If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilites

[Nancy Waterman]

then it seems likely that Iran will strike back at Israel, and they will be at war. At that point, doesn't the US have to get involved as an ally of Israel? All of this belligerent talk needs to be followed to its logical conclusion. If Romney becomes (gag) president, would we end up at war with Iran and Syria (its ally)?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. That's how it is most likely to play out

which is why it's a bad idea for it to allow it to happen (or to instigate it) in the first place.

[KaryninMiami]

2. Very likely. War = money- remember this is the party that likes being in a war

It's big business- and lots as stake. So what if we loose a few thousand (or in this case, a few million) lives- freedom is on the march, remember W? I am terrified of the prospect of having him in charge of our military. Absolutely terrified.

[Nancy Waterman]

3. Good point!

Follow the money. The military/industrial complex will do just fine. The rest of us: not so much.

[The Magistrate]

4. We Have Yet To Fight Alongside Israel, Ma'am

We supply materiel and munitions, but not troops.

If we became involved directly, it would be because Iran chose, in the form of its response to an Israeli attack, to involve the United States, by attacking U.S. forces in the region, or by a covert strike in some form against us.

It is not likely ( or, more precisely, not very sensible ) for Israel to attack Iran before the Assad regime is overthrown. Syria is Iran's tool against Israel, being in control of the irregulars of Hezbollah whom Iran counts on as its forward force against Israel, and the subtext of events in Syria at present is removing Iran's ability to strike directly against Israel in the event it nuclear facilities are attacked. This could be taken as a measure to prepare the ground for such an attack, or as a measure to force Iran to take diplomacy seriously, as it would be without a credible threat of force against its preferred target.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. If we became directly involved would Russia and or China remain passive?

I'm not sure they would appreciate a U.S. attack on Iran if Israel were to strike first.

The great game has never truly ended.

[The Magistrate]

6. Depends On Your Definition, Sir

Neither would take direct military action. Russia might provide arms, but would want cash on the barrel-head; China has no ready means of access to supply Iran in a situation in which the U.S. was militarily active. Both have economic levers they might employ to good effect, to isolate the United States, and do us some monetary harm, though for China that would need to be nicely judged, as what they can do to harm us does them harm as well, and where the balance came to rest would need close judgement. Diplomatically they would have a field day, we would be vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning us for aggressive war ( which we would be guilty of ), and heavens knows what else.