About 17 million barrels of oil, representing one-fifth of the world's consumption, is shipped through the strait every day.

Roiling the markets would be part of a broader retaliation that would include terrorist attacks against U.S. forces or other interests in Iraq and worldwide, said Michael Eisenstadt, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Central Command analyst.

``They will not allow us to limit the conflict to `tit for tat' -- us hitting their nuclear facilities, and they restricted to hitting deployed American military,'' Eisenstadt said in an interview.

---

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by drgoodword:

Other than Israel, Iran is the best-equipped and positioned country in the middle east to give a serious response to an attack.

---

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Either way, I highly doubt Persian civilizaion is going to be around in 20 years, at least not as a cohesive society, with a governement (of whatever form) and such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, it doesn't seem to me that the Americans put a whole lot of thought to the creation of cohesive social organizations in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and so when they are finished bombing Iran back to a civilization on par with the one Darius ruled, I don't see them being really capable of fostering anything useful in the place of the present Shia Oligarchy.

What evidence do you have that they will do any better in Iran?

---

I don't think there has been any indication that the Americans might want to try a nation building exercise in Iran. Even the most extremist neocon elements do not hope for more than a limited attack on nuclear and military facilities at the moment.

Also, Iran is different from both Iraq and Afghanistan whose history as cohesive nation-states barely goes back one century.

But back to the present.

I agree, there is no evdidence that the US planned to engage in any nation building excersie in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and therefore no evidence that they would do the same in Iran. This did not prevent them from destroying what was there in the first place, which was my point.

Why, if they had no interest in pursuing achievable "nation building" programs in Afghanistan or Iraq, except what was needed as a sop to western liberal sensitivities, why would you assume such an achievable plan would be a prequisite to "regieme change," aka wiping out the basis of any competative infrastructure that might support the emergence of any sustainable competative regional power?

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I agree, there is no evdidence that the US planned to engage in any nation building excersie in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and therefore no evidence that they would do the same in Iran. This did not prevent them from destroying what was there in the first place, which was my point.

---

Then of course they would want this to co-incide with some kind of comprehensive international program of sanctions, ala the sanctions against Iraq, and over a period of decades starve and humiliate the people of Iran, until they are so desperate that they welcome (or at least do not agressively oppose) some kind of invading army, as in Iraq.

But you actually believe they took the nation enterprise in Iraq seriously? It didn't "fail," it was never really on the agenda, as anything but propoganda.

How far fetched. Even quaint. I have an Iraqi friend who went on and on about how they (the Mercans) were going to teach the Iraqi's "Democracy" etc. "Why are they fighting," he asked. I tried to explain to him that Mercans, and the Mercan army is simply not about any of those things, and that they will destory everything, and all he had to do was go ask some Vietnamese people and he would learn precisely what the Mercans are all about, as far as this kind of thing goes?

"We are a rich country we will rebuild," he said.

Did he listen to me when I told him what the Mercan would do? No. Of course not. Did he come up to me not three weeks ago and say; "you were right?" Yes.

Optimism is an admirable but often fatal affliction.

I want to make this clear to you: The powers that be in the United State of America do not give one fucking pigs tail for your people.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I want to make this clear to you: The powers that be in the United State of America do not give one fucking pigs tail for your people.

---

Point taken and agreed. My people are between a rock and hard place now. Under oppression by a local totalitarian government, and under threat of military attack by a right wing superpower.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: ghlobe ]

- and yote is history.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eco-robot:
The moral of the story? France, Britain, the US and the rest of NATO have been posturing about Iran's nuclear capabilities since Ahmenihijad (?) was elected last year. This tense sort of language has been the norm throughout. But I think that the general consensus is that they're all pretty freaked out about the notion of taking on Iran and that's how the Iranian nuclear program has gotten so far ahead.

---

I think all this western posturing is helping to forge support for Ahmaninejad in Iran and a few countries, and now Venezuela where Chavez realizes the CIA tried to do a number on him once already.

What's hypocritical about the bomb Iran agenda is that Iranians were taught that adequate electrical power generation would be crucial for the expansion of their economy in what is a desert nation, and for improving health statistics like mortality rates etc. During the 1970's, Republicans like Harold Ford, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were involved with promoting nuclear power for Iran with Washington's approval for 23 nuclear reactors to be built in and around Tehran. Yes, Iran was an ally of the U.S. then and leading up Iranians gave the corrupt U.S.-installed Shah the heave-ho.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

So the Iranians believe they need nuclear power for expansion of the economy, to pump water and sewage etc. Electrical power is the hallmark of advanced economies and necessary for national health. Iranian's believe nuclear power is a long-term option for them in reducing dirty oil-fueled power generating plants, and being ecologically responsible world citizens in general. They believe this is their national and sovereign right to decide their future. I know that nuclear power is insane anyway, but they still believe it's their choice to make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yote:
I have this vision of a big parking lot all over Iraq and Iran with walmart and a big shopping plaza with stores selling pork chops and so just drop a big abom on these bastards I hate them I suppose I will be banned after this post

---

See Ghlobe, this is what we are talking about. Ignorance, and barbarity. And its even supposed to be funny, or something. How are the Iranian people supposed to confront Ameninejad when his opponents are so foul themeslves?

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghlobe:

For Iran, being a member of the nuclear club and specially becoming a player in the nuclear fuel market is more important reasons that electricity generation.

---

Do you think it's prudent for a desert nation to be using oil for electrical power generation at $67 dollars a barrel ?.

Why aren't security council nations miffed over Pakistan threatening to nuke a billion human beans in India every so often and vice versa?. And it seems that weapons are still getting to the Taliban through regions that are supposed to be under Pakistani army control.

[ 09 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghlobe:

Point taken and agreed. My people are between a rock and hard place now. Under oppression by a local totalitarian government, and under threat of military attack by a right wing superpower.

[ 08 September 2006: Message edited by: ghlobe ]

---

quote:

---

FORT EUSTIS, Va. - Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Army official: Rumsfeld forbade talk of postwar

---

as far as terrorist nuclear devices, the US has already exploded millions in Iraq and other places, in the form of depleted uranium munitions.

i don't want to give these idiots any ideas.

it's a mistake to underestimate the psychopathicness of Cheney, Bush, et al.

their version of gang warfare is No Rules, and they have a lot of nasty war toys.

i think there is more political slack for Israel to do the dirty work. and, more apparent justification. they've shown precedent, in the attack on the Osiraq reactor in Iraq in 1981. we didn't see any body protesting that.

i think it's more likely that we will see an incident where Israel is attacked and retaliates against Iran.

with the US saying, "we must support our good friends in Israel", providing all the weapons.

as far as the use of nukes. i think the Other Evil Empire - US & Israel - they have some war toys that they haven't issued press releases telling the world about. they are attacking nuclear facilities, so it is likely that the attack will have a signature involving the release of radiation. they'll say it's from Iran's nuclear facility.

i don't know what war toys they exactly have but they have already stated in the 2005 quadrennial defense review, "we'll use nukes when and where we want and for whatever reason we want." the QDR is a US military document that was made public shortly before the anti-war protests in September 2005.

and here's a copy !

http://www.geocities.com/abdu1maria/NUKE_jp3_12fc2.pdf

so, to answer the OP (Original Poster's) question -
WHEN - before the November 2006 election; before January 2009
WHERE - Iran

so i guess i'm saying i think the Neocons don't feel it's necessary to have a huge incident in order to attack Iran. i think they'd be willing to attack Iran based on minimal justification.

P.S. this link works in Firefox
http://us.share.geocities.com/abdu1maria/NUKE_jp3_12fc2.pdf

The QDR document is not linking correctly - i don't know why - when i enter the URL in a blank browser window then it brings it up.

[ 14 September 2006: Message edited by: Abdul_Maria ]

[ 13 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]