Comments on: Next Stop Iran? http://themoderatevoice.com/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Mon, 28 May 2012 16:48:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: StockBoySF http://themoderatevoice.com/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-149030 StockBoySF Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:10:20 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/asia/middle-east/israel/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/#comment-149030 What worries me most about any strike against Iran is the talk of a "surgical" strike which will presumably take out targets. If we do use surgical strikes to take out targets then there is no need to send in US forces. Sort of like the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear plant. Syria, by the way, didn't invade Israel in retaliation. Anyway, that surgical strike that we hear from time to time in the new is (IMO) how Bush/Cheney will do it. The Bushies probably feel (just like they did with Iraq) that they won't need many (if any) ground troops and it will be easy. As Syria didn't invade Israel, we know that Iran won't cross the oceans and invade the US, so Bush and Cheney probably feel pretty secure to use some sort of surgical strike.<br><br>Of course any US strike against Iran will cause untold problems for the US (including higher oil/gas prices). <br><br>I'd like to ask McCain if he would support Bush if Bush delivered a surgical strike against Iran to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. <br><br>So a question for anyone who wants to take a guess- if the Bush/Cheney machine were to attack Iran (in whatever form you think he would), when do you think the attack would occur? Mid-October? Mid-Sept? During the Democratic convention, the same day Barack is nominated? :) <br><br>My guess would be early to mid-Oct. IF it were going to happen. I'm honestly not convinced it would happen and I really have a difficult time in getting a sense of whether this is a real possibility. I'm mostly just worried that Bush will attack, based on Bush's past words and actions. I What worries me most about any strike against Iran is the talk of a “surgical” strike which will presumably take out targets. If we do use surgical strikes to take out targets then there is no need to send in US forces. Sort of like the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear plant. Syria, by the way, didn't invade Israel in retaliation. Anyway, that surgical strike that we hear from time to time in the new is (IMO) how Bush/Cheney will do it. The Bushies probably feel (just like they did with Iraq) that they won't need many (if any) ground troops and it will be easy. As Syria didn't invade Israel, we know that Iran won't cross the oceans and invade the US, so Bush and Cheney probably feel pretty secure to use some sort of surgical strike.

Of course any US strike against Iran will cause untold problems for the US (including higher oil/gas prices).

I'd like to ask McCain if he would support Bush if Bush delivered a surgical strike against Iran to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

So a question for anyone who wants to take a guess- if the Bush/Cheney machine were to attack Iran (in whatever form you think he would), when do you think the attack would occur? Mid-October? Mid-Sept? During the Democratic convention, the same day Barack is nominated? :)

My guess would be early to mid-Oct. IF it were going to happen. I'm honestly not convinced it would happen and I really have a difficult time in getting a sense of whether this is a real possibility. I'm mostly just worried that Bush will attack, based on Bush's past words and actions. I

]]> By: JSpencer http://themoderatevoice.com/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-149029 JSpencer Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:05:13 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/asia/middle-east/israel/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/#comment-149029 What possible reason would there be to assume the Bush/Cheney administration would handle military action in Iran with any less ineptitude than they've shown in Iraq? They may be in their last year, but they are still capable of worsening thier own legacy... at the expense of others of course. What possible reason would there be to assume the Bush/Cheney administration would handle military action in Iran with any less ineptitude than they've shown in Iraq? They may be in their last year, but they are still capable of worsening thier own legacy… at the expense of others of course.

]]> By: runasim http://themoderatevoice.com/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/comment-page-1/#comment-149028 runasim Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:51:19 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/places/asia/middle-east/israel/20133/whats-behind-all-options-are-on-the-table/#comment-149028 This is a very convoluted analysis, saying, basically that anything is possible.<br><br>These games of 'chicken' are very dangerous, because while keeping Iran on the alert might be an effective show of strength, at the same time, scaring Iran has the effect of unifying the country behind its leaderhisp.<br><br>The prospect of another US unilateral attack might also unify the entire ME, the wary Sunni states joining Iran, against Israel as well as the US. <br><br>The atrike would be only the beginning of dire developments, not the end.of them. This is a very convoluted analysis, saying, basically that anything is possible.

These games of 'chicken' are very dangerous, because while keeping Iran on the alert might be an effective show of strength, at the same time, scaring Iran has the effect of unifying the country behind its leaderhisp.

The prospect of another US unilateral attack might also unify the entire ME, the wary Sunni states joining Iran, against Israel as well as the US.

The atrike would be only the beginning of dire developments, not the end.of them.

]]>