Social Question

silverfly's avatar

Do you think we're going to war with Iran soon?

Asked by silverfly (4065points) October 13th, 2011

Is it possible that within the next couple of weeks we will see a war emerge with Israel, US, and Iran? Would you oppose such a move? Do you believe that the recent news from Iran is true? Would you speak out against another war?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

phaedryx's avatar

Is it possible? I guess anything is possible.
Do I think it will happen? No.
Would I oppose such a move? Yes
Do you believe that the recent news from Iran is true? Haven’t formed an opinion yet
Would you speak out against another war? Yes

LuckyGuy's avatar

Some radicals in Iran think we’re already at war.

fundevogel's avatar

God I hope not. America should see if it can keep out of a war for more that three minutes.

wundayatta's avatar

Not a chance! (At least, not a noticeable one)

Qingu's avatar

No. Obama, Clinton, Gates, Panetta, and Petraeus are not that stupid, collectively or individually.

Now ask me what might happen if someone like Bachmann or Perry gets in the WH. (Romney I’m assuming has sense enough not to).

Qingu's avatar

Also, I feel like the media is blowing the whole assassin plot thing way out of proportion.

All the Justice Department says is that there was this one idiotic guy, who may have had connections to Quds. The “Mexican” involved was an FBI agent. There is no evidence that this went any higher on the Iranian side than “one guy in Quds Force.”

The most interesting thing about the story is its implication that the Quds force is so amateurish to trust a guy like this or even communicate with him. I would not be surprised if there are elements of Quds that are so incompetent anyway. Look at Pakistan’s intelligence agency which often seems to be at war with itself, or with the country’s military.

rojo's avatar

While not beating the drum, we are strumming it with our fingers.

wundayatta's avatar

@Qingu It’s hard to imagine that even the Republican candidates wouldn’t recognize that we don’t have the resources and the will to start a new war, particularly if that war is against a country with far greater strength and size than Iraq.

Qingu's avatar

@wundayatta, eh. We could crush Iran in an airpower war. And we have 11 aircraft carriers to park in the Persian Gulf, right next to their fearsome total of zero aircraft carriers.

It’s the ensuing occupation and counterinsurgency that always seems to be the problem nowadays.

Honestly the Stuxnet thing seemed way, way more provocative than how the administration is treating this business. And remember when someone assassinated that Iranian nuclear physicist? ~cough Mossad cough~

wundayatta's avatar

@Qingu I think we overestimate our prowess with the tomahawks and smart bombs, as well.

Qingu's avatar

@wundayatta, not really, when it comes to taking out another country’s conventional military. That’s what the lion’s share of our defense tech is good at.

The problem is that we have not actually fought another country’s conventional military since, oh, 1945. I guess Libya sort of counts too. (Actually that’s the biggest danger I think—that a future president deludes himself into thinking that we could take out the Islamic Republic in the same way we took out Qaddafi and rely on a popular protest movement on the ground to clean up and do the dirty work.)

rojo's avatar

@Qingu We could always just turn it to glass and tell the survivors to wise up or we will be back.

Qingu's avatar

@rojo, murdering ~70 million people, many of whom strongly oppose the current regime? What a great idea. You’re a gentleman and a scholar.

wundayatta's avatar

@Qingu Actually the idea about a popular revolution is well-taken. There is much dissent within Iran. If we have the patience, I doubt if the current regime could last a decade more—maybe two at the outside. That’s no time at all in the scheme of world political history.

rojo's avatar

@ Qingu believe you were the one who pointed out we had the airpower. I was really just responding to how to deal with the resultant counterinsurgency without any occupation (which is always problematic).

flutherother's avatar

Iran spends $9bn a year on its military and is obviously gearing up for a fight. The US spends only $700bn, the UK $57bn, Saudi Arabia $39bn and Israel $16bn, all strictly for defence

rojo's avatar

Actually, I agree with @wundayatta about waiting it out.

Qingu's avatar

@wundayatta, I think the problem is that Iran’s institutions (including its military) are much, much stronger and better entrenched than Libya, which had no institutions of any sort really. Libya was basically a bunch of loosely confederated gangs held together by bribes doled out by the Qaddafi regime. Iran is a genuine state with strong political institutions. It also lacks Libya’s (albeit short lived) alliance with Western countries.

I was opposed to intervening in Libya; I’m glad we didn’t mess it up, but I think the country was a unique mix of circumstances that don’t exist in places like Syria, Bahrain and Iran.

@rojo, I said “airpower” not “ICBMs.” Jesus Christ. Do you normally interpret air power as strategic nuclear weapons? And again—murdering tens of millions of people as a way to avoid the messiness of an Iraq style occupation? Such class, you have. Please tell me you don’t have kids.

rojo's avatar

@Qingu I believe I will let this one go. You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Qingu's avatar

I guess I do often spoil for fights with people who casually suggest that we should commit mass murder against millions of innocent people.

rts486's avatar

No, we don’t have the resources. When attempting to determine a country’s possible course of action, it’s best to look at their capabilities more than their desires (not that I’m saying the U.S. desires to go to war with Iran).

@wundayatta Unfortunately I recall the “experts” 20 years ago saying the same thing about North Korea not lasting another 10 years, and about 30 years ago saying the same thing about Iran.

As someone who participated in the last two wars, I really don’t want to go to Iran too, so I can watch the same stupid mistakes made there as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

wundayatta's avatar

@rts486 It took the Soviet Union around 70 years. I don’t think that’s too long to wait for any of these countries. We get impatient and want things now and that really makes things worse, I think. Our wars just as often turn people against us as they are welcomed. That’s an impressionary statement. I haven’t counted the results of the wars, nor have I defined what a war is.

rts486's avatar

@wundayatta I’m not saying we shouldn’t wait. I’m saying I don’t think Iran is going to collapse within the next 10, 20 or 30 years.

CWOTUS's avatar

No, I don’t think we’ll go to war with Iran any time soon. I don’t think Obama is that desperate (yet) to attempt to rescue the economy in that way. (But I wouldn’t say that it’s off the table, either. To many people war often seems like a way to “rescue” an economy.)

But of course I couldn’t be opposed to it. That would be unpatriotic, wouldn’t it? ~

I’m more of a Cold War hawk, I guess, seeing how the last one turned out.

lloydbird's avatar

I hope not. They seem like really nice people.
Ordinary. Like us.

janbb's avatar

No – we have absolutely no money for a war. Let the Saudis fight them if they want to.

CaptainHarley's avatar

No. And if it were proposed or begun, I would oppose it.

jellyfish3232's avatar

Weeks, no. But I do have grim predictions for the near future, in a worst case scenario. Iran gets nuclear weapons. They send said weapons at Israel, because they don’t like them. US is Israel’s ally, so we’re forced to intervene. Other countries get drawn into the squabble, and we have the beginning of a nuclear war. The easiest option would be to disband from Israel and just avoid getting involved, but we can’t just keep our nose out of other people’s affairs.

CaptainHarley's avatar


Whether we like it or not, we are part of the world. Actually, I think a surgical nuclear strike by Iran against Saudi Arabia is more likely than an attack on Israel.

Qingu's avatar

@jellyfish3232, Iran is not going to “nuke Israel” because “they don’t like them.” Do you honestly believe that the mullahs in charge of Iran are all suicidal?

I think it is far more likely that Israel will unilaterally attack Iran first and the situation could then escalate into nukes.

Incidentally, Israel—unlike Iran (presently)—actually has nuclear weapons that they have illegally developed. And like Iran Israel is run by a coalition of theocratic zealots.

Qingu's avatar

@CaptainHarley a “surgical nuclear strike” where in Saudi Arabia and for what purpose? Why on earth would Iran do this unprovoked?

You don’t start a nuclear war when you have like two nuclear weapons, no ICBMs, and an entire nuclear-armed world against you.

jellyfish3232's avatar

I realize that I phrased that badly. Let me try again:
The homicidal, insane, brainwashed Muslim extremists have a boiling hate for Semitism.
If they had their way, Israel would be wiped out.

You do seem to have a habit of starting arguments, don’t you?

Qingu's avatar

@jellyfish3232 how many Iranians do you believe are “homicidal, insane, brainwashed Muslim extremists who have a boiling h ate for Semitism and would wipe Israel out if they had their way?”

A rough percentage will do for the sake of argument.

(Also, please clarify “wipe out.” Because for my part, I actually think Israel should be “wiped out” politically by giving people in the occupied territories the right to vote in Israeli elections… similarly to how when the blacks in South Africa got the right to vote, Apartheid South Africa no longer existed. But I’m assuming you mean “wiped out” in a violent sense.)

jellyfish3232's avatar


Ah, a VERY small percentage, of course. But I’m sure they’re out there.
Trust me, I’m not totally biased against Islam and Iran, I’m just saying that it’s home to a select few violent individuals. I have no problem with 99.9 percent of the county, but that .1 percent tends to be a thorn in our side.

Qingu's avatar

@jellyfish3232, okay. Does this tiny minority of insane mass-murdering Iranians control the Iranian government and/or pose an actual threat to Israel? If not, why did you mention them?

FYI, the reigning Ayatollah in Iran is actually not particularly religious compared to his predecessors; Iran has never actually said it wants to wipe out Israel through violence and has never aggressively attacked another country. When Muslims talk about “wiping Israel off the map,” they generally mean giving Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories the right to vote or otherwise participate in the country’s government. Doing that would very likely “wipe Israel off the map” because the Palestinians + Israeli Arabs nearly outnumber (and once did outnumber) Jewish Israelis and so Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

flutherother's avatar

To paraphrase Karl Kraus: The United States and Israel are now completely armed for a defensive war, which they have long wanted to wage, and Iran has long wanted to wage an offensive war, for which, however, they aren’t armed.

Ron_C's avatar

We have neither the mean nor the will to attack Iran. I, personally believe that the U.S. should speak directly to the Iranian people without having our discourse filtered by religious zealots. The young people look to the U.S. for technology and even style. The worst thing we could do would be to bomb those people.

That being said, it the Tea Party Republicans ever get into the executive office, we’ll have an all out nuclear war and a whole world of new enemies.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther