[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart .And very likely, our airstrikes alone will not defeat Iran. They're much larger than Iraq, much stronger, and likely much more prepared, with lots and lots of clever media showing the world what a brutal, ableit vulnerable, bully the U.S. is -- U.S. minesweepers burning offshore, aircraft wreakage surrounded by grinning Iranian defenders, miserable looking American air crews held captive. Whatever damage they absorb will be worth the global P.R. bonanza... Hezbollah vs. Israel all over again, but on steroids. Iran successfully stands up to the U.S. The entire mideast will rally to them, and any movements among moderate Iranians to get rid of their Islamic leadership with evaporate overnight, rallying patrioticallly to the defense of their nation agaisnt the Great Satan. So NOW what does the U.S. do? Invade? With what? Our military has already been ground to a blunt edge in Iraq... short of supplies, new equipment and troops. .

If the US launched air attacks, ground troops would be inevitable. It would require a full scale mobilzation - the Third World War that the neo-cons have been talking about.

What Would War Look Like?

That kind of retaliation could quickly transform a relatively limited U.S. mission in Iran into a much more complicated one involving regime change. An Iran determined to use all its available weapons to counterattack the U.S. and its allies would present a challenge to American prestige that no Commander in Chief would be likely to tolerate for long. Zinni, for one, believes an attack on Iran could eventually lead to U.S. troops on the ground. "You've got to be careful with your assumptions," he says. "In Iraq, the assumption was that it would be a liberation, not an occupation. You've got to be prepared for the worst case, and the worst case involving Iran takes you down to boots on the ground."