Usa v Iran

[LeedsRhinos]

What is the likelyhood of the Usa attacking Iran & what would be the consequencies?

[dyli795]

one certain consequence is me not wanting to think about the consequences ! WW3 in overdrive ? will it last two days or for ever ? who knows ?

[naomi24]

The likelihood is high - and the consequences are too awful to contemplate.

[starmack]

Iran have a pretty useful football team. America not so hot, even with Posh and Becks arriving. Looks 1-0 to me unless of course the Saudis want a head or two smashed in. Then Mr President Pea-Brain Bush will unleash another round of carnage.
The worrisome part is that Iraq has been called America's new Vietnam and when they first got into trouble there the Yankees began bombing Cambodia.

It is not so long ago that America had its puppet installed in Iran and when he cashed his chips in in the late 1970s the consequence was that the western world was flooded with heroin. Nice people to know.

[Oliver North]

Personally, I believe any nation involved in the illegal supply of arms deserves everything they get.

[LeedsRhinos]

Also I forgot to add, What would Cronie Blair's stance be?

[Lonnie]

if it ever happens, Blair should be out of office by then, and I can't see this country following suit, unless Brown sees an opportunity, 'Conquer and Tax', but seriously, as naomi24 has said, the likelihood is high.
I wouldn't mind betting that Bush's idea was to quell Iraq, and then go into Iran.

Weapons fro Iran to the insurgents in Iraq, true or not, it does provide him with the excuse.

Consequences.
WW111.

[jake-the-peg]

I can't see that happening.

Bush's approval rating is at record lows - He's less popular than Nixon was at the height of Watergate.

He has a Democratic (just) senate and armed forces that are already stretched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq alone has so far cost over $360 Billion.

He's simply not in a position to do it.

What we're seeing is a diplomatic war - Iran is feeling threatened and is intimating they have nuclear weapons "So don't invade us!" is the message.

In reply the US is setting out a case to try to isolate them from the international community and to justify anything they might later do.

I can't see the US launching an all out invasion of Iran in terms of Iraq but there are many other options open to them from full sanctions, blockades and funding and supplying third parties hostile to Iran.

What a long way we've come from when Ollie North flogged the Iranians US arms to fund the Contras!

[jedimistress]

US have clearly been preparing to invade Iran for a few years now. With all their demonization tactics trying to get the masses support. I thought it may be this year, but something tells me the worm is turning. You can see it in the news reports. They have been broadcasting more from Iran now, speaking to the Iranians and the government, rather than basing their reports from a podium with Condy, Bush or Rumsfeld stood behind it giving it their "axis of evil" speil. I think it will end in bribes, deals and pay offs.

[DavidUK]

Of course, if they had another WTC type attack that they could pin on Iran then that could rally the US people to support retaliation against Iran.

So, all Bush and his cronies need is a major "terrorist" attack and bingo - WW3

[suffragette]

Iraq was a troubled nation living under a tyrant, but the same cannot be said of Iran. If the USA have suffered setbacks fighting a divided nation with a population of 27 million and a square mileage of 437,072, I do not believe they will risk attacking a united nation(More or less) with a population of nearly 66 million and a land mass of 1,648,000 square miles. The statistics alone diminish the likelihood of the type of victory that would make the USA feel safer. Having said that, we are talking about George Bush, the Ayatollah of radical Christians, so who knows!

[Loosehead]

They won't invade but they may well bomb various targets mainly connected to the Nuclear program and possibly anything they identify as backing insurgents in Iraq. The consequences of that are pretty minimal but an invasion would be folly, I think the US can see that would be disastrous. They have one of the best Presidents in history, he won't take his eye off the ball. Go George!

I can't see his Tonyness getting in on this one, once bitten etc.

[kevin59]

This is more like a question than a comment; does any body know what sort of problem or an environmental disaster a �tactical nuclear strike� would bring to the region? Doesn�t it create radiation poisoning and fallout? Have they been tried any where else before? Don�t they contaminate Mr. Bush�s precious oil coming out the Persian Gulf? and last not the least, what about the ordinary people living there?

[maxximus]

here's a little bit of insight into your question kevin 59. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_ weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.h tml coupled with the insidious crime of the use of depleted uranium since 1991 in the region, it would prove to be an invironmental and humanitarian disaster.

[kwicky]

I hope the UK has learnt its lesson of being a poodle to the Bush administration. Never in our lifetime have we seen to make such a crass error as unlawfully invading a sovereign country. Iran, so far, has committed no offence in producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The tables have turned. Russia was once considered to be a threat to the world. Now the gung-ho Americans need to be told to soften its intentions. The axis of exil has swung 180% as most fear the USA the most danger to this planet.