General Question

janbb's avatar

What are the chances of us going to war with Iran?

Asked by janbb (54587points) 1 month ago

There’s a lot of saber rattling going on about Iran in the US. Do you think there’s really a chance we will go to war with them or is it just a “wag the dog” diversion? Or something in between?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

43 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

A full scale war? Much as that is John Bolton’s wet dream, I don’t think that is something the US could pull off, nor would it be supported.

But I don’t trust the Administration to be reticent about limited attacks. I can see Trump taking out Iranian war-ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Only if Netanyahu can convince Trump to give the OK

Demosthenes's avatar

If Trump believes that war with Iran will increase his chances of re-election, it will happen. At this point it looks as though Trump believes the exact opposite and is clashing with Bolton et al. on this issue.

kritiper's avatar

We’ll see if any side screws up and takes the first swipe at the other.
The US never did get back at Iran for the hostage crisis of the late 70’s, early 80’s…

zenvelo's avatar

@kritiper

Iran never got back at the US for the CIA installation of the Shah in 1953.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Let’s see – a made up premise for war, manufactured by a bloodthirsty administration, a year before an election.

I saw this movie before. 2004. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld…

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. Israel, and Saudi Arabia, would be all for it. I think the American public, in general, is pretty burnt out on all out war, but the people don’t really make the decision to go to war, or not.

I’m not sure what’s going on in the head of Bolton. He seems to want any war. He should be removed.

I am seeing a notable build up of “guess what Iran did now” reports. Such things have been a strategy for conditioning the US public for war, in the past.

I would like to see both the US, and Iran show more restraint in regards to threats, and chest thumping. Certainly, neither country would benefit from a war.
The US seems to be hinting at regime change. That’s what is provoking the worst of the rhetoric from Iran. Regime change is rarely, if ever, the answer to such issues.

I think it would be great if the US simply sat out a few plays, in regards to all things involving the Middle East. So far, the US only makes bad situations worse there. Yet they have made it a habit of getting into no-win situations anyway.

I would like to see the US take a back seat, and let Iran’s neighbors figure it out. If the west just HAS to get involved, let Europe deal with it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

As I see it, for all his stupidity, and even with belligerent Bolton egging him on, the direct and naked invasion of Iran on so thin a pretext would destroy any hope for Trump come 2020. But this would be just what we might expect when it appears that all of these investigations are about to “snatch the covers off him”. That’s going to require a REALLY BIG distraction. My guess is if he lasts to November, a resounding defeat at the polls might allow the fool to jump into Iran between his defeat and the inauguration of his replacement. And if the country is actually populated with enough lame dummies to re-elect the fool, this time we will unequivocally get just what we deserve.

flutherother's avatar

It’s possible as Trump seems hell bent on confrontation with Iran. The rhetoric about Iranian threats (contradicted by a British general) is reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction claims made before the invasion of Iraq. As with Iraq it wouldn’t really be a war. The American military spends 30 times more on weaponry than Iran and the economy of Iran is not much more than that of Maryland. It would be at best regime change leading to more instability in the Middle East.

mazingerz88's avatar

A foul-mouthed failed casino businessman, draft dodger and reality TV star con man named trump sending American soldiers to kill and potentially get killed. Chances are pretty good thanks to his desperate voters.

kritiper's avatar

@zenvelo Well I guess it’s time we had us a brawl!

Zaku's avatar

Our oil company overlords have been wanting one since the Bush administration, and will probably get their way sooner or later unless someone does something to stop it.

JLeslie's avatar

I think low. I hope I’m right. I wouldn’t make a bet with my money though.

Yellowdog's avatar

We can win a war with Iran nowadays in just two strikes. So it wouldn’t be an actual ‘war’ per se’. If they initiate the first strike, we will finish it with the second, that is to say the last, strike.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Not so fast. Unless you mean the US nukes them. Which I can’t see happening, and sure hope won’t.

There aren’t really “winners,” in war nowadays. Only losers. In pretty much any possible outcome, innocent people will die. I hope most people realize that that’s a bad thing…

kritiper's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I think if the US hit Iran, Iran would hit Israel, and Israel would do the nuking.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Hopefully, you’re wrong.

It wouldn’t be like Iraq. Iran is a different animal, and may get help from Russian technology…

Stache's avatar

“Barack Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election,” Trump tweeted in 2011

Oh, the irony.

kritiper's avatar

@MrGrimm888 But Iran has already made it clear they hate Israel, and my scenario might play out since Iran knows that the US is in tight with Israel. So they would do it just to make a statement, and blame it on the US.

ragingloli's avatar

The real question is, how many of the state employed murderers will have the balls and morals to desert, instead of running right into the next war of aggression with frothy mouths, screaming like bloodthirsty berserkers.

JLeslie's avatar

@ragingloli Which state employees are you talking about?

kritiper's avatar

@ragingloli Do you mean the cowards, turncoats, and deserters?

JLeslie's avatar

@ragingloli To clarify I mean which country.

@kritiper Wouldn’t it have been nice if the Germans had been deserters and turncoats back around 1939?

janbb's avatar

^^ I don’t thin you guys are understanding what loli is saying.

JLeslie's avatar

@janbb I’m wondering which country he hopes the soldiers will not comply with orders. What am I missing, go ahead and tell me.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I wonder how many Americans are going to support this lying buffoon and want their sons and daughters to die for a made-up war…

Yellowdog's avatar

I don’t see the premise for any U.S. troops actually fighting a ground war, particularly the Middle East. Obama liked us to lose wars. Are you sure you aren’t confusing Obama’s strategies for Trump’s one-strike method. that has been pretty much the norm the past 28 months?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^“Obama liked to lose wars.” I will not comment on such a blatantly ignorant comment. But I like re-posting it, to show just how foolish it is…

Yellowdog's avatar

Yes, Obama wanted ALL nations weak and equal militarily.

He started many wars where we just entered, occupied, and pulled out

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m sorry for the outburst. Moderate your answer. You don’t want people judging your competence based on such a statement.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Such statements, are why I gave up on Trumpers…

mazingerz88's avatar

Dark times for America. Pretty dumb times too.

Yellowdog's avatar

Obama wanted every nation to have 25 nuclear weapons each. He won a Pulitzer Prize for this. The problem is, of course, that an alliance of nations could annihilate someone. Or, North Korea could nuke the U.S. when the U.S. is engaged in some middle east conflict.

SOME nation has to be the adult in the room of world events, and make sure this this doesn’t happen. The United States is NOT equal to Iran or North Korea.

ragingloli's avatar

“SOME nation has to be the adult in the room of world events”
Some gall of you to say that, while your hallowed overgrown toddler has his fat thumb on the button.

Yellowdog's avatar

Obama sure seemed to be stockpiling Iran with money for a huge nuclear arsenal. 150 Billion dollars. Would you like the Russia / Iran / Cuba alliance aided by Obama, or would you prefer the U.S. ?

ragingloli's avatar

Right now? Make a guess.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog WHERE on earth do you find this sort of stuff? Do you actually carry such beliefs around with you. How can you even bear to reveal such thoughts to anyone other than a therapist? I really don’t want to dig at you, but I SERIOUSLY want to know, and my asking you can be no more objectionable than these things you tell us. How do you arrive at these conclusions?

MrGrimm888's avatar

The $150 billion was already Iran’s money. It was freed, not “given.” And as we all know, that money did NOT, could not develop a nuclear weapons program… I won’t even touch the other remarks…

mazingerz88's avatar

War mongers are the worst most dangerous people there are. Bannon, Bolton, Pompeo…

Makes you wonder if their own families are on the front line, what then?

ragingloli's avatar

War with Iran has always been the goal, from the moment they unilaterally killed the treaty.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^That depresses me.

ragingloli's avatar

And right now, they are waiting for and trying to provoke their “they were asking for it” excuse.
Just like those faked Iraqi WMD pictures.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther