Iran war forecast - I wonder what % chance there is of war with or on Iran

[Valerie5555]

at present, by summer or even by fall.

[Spinzonner]

1. Possibly inversely proportional to Bush's poll ratings

[Valerie5555]

4. Thought that would be the chances of another September 11 type incident

like terrorists trying to take out the Sears Tower in Chicago. Wouldn't it be funny or :rofl: if they tried to highjack another United flight to do that and ended up as material for a "Dumb Terrorists" book for the passengers and crew "Flight 564'ed" them before they could do anything.

[yurbud]

25. It won't be the same kind of attack, they need to top 9/11

or public won't buy the draft that will be necessary with Iran attack.

They can't even think about Iran without something on that scale.

Take it to the bank.

[Valerie5555]

26. Egads MORE PLANES into BUILDINGS, an anthrax or flu outbreak or something

worse.

[yurbud]

35. nukes--you can't take a good pic of diseases.

[Valerie5555]

37. Or that old

:evilgrin: or devil EMP or Electromagnetic pulse.

[yurbud]

56. that would just annoy the hell out of people--would you fight for your...

ipod?

[kysrsoze]

65. I absolutely think Al Qaeda is planning something. It's not a ghost org

There are people out there who don't like us. Of course it was 8 years between attacks on the Twin Towers. I completely believe the Admin knew the first one was coming and took advantage of it.

I doubt the Sears Tower is the new the target (hope not - I work nearby). But I wouldn't be surprised simultaneous shopping mall/movie theater or chemical plant attacks are the method. Given our awful port exposures, the nuclear trailer container method would be a possibility too. I think they would again let it happen. Our government has done very little about rogue nukes either. It could crush our economy to lose an entire major city. Of course there are some who believe they won't be affected.

Then, there's the small part of me that believes they did the whole thing themselves. It's hard to tell sometimes.

[Valerie5555]

67. Uh oh I wonder what the US would do if WASHINGTON DC were the target.

eom.

[radfringe]

50. signs are there

-- bush*'s numbers are way down
-- public is taking second and third look at bush*'s agenda
-- mid-terms are approaching
-- GOPers who are up for re-Selection are feeling the heat from constituents
-- There appears to be some GOPers who are leaning away from kook-aid mind-induced obedience to the party line

prior to 9-11 bush*'s approval numbers were in the 40-45% range -- he's pretty much ridden the "terra" horse since then - using fear as his primary tool to shove his agenda down our throats.

With Iraq dragging on and on and NO WMD have been found -- the public is slowly turning away. The interference of GOPers into the Shaivo issue was the last straw for many GOPers. Toss in the public sentiment over nuking the filibuster and bush*'s social security scam and you have a very dissillusioned public.

bush*'s use of "terra" to scare the public has worked before in bumping up his numbers (and GOP numbers by riding his coattails), where as his domestic policies have dragged his numbers down and GOP numbers with it.

A "terra" scare may not be enough to keep the bush* boat afloat and maintain reich-wing control over Congress. But a WAR or rather an invasion could do that -- those opposing it will be labeled Traitors or Unpatriotic.

[blackcat77]

2. Not very high.

I know that goes against prevailing opinion around here, but even Bush isn't stupid enough to get us into a war that we're guaranteed to lose when we're already losing another war right next door.

He hasn't made the case with the mind-numbed zombies against Iran that he did with Iraq, so IMHO, if anybody attacks them, it will be Israel attacking their nuclear facilities from the air.

[Valerie5555]

6. So the talk of Iran's EMP attack capabilities are all just fear propaganda

bullcrap. :) :D

[renaissanceguy]

20. No offense, but I think * thinks the war is actually going OK.

Saddam is gone and he gets to control the oil. Meanwhile, Iraqis and soldiers are dying. I think it's all going well in his view.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[Valerie5555]

31. Wonder who will be the ENEMY for Iran since the AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI IS DEAD

eom

[rhino47]

3. My neighbors kid fresh from Iraq said troops are massed

on the border to Iran.Make of it what you will.
I am just repeating what was told to me.

[Erika]

5. We don't have the military manpower

especially at the rate of our dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Valerie5555]

8. Maybe a war in June probably still would be not bloody likely for 2 words

or DESERT SANDSTORMS or 1 word HABOOBS. If they're bad in APRIL, I bet they'd be worse in JUNE.

[Valerie5555]

14. Wonder if Iran is the REALLY BIG PRIZE. BTW Maybe the Beach Boys ought to

sue for plagarism whoever did that "BOMB IRAN" ditty, to the tune of "BARBARA ANNE."

[nittygritty]

15. LOL!!

[Valerie5555]

17. Maybe that would be a good idea nonetheless.

:D :D eom.

[The Magistrate]

7. If It Occurs, Ma'am

It will probably be in the autumn of '06....

[Valerie5555]

9. Or maybe not until March like the Iraq war.

eom.

[enid602]

10. Iran

Brazil, Russia, China and India (the new BRIC alliance) have voiced their opposition to such an attack. India last week announced plans to build a gas pipeline from Iran to India, through Pakistan. They also announced that they would buy 50 Boeing aircraft, which gives them a fair amount of leverage. We would be crazy to go against this sort of opposition.

On the other hand, most analysts agree that it is only a matter of time before the Shi'ite majority takes power in Iraq, and allies itself more closely with Iran. It will really make us look like fools if our 'war for oil' only succeeds in giving unfriendly Iran control of an even larger portion of the world's reserves. * should have thought of that before he started this mess. Is it too late to put Saddam back in power?

[Valerie5555]

13. And in that case, it never occurred to * that a Shi'ite IRAN and IRAQ

would GANG UP on US troops and it would all turn to "Shi'ite" :D :)

[brettdale]

11. I say June

I say the first bombs will drop in June, just keep doing a news google search on Iran, the number of stories are increasing each day. The media is doing its bit for Bush.

[Valerie5555]

12. I wonder if it would be an EVEN BIGGER debacle than Desert 1 because of

the DESERT HABOOBS, or if that would be when the AIR WAR would begin.


I wonder if they would use the hostage stuff as propaganda. If they do, how sick or :puke: is that????????????????????

[funflower]

32. Why do I keep hearing "June"?

What is it that makes so many people think this will happen in June?

[Valerie5555]

33. Something Scott Ritter said, not sure what.

:shrug: :shrug:

[funflower]

36. I googled Scott Ritter

and it apparently has to do with critical dates for when the Iranian nuke program will be up and running.

[punpirate]

16. One has to be precise in one's choice...

... of words today. War is a bit general for all the options available. If you mean an invasion of Iran, that's very doubtful; I would say the odds are not very high at all.

If, on the other hand, you mean an attack of some sort on Iranian nuclear facilities, either by Israel with US assistance, or by the US, I think the odds are much, much higher, probably on the order of a 70-90% probability.

As for timing, it depends upon when Russia plans delivery of fuel rods. If the core is installed and the reactor becomes operational, an attack would invite very harsh criticism from the rest of the world, the prospect of an embargo against the perpetrating countries, and much difficulty, simply because such an attack could be considered a war crime against the civilian population of Iran. Ruining the reactor prior to that time would therefore be essential (as was done with the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981).

But, I firmly believe that any plans for an invasion of Iran would be met with enormous international and domestic disapproval, and one would see a migration of military leaders out of the Pentagon, which, so far, hasn't happened.

[enid602]

18. bombing

A limited bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear installations (providing we know where they are, which is doubtful) carries a lot of risks. I can see the Iranian army crossing the Iraqi border the next day, and I think we could expect some reaction from the Indians, Russians, Chinese and Brazilians.

[punpirate]

28. I would think that you're correct...

... in your assessment, but that doesn't mean the Bushies think as do you (or most other people, for that matter).

It's been a hallmark of both Bush and the neo-cons with whom he's surrounded himself to ignore popular and international dissent to their plans. They've bulled on, straight ahead, and the disagreement be damned. So, I think complaints by Iran's new trading partners will mean little to the neo-cons. Their interests, as has been shown repeatedly, lay with Israel, and Israel is the country with the most fear about any nuclear program of Iran's, since it would threaten Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region. That's why this is of such paramount importance to the neo-cons.

As for finding Iran's facilities, some are exposed and easily targeted (the reactor being built at Bushehr, for example). Those which are purported to be deeply buried can likely only be destroyed through covert action. Surface bombing won't accomplish much, if they are buried deeply enough. Doesn't mean such covert action wouldn't be attempted in conjunction with a bombing campaign.

But, a full-scale invasion is unlikely. The manpower isn't there, and Iran's territory is large enough to present much greater difficulties in controlling it after an invasion than even those now very apparent in Iraq. Nor do I think Bush would have the support of the military leadership in such a venture.

However, the Iranians would not, in retaliation, attack US forces through Iraq. It would mean an escalation to a war they would not want--they know that US air superiority would make it a difficult war to win without exceptionally high losses on the ground. And, especially after Iraq, Iran would be in a very good position to label the US as the agressor and to demand sanctions against the US, which would ultimately hurt us more.

I think Iran will do everything it can to deter such an attack if it occurs, on or over its own territory, but escalating to a full-fledged war isn't in their best interest, nor is it in ours, ultimately.

Cheers.

[Valerie5555]

29. It may be possible but I wonder if the US has enough troops, and I wonder

if Stephen Harpy, er Harper will drag CANADA along if he should win any snap election.

[punpirate]

34. There aren't enough, nearly enough ground troops...

... for any sort of invasion. That much should be clear from the over-extension of reserves in the past two years.

Air attacks are something else, though. Moving carriers to the southern Arabian sea, well out of range of surface radar would ensure that there would be plenty of planes available to attack known targets in Iran. Air Force planes could move freely across Iraq and then attack Bushehr from the Gulf side.

In short, there are lots of aircraft available. Every carrier has a complement of perhaps 160-170 planes. Most of the F-117As in the US could be moved to Iraq overnight. There's no shortage of aircraft for an air strike.

As for Canada, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that any voluntary participation by Canada in a surprise attack on a sovereign country would cause the immediate dissolution of the government involved. As for a ground invasion, the number of troops Canada could supply would be negligible compared to the number of regular soldiers and militia they might encounter in Iran. Think Gallipoli.

Cheers.

[Valerie5555]

38. Hee hee hee hopefully Canadians wouldn't mind ANOTHER election after that

if we're dragged into that sort of war AGAINST OUR WILL.

[punpirate]

40. I think most Canadians would be quite willing...

... to rip some politicians a new asshole if they supported the US in an illegal attack on another country. Canadians, altogether, seem to be very proud of their reputation as diplomatic problem-solvers.

[Valerie5555]

61. You bet, especially if IRAN responded by giving Canada's embassy in Tehran

the "Den Of Spies" treatment in response.

[leftchick]

49. Any validity to the "Sunburn Missile" threat?

I read about this last fall and really don't know if I believe it. What do you think?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

<snip>

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

[punpirate]

52. The Sunburn missile is only a threat...

... if the U.S. is stupid enough to bring one or more carrier task forces through the Straits of Hormuz and into the Gulf. To carry out an attack against obvious nuclear installations in Iran, they don't need to do that. Keeping those fleets outside the radius of operation of those missiles avoids that problem.

Cheers.

[Henny Penny]

51. presumably, they would only seek to control the

air space, and any ground that contains actual oil infrastructure.

Then put some kind of puppet govt. in. I think Rummy would see that as very doable.

Looking at Iraq, I really think they don't care if the place descends into total chaos (if it hasn't done so already), as long as the oil wells and pipelines are safe.

I think I read somewhere that Rummy considers himself an expert on fighting wars with limited numbers of soldiers on the ground. Once you accept that there's no need to actually bring peace and stability.... well then why not?

I think myself that Venezuela must be rising up the list of targets pretty fast, but I guess they've been planning to hit Iran for longer, and these guys don't seem too flexible.

[punpirate]

53. To do that...

... one has to have troops on the ground in Iran, and I truly don't think that will happen.

One has to look at the relative distribution of forces, and the type of forces. By latest estimates, Iran has almost a million troops--regular forces, militia and irregulars, most of which are available to repel invading ground forces.

By contrast, the US has the bulk of its troops spread out all over the world, with a smaller contingent in Iraq, and even that contingent is desperately in need of considerable reinforcement from US reserve forces.

Rummy can think himself whatever he pleases--all his estimates about force requirements in Iraq were completely, utterly wrong. Even the compromises achieved between his views and the minimum recommended by military planners have turned out to be inadequate in Iraq. Military planners know this, and will abandon the Pentagon if forced to accede to a marginal force invading Iran, which is why I don't think there will be an invasion--they have been no indications of that happening. Once it does, one will see massive leaks of war plans to prevent putting the military into a lose-lose situation.

No, there won't be an invasion of Iraq, nor will there be an invasion of Venezuela. There will be continuing covert operations to destabilize both of those governments or to assassinate their leaders, I'm sure.

With Afghanistan and Iraq, the military has shot its invasion wad. To embark on the occupation of yet another country, in any capacity, will guarantee failure in all theaters, and the military planners know this. If Bush or Rumsfeld insists on this, there will be wholesale defections from the military, ensuring that failure.

Cheers.

[Henny Penny]

55. Everything you say is entirely logical but...

with this lot I really feel we have shifted paradigms here.

"Rummy can think himself whatever he pleases--all his estimates about force requirements in Iraq were completely, utterly wrong." Yes I agree 100%, but he's still there, and I'm betting he feels he's doing a pretty good job.

"Military planners know this, and will abandon the Pentagon if forced to accede to a marginal force invading Iran."

Again yes 100% agree. But, this admin has a history of edging out people who disagree with it and replacing them with what Maggie Thatcher used to call "one of us"!

The problem for me, is that I see things at the top are pretty rotten... but I don't know how far down the rot goes. I am hoping not too deep, but looking at all the other institutions these guys have touched...

[punpirate]

57. They are...

... but they still need the military (wouldn't I like to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Feith, Bolton, Cheney and Wolfowitz each in a tank saying "bring it on," though).

What's changed since they came aboard? All the people who questioned their reasoning are gone--Zinni and Shinseki first, and Franks ducked out as quickly as was practicable. But, every naysayer that's gone leaves them more poorly equipped to do the planning.

If they demand the military do the impossible, I think a lot more upper-level commanders will opt for retirement. That's why I don't think a decision to invade Iran has been made--that exodus hasn't occurred yet. If there's a series of announcements of retirements and reassignments of general staff, then I'll get nervous about the prospects.

If they were to go ahead with such plans without the support of the military planning staff, there's little doubt it would be a disaster. But, what I think would be likely, first, would be signs that it was going to occur, and those signs aren't present.

That's why I maintain that if there's action against Iran, it's going to be a brief, intense air attack and not an invasion. The military isn't beyond digging in its heels when it knows the odds are lousy--too many of the people there now were trained to believe in Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force. Were Bush or Rumsfeld to demand an invasion of Iran, I think the response from the military, with a smart salute, would be, "go shinny up a rope... sir."

[Henny Penny]

58. I like your thinking and I hope you are right.

:toast:

[punpirate]

59. I hope so, too...

... otherwise, we're all in for a lot more mean shit. Soldiers, civilians, the lot of us.

But, count on it--there are lot of Rumsfeld dolls with pins stuck in them in desk drawers around the Pentagon. :)

[Valerie5555]

19. Part of me says "bring it on," Bushie for the WORLD WIDE OPPOSITION and

PROTESTS would be GREATER than they were for Iraq.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Valerie5555]

24. Oh good god, the religious loonies are running the asylum

eom.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Valerie5555]

23. Uh oh WORST CASE SCENARIO = WORLD WAR 3

:scared:y :scared:y :scared:y or :scared:y x 3

[minkyboodle]

27. Summer of 05

I think Hersch is right on, but I think it will be air strikes at least at first. No ground troops at the moment.

[Valerie5555]

30. Here we go again, probably more "shock and awe" to look forward to

probably AS OF NEXT MONTH.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Better than 50-50 by June 1, 2005.

[Valerie5555]

42. Maybe I better get a move on in coming up with some cynical names for the

war. eom.

[rhite5]

41. Scott Ritter

I know that in February, Scott Ritter said to expect an attack on Iran in June.

For all of the reasons already mentioned,
It is very hard for me to believe that such a move by the US could be seriously contemplated by Bush, Cheney or anybody. Also hard to believe the American Military would go along with such a plan. It would be World War III. (with no land invasion or occupation, just destruction)

Does anybody have any updated information from Scott Ritter? Is he still standing with this same prediction?

[Valerie5555]

43. Wouldn't put it past them

ntn

[Disturbed]

44. Doesn't Iran have missles and an Air Force?

I would think that any strike on them would cause an immediate launching of their missles on U.S. bases in Iraq and military sites in Israel. Iran doers have a huge Army, as well that would pour into Iraq. Also, sunburn missles and sub strikes on U.S. Carriers. I am not that familiar with Iran's capabilies but it would seem obvious that they have been preparing for an attack for over a year and are on full alert.

Would Syria aide Iran? Would the Shi'ites in Iraq?

I feel that it would be insane for Israel &/or the U.S. to attack Iran but then the Bush Junta aren't exactly sane.

[Valerie5555]

45. I DO believe they do and I DO believe they've got ALLIES.

ntn.

[lies and propaganda]

46. I know it sounds morbid....

but my boyfriend is still too much of an optimist in my eyes and vice versa.
We have a ten dollar bet that I believe we will invade Iran within either of the "J" months of summer.

Dont give s shit about the bet or the money, just want him to start to have a healthy distrust of his 'compassionate conservative'guv.

[Valerie5555]

47. Wonder if anyone should bet their apolitical catlover friends that

Bush will attack Iran by "Adopt A Cat Month" (June.).

[lies and propaganda]

48. oh, but how i love my cat....

im just a complete pessimist that has some amount of trust in Scott Ritter. I dont want it, just think its going to happen.

[Valerie5555]

60. Me too and I also have doubts as to how safe it is to write to anyone like

certain people I knew indirectly in Washington DC especially for I suspect they may be TERRORIST TARGET #1 if any war happened.

[newportdadde]

54. I think the only thing holding * back now is our lack of troops.

We don't really have the troops needed for something like this. Maybe his generals are finally being straight with him that we can't do it. If it wasn't for that given the upcoming elections and his poll numbers we would be there already.

Its always been my theory that he was planning to go their but Iraq has become much more then he thought it would.

The problem with no troops available is that of course it could throw into motion an event that leads to a draft.

[goodboy]

62. Change "iran" to VENEZUELA, and you'll be right on. That's where

we are going. We don't invade countries that ACTUALLY pose a threat to us...otherwise IRAN would've been our FIRST STOP.




A statement released on March 8 and signed by almost 400 Venezuelan journalists accused the US government and media of a campaign to prepare the ground for a US military attack on oil-rich Venezuela.

According to translation of the statement posted at the Venezuela Analysis website, it begins by declaring: “As it was done in the past to Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Grenada, and Haiti, the government of the United States today targets the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with all its media and propaganda power. In those brother nations, such campaigns served as the preamble for an armed invasion by the main global military power.”

The journalists claim the aim of the current US campaign of “lies, distortion, and manipulation” is the “overthrow President Hugo Chavez Frias' democratic government”.

In February, the Venezuelan government publicly accused the US government of plotting to assassinate Chavez. Tensions were further heightened when the Venezuelan government announced it had detected the secret presence of “US Marines, along with military planes and amphibious vehicles” on the Caribbean island of Curacao, just 75 kilometres from the Venezuelan mainland, according to an Associated Press report on March 1.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=7439

[Valerie5555]

63. I wonder why, did Chavez also call Bush or * an "asshole" or "asnoajulero"

again??????????????????????????????????

[goodboy]

64. LMAO...I don't know, but don't be surprised when it happens. You heard

it here first!

The sabre-rattlin' has been goin' on for a while now. We'll have to attack someone in our hemisphere by the fall that's not really a threat. By that time a gallon of gas will cost 4 bucks, small business will start to drop like flies...and you know venezuela's got lots and lots of that good oil. light crude.

Who'd stop us?

[Valerie5555]

66. Oh joy, what causes for war, oil and a leader who dares speak the truth

about *.

[goodboy]

68. at least it's tangible...the last one involved invisible WMD's.