Will Iran Be Next?

[tinybear]

Well, the dust hasn't even settled in Iraq. Now will Iran be next?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLIT...ran/index.html

What about North Korea? Why isn't North Korea next? Because China might retaliate?

The more pertinent question is: does Iran have any oil?

[Leebert]

Quote by: tinybear The more pertinent question is: does Iran have any oil?

Does Iran have oil? Let's see:

...Iran sits atop some of the world's largest tapped and untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas. This country's oil reserves are the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. And its natural gas reserves are the second largest in the world after Russia's. Two, Iran sits a stone's throw - make that a day's drive or sail - from other countries that together possess over one-half of the world's oil reserves and an irreplaceable portion of its daily production. Three, Iran sits astride the Persian Gulf, with a coastline longer than that of any other country along this body of water through which about one-half of the world's traded oil moves. Those tankers, too, are only a stone's throw away from Iran. And fourth, to the north, Iran sits conveniently between billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feet of Azeri, Kazakh and Turkemen oil and natural gas on the one hand, and the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf and access to the outside world on the other.

Source

I think I got a chill down my spine as I read that document. It certainly put a lot of perspective on our present situation.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tinybear What about North Korea? Why isn't North Korea next? Because China might retaliate?

Because NK is armed with nuclear weapons. Does anyone want to see Japan and South Korea in a sea of fire?

[Morpheus]

Iran has oil and has signed agreements with China to provide China's energy supplies. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3970855.stm Invasion of Iran = capture of China's oil fields (or at least a portion of them).

[Ningning]

or maybe, because north korean doesn't have anything americans deem useful, or worth the lives of its soliders (ie oil).

I'm sure on Bush's list of "evil" countries to take down, priority is given to countries in which he percieves the most benefit.

(i say percieve, because we sure aren't getting many "benefits" from invading iraq)

[castille]

But what excuse does the US have for invading Iran?

"We don't like dem Muslims."

[tinybear]

WMDs?

[G. Adams]

The US has WMD's, and uses them. Doesn't mean the world should invade the US. WMD's are not an excuse. It has to be shown that Iran is a threat, which it hasn't. There's no good excuse.

Not to mention it'd be a bloodbath. The US would obviously win but the cost will be high. Terrain is a lot more problematic in Iran (even someone whose only only knowledge of Iran is playing Civ knows it's hills, hills, bloodly hills) and it hasn't been under repressive economic constraints like Iraq has. More importantly, I think it's army will actually fight back.

On top of this, do you really want to be uniting the Arab and Iranian world against you even further? They may even forget they hate each other to fight, which would be unfortunate.

[castille]

I don't think WMDs will work again. That means the US would technically have to invade Israel, China, Russia, England, France, and themselves.

I'm suspecting North Korea will be the next US target, although that would make the US an active threat to China (and even Russia).

Perhaps the US could invade Afghanistan again and make it easier. Hell, the Afghans are used to foreign invasions since the British tried it.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: G. Adams Because NK is armed with nuclear weapons. Does anyone want to see Japan and South Korea in a sea of fire?

I doubt it; North Korea is a suspected nuclear power, not a confirmed. They had a nuclear weapons program, one which now is reported to have been ended. But it has not been confirmed that they ever succeeded in building nuclear weapons, it is alleged that they have made such claims to the US governments. The number of spies from the South which undoubtedly infiltrate the regime would have confirmed the legitimacy of any nuclear threat long ago. If this were the case then I suspect that we in the public would know for a fact by now, if that were the case.

[G. Adams]

Ah good, then if North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons we don't need to invade. I like circular arguments.

Of course NK doesn't need nukes to deal with South Korea, it has enough artillery and missiles to turn Seoul to dust, along with the rest of the country.

[tinybear]

But not enough food to feed even a tenth of their population. Ironic, ain't it?

[allen]

but did you know, US and SK have united war games every year practising nuke attack on the north. People there are living in nuke scare, probably a nuke bomb is more needed than food.

[RickSp]

Iran has 70 million people, or not quite three times as many folks as Iraq. The last country that attempted to invade Iran was of course Iraq under Saddam Hussien and he was supported by the US. It didn't work out particularly well. And Donald Rumsfeld was involved. (What an amazing coincidence.)

One has to wonder which is greater - the stupidity or the hubris of the Bush administration madmen who think that the already overstretched US army can conquer Iran. Some reports have suggested that following any attack, Iran would send three brigades north into Iraq. Throw the Isrealis with their new US provided bunker busting bombs and submarine launched cruise missles into the mix and we could have a regional or even a global war.

Perhaps this is Brother George's attempt to hurry along the "End Times".

May we yet survive the madness of King George.

[Ningning]

some how i don't feel that W has a good concept of the word "consequences."

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear Well, the dust hasn't even settled in Iraq. Now will Iran be next? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLIT...ran/index.html What about North Korea? Why isn't North Korea next? Because China might retaliate? The more pertinent question is: does Iran have any oil?

In case of Iran, the oil is not that important as "what" consequences it may bring.
Most of Arabic countries may see that move as an attempt to covnvert Islamic nations to a "modern republic". Taking that under consideration, some Arabs may suspect that U.S. (along with other countries) is about to launch the war against all the "peace-loving" Arabic nations. The consequences could have been unpredictable. A few weeks war, would clean some nations from the world map for good and forever.
I do not think that any reasonable politician would go for such outcomes as a solution.

There must be a constant political pressure on Iran - by all the countries - to give up its nuclear "ambitions", especially since the production of Iranian oil is good enough to support Iran's demands for energy.

Unless there is no choice, a military action could be taken as a solution, while U.S. should keep its military personnel to very minimal size as possible, in case of the other Arabic nations' re-actions.
"CovertOps" ? Maybe.

North Korea exists with its "Communism" as well as Cuba. Their days of glory are coming to its end. That is a matter of time.
China does not want any part of Korea. Chinese want Taiwan back within its territory.
In case those events take place, U.S. needs to watch them carefully.

[tinybear]

Above all, the US should watch out for those suicide car bombers...like this one for instance:


http://www.boreme.com/bm/JAN05/a/vw-...-bomber/fr.htm

[tinybear]

Oops. Looks like he drove the wrong car! :p

[ericsp23]

There must be a constant political pressure on Iran - by all the countries - to give up its nuclear "ambitions", especially since the production of Iranian oil is good enough to support Iran's demands for energy

This is a two way street though. The West has to make it clear to Iran that their is some benefit to them if they give up their nuclear ambitions. As long as belligerent rhetoric is coming out of Washington we cannot realistically expect Iran to stop researching these weapons.
Think of it from their point of view. They have been lumped into an "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. North Korea probably has nukes, and Iraq doesn't. Iraq was invaded, but we are negotiating with North Korea, even though, arguably, North Korea was and is the bigger threat to American security. Now, if you are the third member of this Axis of Evil, which camp would you rather be in? The one with nukes, or the one without? The Iranians have to see that, if they comply, the years of theats from Washington will stop, and they have to believe that they will be allowed to govern without outside interference.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: ericsp23 This is a two way street though. The West has to make it clear to Iran that their is some benefit to them if they give up their nuclear ambitions.

Iran has already signed agreements with Westerners (represented by England and France, at least), but it keeps continue its works on WMD.
There are news all over mass media that Iran is not going to give up its "ambitions" and is readying for an eventual battle.