Is there trouble ahead?

It would be remarkably silly for the U.S. to act upon its dubious concerns about Iran. I'madinnerjacket (apologies) is sounding off on the international arena simply to establish himself, and whilst he may be a Muslim, he's also a statesman. I believe we have a man here who is interested in Iran's success from a political, economic viewpoint, not a fundamentalist one, and, as far as the supposed "destruction of Israel" is concerned, if this were to happen at Iran's hands, the nuclear fallout would as good as destroy Iran as well - and he knows this. I think with Ahmadinejad, it's more a case of words than actions. America will always be the country to fight first.

America - and the rest - ought to respect the position Iran finds itself in. On one side lies a country occupied by the Americans - Iraq. On its other lies a country... occupied by the Americans - Afghanistan. To its north is a known nuclear power, Israel. To its south are too uneasy, wayward nuclear powers -India and Pakistan. For heaven's sake, this is a country on the defensive. A Gladiator being circled by hungry tigers in a Colosseum is more likely to be on the defensive, not the offensive.

Though to answer your question, I think there is every chance America will put the boot in. I am far more scared of them than I am of Iran.

Reply 2

Bismarck

13

Anthony Arundel

as far as the supposed "destruction of Israel" is concerned, if this were to happen at Iran's hands, the nuclear fallout would as good as destroy Iran as well - and he knows this.

Iran is 400 miles from Israel, so no it wouldn't.

To its north is a known nuclear power, Israel.

Israel is to the west of Iran...

To its south are too uneasy, wayward nuclear powers -India and Pakistan.

Pakistan is to the east of Iran...

Reply 3

Ferrus

Bismarck

Iran is 400 miles from Israel, so no it wouldn't.

Israel is to the west of Iran...

Pakistan is to the east of Iran...

Haha! Clearly someone wasn't paying attention in Geography...

Besides, the US doesn't have the power at present to engage in anything more than an Air War against Iran.

Reply 4

Ibn al-Khattab

I think the policy adopted by Iran is risky. Although no rational person would expect the US to attack Iran, with it already fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with George Bush in charge, who know's anything can happen ?

My own standpoint in this issue is that, if Israel are allowed to have Nuclear Weapon's, then it is only fair that the remaining nation's in the sorrounding area should have one. I know people may say, they will attack etc, well if that was to be the case, well the nation's will them not have the sympathy of the West and America and Allies may enter the war.

Reply 5

Bismarck

13

The Apprentice

I think the policy adopted by Iran is risky. Although no rational person would expect the US to attack Iran, with it already fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with George Bush in charge, who know's anything can happen ?

My own standpoint in this issue is that, if Israel are allowed to have Nuclear Weapon's, then it is only fair that the remaining nation's in the sorrounding area should have one. I know people may say, they will attack etc, well if that was to be the case, well the nation's will them not have the sympathy of the West and America and Allies may enter the war.

Your standpoint is void of rationality. Even if we were to assume that Israel was as hostile to Britain and the US as Iran, would you prefer one enemy to have nuclear weapons or two? To even suggest that foreign policy should be based on some kind of morality is to show a profound ignorance of international relations.

Reply 6

Ferret_messiah

8

There may be trouble ahead
But while there's moonlight and music
And love and romance
Let's face the music and dance

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it.

Reply 7

Redefined

OP

13

Ferret_messiah

There may be trouble ahead
But while there's moonlight and music
And love and romance
Let's face the music and dance

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it.

Well somebody had to :wink:

Reply 8

Howard

5

law:portal

Is the USA pushing its luck regarding world events? Could this be the dawn of a new war?

I'm sure the US is absolutely crapping itself. :rolleyes:

Reply 9

Anthony Arundel

Bismarck

Iran is 400 miles from Israel, so no it wouldn't.

Israel is to the west of Iran...

Pakistan is to the east of Iran...

Oh come on, give me a break. Being pedantic with the negligible details doesn't help anyone. What matters is my point - that Iran is closed in by a sea of aggression, including wayward nuclear powers.

Anyway, I was right about Iraq, Afghanistan and India (or most of it), and 3/5isn't bad. :p:

With this 400 miles point, we're getting fallout over here in Britain from the miniscule Chernobyl leak in the Ukraine (which I believe is somewhere just south of Croydon). Are you telling me that the "destruction (!) of Israel," which would surely involve a full-blown nuclear blitz, would not affect Iran. Of course it would - it would render most of the Middle East relatively uninhabitable.

Reply 10

Ibn al-Khattab

Bismarck

Your standpoint is void of rationality. Even if we were to assume that Israel was as hostile to Britain and the US as Iran, would you prefer one enemy to have nuclear weapons or two? To even suggest that foreign policy should be based on some kind of morality is to show a profound ignorance of international relations.

I was talking in the context of reality. Of course, it's better no nation's have nukes but the fact reamin's Israel has Nuclear Weapons and it is not going to give them up. Now the US is pressing Iran and that is not the right thing to do, because the Iranian Regime will simply then not listen any more. Iran pose no imminent threat to Britain or the US and if they do nuke Israel, do you think they will risk the retaliation of Israel nuking them back and possbily war with America.

If the Iranian's do acquire weapon's, it would more of a political ploy rather than a direct threat.

Reply 11

Anthony Arundel

The Apprentice

If the Iranian's do acquire weapon's, it would more of a political ploy rather than a direct threat.

Exactly what I'm saying. Ahmadinejad is trying to stamp his feet on the international stage. Part of this may be because he's Muslim, and wishes to see a truly powerful Islamic state that's not being subdued by the U.S. (Pakistan is checked by India). I don't think he ought to be doing this in the way that he is, but I think there's method in it. Iran is partly enraged by the American (with British help) of Islamic states, partly wants to check Israel, but mostly wants to defy American anger. If Ahmadinejad succeeds in not bowing to U.S. pressure, he will acquire the image of a strong leader of an autonomous, militarily powerful Islamic state. I'm sure it's mostly political symbolism; I strongly doubt that he intends to use nuclear weapons.

Reply 12

Ferrus

Besides, the US doesn't have the power at present to engage in anything more than an Air War against Iran.

It has a huge armoury of missiles or if its being serious, nukes, hence it doesn't need to engage at all - its the equivalent of holding a midget at arms length and steadily kicking him in the nuts...its like lennox lewis vs. george fornby - there is ultimately only going to be one victor.

Reply 13

Longshoredrift80

10

Anthony Arundel

Ahmadinejad is trying to stamp his feet on the international stage.

And he's going to have his feet blown off if he carries on.

Anthony Arundel

but mostly wants to defy American anger.

So he's pissing America off because he wants to then defy it? Is that not rather a risky and idiotic tactic considering the mood America is in as regards States which pose a threat to it?

Anthony Arundel

I strongly doubt that he intends to use nuclear weapons.

Whatever you think, having nuclear weapons in the hands of the mad mullahs of Iran is a no-no and if he carries on he's going to be told that in no uncertain terms, probably via a massive air and missile attack.

Reply 14

Ferrus

bikerx23

there is ultimately only going to be one victor.

Only if the US gets its air strikes right (it will be harder than the ones Israel launched against Iraq in 1983), which will partly depend on how much of the nuclear facilities are underground.

Reply 15

They have bunker buster bombs, and considering the volume of america's air power, they would likely be able to disable any missiles fired, but I doubt Iran would have them that could reach the US anyway.

Reply 16

Ferrus

bikerx23

They have bunker buster bombs, and considering the volume of america's air power, they would likely be able to disable any missiles fired, but I doubt Iran would have them that could reach the US anyway.

You need to be very accurate however, intelligence must be spot on.

Reply 17

I'm sure their intelligence is very good.

Also - they will have time to analyse satellite data and can, apparently, detect sub-terraneal heat sources which have a predictable signature for such devices.

Reply 18

silverbolt

id just like to know what the hell gives bush the right to decide who can and can not do what they want in there country. Nuclear power could help bring stability and strength to their nation. And if they have a nuclear warhead it means bush cant bully them.
Bush is probably worried about his oil reserves and his mini empire in the middle east. The guy needs a kick up the ass and telling to keep his nose out

Reply 19