How Likely is a War with Iran if President Obama is Re-elected?

[BrentWil]

On other threads I have been beaten up because I suggest that war with Iran is a possibility, whoever is elected President. I have made this suggestion not because I want war, but because I am looking at statements from the Defense Secretary and from President Obama. On 60 minutes, Secretary Panetta made statements that go well over the normal diplomatic speak for, "we really don't like this"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57345322/panetta-iran-will-not-be-allowed-nukes/

Pelley: If the Israelis decide to launch a military strike to prevent that weapon from being built, what sort of complications does that raise for you?

Panetta: Well, we share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.

Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?

Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.

Pelley: Including military steps?

Panetta: There are no options off the table

Pelley: A nuclear weapon in Iran is...

Panetta: Unacceptable.

THis is followed by the President's State of the Union, which had some reasonable strong wording.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

When put together, this tells me that the Administration really is looking at all options for Iran and that war isn't an impossibility, if the President is re-elected. The other element is that Sunni Arab countries in the region would really like to keep Iran from getting the bomb. They would be the most likely partners in this, I would think.


If I had to put a number on it, I would say that we have between a 10 and 20 percent chance of war with Iran under a second term with President Obama.

Let me be clear, I think this is far better then the GOP entering the White House. Iran is a serious security problem and I trust the President to handle it and I think he will handle it by bring together allies and regional friends to deal with the problem . However, I would suggest that war is still a possibility with Iran, even with the re-election of the President.

Stating that fact doesn't mean that I love war. It means I am trying to describe the World as it is, not as I want it to be.

[Kalidurga]

1. Hopefully it is much less likely.

I don't see how any of the current Republican crop is going to win an election, but if any one of them does win the general, they will almost have to go to war with Iran or be seen as a dove which is almost as bad as being seen as a liberal.

[RZM]

6. That's not correct

Santorum is the only candidate who has publicly said he will bomb Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon.

Mittens and Newt pretty much say the same kinds of things that the current administration does. Newt actually says that bombing without regime change would be pointless. He also says (bizarrely) that he could effect regime change in less than a year without war.

There's not going to be a ground war and there probably won't even be air strikes. If there are air strikes, it will be the Israelis doing it.

[BrentWil]

11. I am not sure the Israelis have the ability to accomplish the objective

So I think it might end up being us, and with an Arab coalition. One forgets how badly Sunni Arab countries want to keep Iran from getting a weapon.

[RZM]

13. Hmm. Maybe.

I don't know. Like in Gulf War I, it would have to be one or the other. Any Israeli involvement and you lose the Arab coalition.

I'm sure what the Arab states would prefer would be for the US to do it without any involvement from them at all, so they don't have to take a public position (or could even publicly oppose it).

[BrentWil]

15. We can't and won't do anything with Israel on this besides let them do it alone

A coalition with Israel would be poison for us. Arab states are the ones that have the most to lose here and they know it. US and Arab states plus European allies would be the foundation to do something. If something is done, that is.

[RZM]

2. Very, very low

Aside from Santorum, who has stated he would bomb Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon, Mittens' and Newt's positions are similar to those of Obama and W.

Generally people say:

'Iran with nukes is unacceptable' and 'all options are on the table,' but refrain from committing to a specific course of action. Bush talked tough on Iran, but in the end he decided against military action and left the situation for the next administration to deal with. That's probably what Obama will do.

[HopeHoops]

3. Pretty close to zero unless Iran does something really fucking stupid.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Or, unless Israel does something really fucking stupid.

[BrentWil]

16. Sunni Arab states are the ones that will also have a problem with this. NT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Both are reliant on U.S. support and would draw us into the conflict.

Which, since we have erected the Iranian Bogeyman, would be inevitable.

[HopeHoops]

29. We're already "in it" - the shrub destabilized the region by invading Iraq.

Put yourself in Iran's position. Wouldn't YOU want to gain nuclear weapons? The shrub disrupted a stalemate and created an actual threat in the process.

[BrentWil]

31. Certainly... the most pressing concern of any leader is to keep power

And we are an external threat to that. Nuclear weapons make it really hard for anyone to mess with you. Not impossible, but hard.

That doesn't change our logic and the logic of our Arab friends.

[HopeHoops]

37. I suspect they already have some and that other countries (like ours) already know it.

We've got more, but even N. Korea's eight or so are a deterrent. In the long run it won't matter. Someone will fuck up (probably in their own country) and everyone will assume someone else caused it and we'll just blow the shit out of everything and become another lifeless rock floating around a minor star in a minor galaxy and no longer capable of bothering anyone. That is, of course, until the cock roaches evolve into nuclear powers of their own and trash the world all over again. But hey, I know that's kind of optimistic.

[BrentWil]

39. I am a little more hopeful

I think we can work with others and deal with our problems. I actually trust the President to do that.

The world is scary, but not without hope.

[HopeHoops]

45. I'm more concerned with the devices than individual people.

Face it, some of them are pretty damn old now. All it takes is one fuck-up somewhere - just one.

[Hawkowl]

41. Stupid as in..

If Iran is able to sell oil to other countries in currencies other than dollars, then a military strike on Iran is absolutely 100% guaranteed. That is exactly what happened to Libya. Had nothing to do with protestors and "democracy". Look at Syria. No oil, no intervention.

The oil companies, the war machine manufacturers, and the banking industry ARE the US government. Threaten their profits and the US goes to war under the "maintaining our American way of life" battle cry. The 1% were called robber barons for a reason.

[HopeHoops]

46. I was thinking more along the lines of firing on one of the two carriers we have in the region.

That would be REALLY stupid.

[elleng]

4. Less likely than if a repug were elected,

imo.
War is NEVER an impossibility, but PrezO is much less likely than repugs to enter into such.
RandPaul, of course, is the LEAST likely to enter into such!

[BrentWil]

9. I would agree with that... NT

[limpyhobbler]

5. Guessing they will impose sanctions for 5 to 10 years first to soften the target before invading.

I'm guessing there is going to be some kind of sanctions imposed.

After the country is weakened by economic sanctions for 5 to 10 years then war-makers will perceive an easier victory and we may see a war. Obama will maybe be for Iran what Clinton was for Iraq. His role will be to keep the rhetoric alive and soften up the target for the next president to invade.

[sabrina 1]

17. 'Soften the target'. You mean 'kill a few hundred thousand innocent children for not good reason'.

Clinton's policies in Iraq were abominable unless of course the lives of innocents mean nothing. We have zero justification to be bullying Iran or any other country around the world, ZERO. So any talk of 'punishing' any other sovereign nations is irrational, no matter who it is coming from.

The problem is NOT Iran, it is that the US has become a warmongering nation always looking for a new reason to use up all those weapons we have, to test them out, to see how they work, and to justify the obscene military budget that is in itself a crime.

The other problem is we have no real courageous elected officials, except for a very, very few to point out the lies we are constantly told.

Obama will do as he's told by the MIC. If they want another useless and criminal war, he won't have a choice. It's almost pointless to discuss America's wars from the pov of its presidents. All presidents will go to war when they are told, just some will enjoy it more than others.

Which is why it is now up to the people to put a stop to the war mania and to stop talking about a war with Iran as if there could be any possible, reasonable, sane, logical reason to be even talking about it. If our leaders will not just say 'no', then we must. They are out of control, they have killed millions over the past few decases, it is insane, all of it.

[limpyhobbler]

22. well said

[BrentWil]

25. I think you have a rather unrealistic view of how our system works

The MIC is real, but is mainly interested in the US government buying new weapon platforms. They have little ability to influence a decision to go to war or not go to war.

Plus, like anything, there is no one MIC. There are many companies and organization that have different agendas and different view points.

[cpwm17]

32. It's not conspiratorial

But the so-called MIC adds to the corrupt atmosphere of Washington DC. The MIC is more than the weapons manufacturers; it also includes other special interests that want to influence US foreign policy, mostly in a negative way.

Presidents can't be forced to do anything, but presidents that don't play the Washington DC games don't really exist. If you don't kowtow to corrupt special interests you can't bring in the money to get elected. So any president is almost always going to be corrupt, and essentially is forced to do much of what the MIC wants.

[BrentWil]

34. They certainly have influence

But I think the poster is over emphasizing it. It is influential, but it won't directly lead us to go to war with Iran.

THink tanks also have influence, but they mainly have influence because that is where any administration finds people to deal with these issues.

[Hawkowl]

43. Your argument holds no water

Seriously, the Iraq war was a completely manufactured war by the MIC, think tanks, and oil companies. If it happened once, (actually it happened in the Spanish American War too), why not again?

I think it is much more likely under a new, first term Rethuglican president rather than under Obama. But Obama has not proven to be a strong president with strong ideological and moral underpinnings. He is "pragmatic"

[BrentWil]

60. The Iraq war was the product

Of certain people being in power and 9/11 happening, allowing those people to do whatever they wanted. It wasn't some well thought out plan by the MIC.

[Hawkowl]

70. MIC Put those people in power

There doesn't have to be a formal organization. There is just the fact that the richest people mostly all think alike and desire to profit from war, which is good for their particular businesses. They then bribe and influence the media and government reps to get the outcome they desire: war.

[BrentWil]

73. It was a part of it..

It is one lobby among many. Even if people think alike, it takes actual organization for them to do the things you guys think they do. THey are a disjointed maze of companies and organizations.

[sabrina 1]

50. Do I?

Why did this country attack Iraq, Afghanistan, why are we now involved in drone wars in several other countries? Whose decisions were these? Surely you do not thing that George Bush made the decision to go to Iraq all by himself? The man could barely put two intelligent sentences together.

Eisenhower was wrong then, in your opinion? I tend to believe he knew what he was talking about, especially considering the MIC has since then, provided us with lots of proof of what he had to say.

The MIC 'Military Industrial Complex', is made up of various parts, not the least of which are the Defense Contractors, and now Mercenary Organizations, I know, we call them 'contractors'.

None of the wars fought since Eisenhower issued that warning were necessary. All of them have been bad for this country.

Each new president arrives at the WH to find himself surrounded by people who have been there over the course of many administrations, Gates eg. It would take a very strong character to fire all of them and replace them with people who actually care about this country. In fact, s/he probably would be the one to go, or be diminished in power until the next election, when he would not have a chance of winning. Do you disagree with that?

[BrentWil]

52. Yeah, totally...

And I am sure the South Koreans disagree...

That said, you have a monolithic view of the MIC. It isn't one thing and it doesn't have one view. It is powerful, and Ike was right to warn us. However, you have a far far far to simplistic view of it.

[raouldukelives]

26. + a brazillion. nt

[joshcryer]

63. The Middle East is too unstable for sanctions to last even more than two years, the Iranian...

...people have a good chance of rising up as they did in 2009 when they had their elections stolen.

[Rex]

8. Iran will have to throw the first punch.

IMO.

[stillwaiting]

23. Or "Iran" will have to throw the first punch.

Kind of like Iraq did on 9/11.

I NEVER put it past TPTB, who through their media, were able to convince way too many Americans that Iraq was responsible, in part, for 9/11. This allowed for a majority of Americans to somehow support the invasion of Iraq as I (and most DU'ers) scratched our heads in wonder and amazement.

I would not be surprised if they somehow found a way to do it again if another tragedy ever befell our nation.

[ProSense]

10. Well,

Let me be clear, I think this is far better then the GOP entering the White House. Iran is a serious security problem and I trust the President to handle it and I think he will handle it by bring together allies and regional friends to deal with the problem . However, I would suggest that war is still a possibility with Iran, even with the re-election of the President.

Stating that fact doesn't mean that I love war. It means I am trying to describe the World as it is, not as I want it to be.

...I don't know, you seem to have war and getting rid of war crimes laws on your mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002235322

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=236385

The President's statement:

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

Also, implying that there is more to Panetta's statement than standard boilerplate used in every negotiation ("There are no options off the table&quot , ignoring that the President's statement actually rebuffs war and discussing U.S. involvement in hypothetical wars between other countries does leave an impression.

Do you think there should be a war with Iran?

[BrentWil]

19. I disagree with how you make meaning of those statements...

To me, they indicate something more. Maybe I am wrong. Either way, I have expressed my opinion to you and I really am done debating that subject with you. We disagree and I don't see any place that subject can go.

As far as the second point. I don't think it is a good idea now. Rather there comes a point in time that I would support it, it depends on the evidence and who else in the World is supporting it. It is a problem, and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Iran at its head would not be a good thing. If there is widespread support amount Arab States, I would be open to hearing the arguments for military engagement.

[ProSense]

24. Well,

As far as the second point. I don't think it is a good idea now. Rather there comes a point in time that I would support it, it depends on the evidence and who else in the World is supporting it. It is a problem, and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Iran at its head would not be a good thing. If there is widespread support amount Arab States, I would be open to hearing the arguments for military engagement.

...that's what I thought, and I think you're wishing there is more to the statement.

Frankly, I think the idea of starting a war with Iran is nuts. Resolve it, peacefully.

[BrentWil]

27. Is a weatherman who is tracking a Hurricane wishing for death and destruction?

I am just stating the facts, as I see them. And trying to think how the government will deal with issues that are before them. Rather a war is right or wrong, it is possible, IMHO.

[ProSense]

28. No

Is a weatherman who is tracking a Hurricane wishing for death and destruction?

I am just stating the facts, as I see them. And trying to think how the government will deal with issues that are before them. Rather a war is right or wrong, it is possible, IMHO.

...you're not "stating the facts" because the President has said nothing about war with Iran. You're implying that there is more there and even going so far as to say you could support a war with Iran.

As for the weatherman analogy, no s/he isn't "wishing for death and destruction," but knows a hurricane is inevitable. Interesting analogy because you seem to believe the same about war with Iran.

[BrentWil]

30. A hurricane could follow a path that could keep it off shore...

In fact, to follow up on that analogy, I would suggest that most likely path for this Hurricane is that it doesn't hit the shore. However, would a weatherman not tell you when he saw something?

As far as the statements, I think they stand for themselves. If you understand that these type of statements are always vetted by DOS, one understands that war is a closer possibility then you like to think it is.

[ProSense]

33. You

A hurricane could follow a path that could keep it off shore...In fact, to follow up on that analogy, I would suggest that most likely path for this Hurricane is that it doesn't hit the shore. However, would a weatherman not tell you when he saw something?

...can't be serious? The inevitability of a hurricane is that it happens and does hit land. If you're going to be specific to a single hurricane, the weatherman isn't "wishing for death and destruction," but he's also not likely wishing for the worst hurricane to hit land either, or even supporting the notion.

As far as the statements, I think they stand for themselves. If you understand that these type of statements are always vetted by DOS, one understands that war is a closer possibility then you like to think it is.

Of course it is, in your wishful thinking and opinion.

[BrentWil]

36. Again, you have to think what you want

And you are free to do so

[Cali_Democrat]

12. It's not really up to President Obama, it's up to the Israelis

[BrentWil]

14. Actually, it is more up to the Sunni Arab states, IMO

They have an extreme interests in keeping the bomb out of Iran's hands. They are more likely to be the foundation of a coalition, then Israel. We can't and won't do this with Israel.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. It's more likely that that Israelis will launch a strike than the Arabs, IMO

If the Israelis do launch a strike, the US will be dragged along for the ride.

[BrentWil]

20. I doubt that.

IF they act, we will condemn them just like we did when they did it to IRaq. However, we may allow them to do it.

But we will not be "dragged" into it. We will quickly distance ourself from Israel's action.

[joshcryer]

64. The Arab Spring started in Iran. It's up to the Iranians.

Iran is held together by a very elite top group of autocrats, if the Iranian people pushed back hard they could crush it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iranian_protests

I believe if sanctions are made there is a very high possibility that Iranians rise up against their government. The dictatorship is very much strained as it is.

The real question is who will get involved, will it be Russia or NATO or what? Frankly I think there's a 60% chance that Obama will stay out of it and let the UN and Iranian neighbors make that decision.

[cthulu2016]

35. Obama 12% Republican 30%

That's my call on relative probabilities 2013-2017

[inna]

44. i'd say, it's more like at least 30% Obama to 40%+ Republican

[Odin2005]

38. LOL, war with Iran is always 6 months away, and will be 6 months from now.

I'm sick of people crying wolf.

[BrentWil]

40. If it happens, the real pull would be after this cycle or after 2014..

One will have to build Arab support, etc. I would not argue 6 months away and I haven't in the past.

[inna]

42. and i'm sick of people being willfully ignorant, blind and oblivious of a definite possibility

[Odin2005]

47. Not my fault that people keep crying wolf.

If people keep crying wolf and a wolf never comes people will quit listening.

[TheKentuckian]

59. Banging the drums isn't exactly the same as crying wolf and neither is the response

to the drum beat.

There are those with lots of resources and influence that have long pushed this and aren't going to stop.

[MerryBlooms]

48. A flull-blown action? I think those chances are slim to none, but...

I truly believe we are already in place for covert ops- disappearances, assassinations, etc... are probably going on right now. I doubt anyone there can fart without us knowing about it.

[bhikkhu]

49. I trust the president more than any of the repugs

regardless of what anyone has had to say on the matter. The repugs know (and have abundantly proven that they know) that nothing assures re-election like being mired in war, and nothing provides better cover for a global-sized smash-and-grab than a war.

And nothing so deflects public attention from their complete disinterest and incompetence at good government, and nothing works so well to make the rich richer...I think anyone who tries to do a "they're all the same" about war is deluding themselves and ignoring history.

[Posteritatis]

51. Fullscale war with Iran's been days away for ten years now around here. (nt)

[emulatorloo]

53. Pretty much. DU People used to tell me Kerry would invade Iran and bring back the draft.

Well, at least one did.

[got root]

54. Between the Chimp & Obama admins, nothing has changed in regard to Iran policy

So, I would say the chances are just as likely, no matter who gets in there of the current contenders.

And I hate war!

[McCamy Taylor]

55. It is zip. In 1976, Ford ran on a stealth campaign of "Carter will take us to war because Dems

ALWAYS take us to war." I remember a Republican trying to sell me this line. Looks like it is still being peddled.

If Obama is in the Whiet House, Israel will lose money if they attack Iran. They know it, so they will sit tight until another Big Oil president is in the White House. Newt, who is the Big Oil candidate who survived out of all the other Big Oil candidates (they ran multiples including Cain and Perry), will almost certainly encourage Israel to launch a first strike. At the very least, this would benefit the Koch Brothers oil speculation racket. And it will drive up oil prices, making Exxon and all lots of money and giving Newt a "reason" to build the Keystone pipeline and drill off the coast of Florida.

Suspect that Romney, who is the candidate of the banks and insurance industry might not encourage Israel to launch a first strike. However, if he needs to get some oil Congressmen on his side for something that benefits the banks, he would probably look the other way if a first strike is launched.

Who would have guessed that we would witness a Republican presidential primary pitting the Banksters vs. Big Oil? Hope they use up all their money in the primary fighting each other.

[BrentWil]

56. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the GOP would be a better choice to keep us out of Iran NT

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Silly me. I thought that was the whole point here.

But you are correct. This is not a "Dems are worse than Republicans" thread. This appears to be a "Dems are exactly the same as Republicans" thread. And we all saw how well that worked out for the party in 2000.

[BrentWil]

58. Actually, it isn't. But if reading things into it makes you feel better, so be it NT

[joshcryer]

62. What people aren't considering here is the effect of the Arab Spring on the Middle East.

And what many people don't know is that the Arab Spring didn't actually start in Tunisia, it started in Iran. Iran just crushed it, overwhelmingly. If the sanctions go ahead, it is possible Iran has its own Arab spring, and how that is dealt with is anyones guess. Of course, since the Iranian government is "anti-American," were this to happen you could expect the Iranian people, seeking self-determination, will be thrown under the bus. Hopefully in the event this happens Turkey and Russia get involved and stop the madness.

[BrentWil]

65. Well, it wouldn't be a "Arab" spring..

Given they are Persian. Also, Iran is a different case. Don't take the protest of young people in Iran over a meaningless office (The President of Iran) to mean more then it really is.

[joshcryer]

61. You're much more favorable than me, I put it at closer to 40%. A Republican? 100%.

[JCMach1]

66. Iran is on the brink of its own volition

With elections upcoming... a restive, young population with HIGH unemployment, a currency that has CRASHED in the last few months.

There are also fuel shortages and major economic problems arising from the sanctions which are already biting and will continue to get worse.

I know you are saying, but they have all that oil, how can they have fuel shortages?

Answer: Iran has built virtually no further refining capacity since the fall of the Shah.

[BrentWil]

68. Maybe...

I have doubts...

[joshcryer]

69. Exactly.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. Pres Obama 75%. Gingrich 100%. Ron Paul 15%.

Based on a very complicated, and secret, mathematical formula.

[BlueIris]

71. Likely. But the possibility of an Iran confrontation with a Republican is also likely.

My voting decisions will be based on other concerns.

[Prophet 451]

72. Depends largely on what Iran does

Ahmadinajad (sp?) is a maniac but he has very little actual power. An actual war between the US and Iran would be hugely damaging to Iran, regardless of who wins. Because of that, I tend to think that the theocrats who actual run things in Iran will climb down (which saving face, naturally).

[BrentWil]

74. Ahmandinajad doesn't run the country and has very little power within the country NT