POL- Are We Starting a War With Iran?
 

This seems like a pretty big story that isn't getting much play. Aren't consulates officially national territory?

Sounds like the raid was meant to send a message to Iran, considering that Condi made statements about how Iran and Syria were still working to destabilize Iraq.

I heard something about this on the radio this morning, and it actually sounded like there weren't any Iranians there, but that instead some Kurds were using the site for nefarious purposes. I may have misunderstood what I heard, it was pretty confusing.

Could be. I thought I caught Bush last night making a nebulous statement about helping to "resolve issues between Turkey and Iraq". Keeping a reference to the PKK veiled so as not to piss off the Kurds?

As for attacking Iran--highly doubtful unless the Iranians do something over the top. US power projection capability does not seem adequate to successfully defeat and occupy Iran at this time. A low intensity strategy (manifested by raids such as this one, if true) may be useful in keeping some heat on Iran without too much threat of escalation...

Good thing we're the good guys.

If so, Condi spilled the beans this morning, directly referencing the Kurdish Workers party as a problem that needs to be resolved. Maybe it was Gates, but I heard it on the press conference this morning.

So are embassies.Probably. Turkey and Iran have been shelling seperatist positions in Kurdistan for years now (pre-US invasion), and I've even seen reports of Turkish troops crossing the border in the hundreds or even thousands at times. Longer-term, there's also the Turkish opposition to Iraq becoming strong enough to enforce water rights along the Tigris/Euphrates to worry about.I'm not really sure at this point what the Iranians could do that would be over the top - they've blown up our barracks in the past, and we're finding factory made IED's and weapons directly from Iranian factories, along with Pasdaran officers in Iraq. At least now it seems like we're at least going after their proxies in al-Sadr, etc, which is a start. Also might be useful to note there are at least 4 different seperatist factions in Iran - the Kurds in the NW, the Khuzestani Arabs in the SW (sitting on the oil), the Azeris up north and the Baluchis near Pakistan/Afghanistan - and the Iranians have accused the British soldiers in Basra of stirring up the Arabs in the SW.

Didn't this happen on 24 already?:rolleyes:

I think the chances of the USA starting a war with Iran are almost zero.

I think that there is a very good chance that the USA is drawn into a war with Iran, most likely prompted by either an unprovoked Iranian attack on Israel or an Iranian response to Israel bombing their nuclear facilities.

Nope, this is a popular misconception. They are not sovereign, but do have special rights. Here is a link describing their status.

hxxp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070110055033AArqDLB

Considering the Iranians are actively training and supplying insurgents killing American soldiers, and that in some cases Iranian operatives may be employing devices directly against US troops, I would say that you have your question backwards.

LOL! That's just made my day :D

Hey, Mac, stop with the political comments and get back to work on your game.

Seriously, the new version, SAAP 2007, looks interesting. I haven't really given it a spin yet, but I have downloaded. It has some things I think I'll like.

I don't think so.

President Bush:
So Bush says he will attack Iran and Syria, says he has already ordered carrier groups to the area, then attacks Iranian consulates. What more can he do to imply that we are going to attack them? Bush has already launched an ill-conceived, disasterous war against a country one letter off. I don't see how the odds of starting a war with Iran is zero.

Even if President Bush were desperate for a war with Iran, he knows that the odds are extremely high that the USA will be drawn into an Israel-Iran war within the next few years.

If the US is drawn into a war to defend an ally, it can then rely on more international support and the President will not take the heat for starting the war.

Fixed it for ya.

Israel and Iran don't share a border. Neither has the desire nor the ability to occupy nor invade the other. The odds of an Israel/Iran war in the next decade, let alone the next couple of years, that we would need to be drawn into are extremely small. I could see Israel conducting air raids into Iran, and maybe Iran lobbing missiles into Israel in response. But neither side wants a full scale war, there is nothing to gain from it. So the odds of it happening are extremely small.

Similarly, Iran doesn't want war with the US. They have nothing to gain, it would be stupid. If a war happens, it's because we want it to happen. Look, if we are going to constantly threaten Iran, invade its neighbors, openly call our goal there regime change, and have our President in a national speech say that Iranian "interference" in Iraq won't be tolerated, it shouldn't be a surprise that Iran gets pissed and works with Iraqi elements to attack US forces in Iraq.

fixed

Only thing is that the people in charge of US foreign policy have the desire and THINK that they have the ability to invade and occupy Iran. Moreover, those same people think that chaos in the middle east is a good thing. The neocon plan all along was to attack Iran, so while I don't think an attack is imminent, you can't discount it.

I do discount it, utterly. It's a liberal fantasy, not a neocon fantasy.

I seriously doubt that many in the foreign policy community really believe that a conventional war with Iran can be won quickly or decisively. Foreign policy decision-making is done with a calculus that involves desire and feasibility. If the latter is lacking, the former is rendered moot.

If the US were to actually attempt an ejection of the theocrats in Teheran, I would suspect that destabilization attempts via sponsorship of assorted dissident, insurgent and even terrorist groups in Iran would be more likely than direct US involvement. A low-reward strategy to be sure, but it is also low-cost and low-risk.

I'm not talking about the foreign policy community. The foreign policy community thinks that we should withdraw from Iraq and negotiate with Iran and North Korea. What we are doing is escalating things in Iraq, threatening Iran, and ignoring North Korea. The foreign policy community is not in control. When has the current administration ever taken a low-risk, low-cost foreign policy action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

Excellent

Hey, something in the American constitution says game designers or Australians do not have a right to free speech? That's the second time I've been told to get back to game design :eek:

In fact, it was not so much a political comment, JW, but applauding a delicious piece of irony. I probably disagree with Bee on Iraq/Iran but I burst out laughing when I saw his post.

And besides I was working at 2 o'clock this morning on new figures for the match presentation :(

;)