Spongegod

Or will it turn into another Iraq? Another Vietnam? America isn't at Cold War levels anymore...they can't even handle Iraq...how will they take down Iran?

cape_royds

Depends what you mean by "take down."

The USA can certainly destroy Iran as a functional state: destroying Iran's regular forces, demolishing its economy, and devastating its cities and towns.

Whether the USA could successfully replace the current Iranian government with a self-sustaining friendly client regime is, however, quite a different question. That would require a long and costly war of occupation--possible but probably not worth it.

Try deterrence instead.

cuba

I don't think America has the capability to occupy Iran since it is already so overstretched. I agree with the rest of cape royds

__________________
Collins Class rule!

Castellano

I don't think invasion/occupation is on anybody's table. The iranian question is actually the iranian nuclear question. We have been living for years with state sponsored terrorism from Iran, but nukes bring the whole thing into a new level. The US can certainly take down the sites, and there is nothing militarily that Iran can do about it. But their main asset for retaliation are those sleeping cells....

cuba

I don't think bombing iran will achieve much in the long run. In thirty or so years time, when America might no have the capability to enforce any sanctions on Iran, this "rogue state" would have recovered from a strike and would be more than capable of acquiring a bomb.

Although it may well be too late now, i think diplomacy is/was the only solution.

Either that or removing the current government from power... apparently half of iran's population is under the age of 24.

I'm all over the place today. Hopefully POL1101 will change that.

lwarmonger

Which means we bomb them again? Or even nuke them? I don't see how thirty years really changes our respective military capabilities except more in our favor (barring Iranian development as a nuclear power).

You would probably have said the same thing in 1938.

Regime change is not something the US can enforce on Iran right now, and there is nowhere near enough support for an internal revolution to succeed.

imishin

Why do anything with Iran anyways? According to a relatively recently released US intelligence report Iran stopped its nuclear weapons proliferation program in 2004. So you're going to bomb someone based on a hunch? Or are you just looking for excuses to spend billions on that missile shield of yours? A ridiculous undertaking since even if Iran does come up with a bomb it is kind of impossible to fit a 1st generation device (like the one N Korea has) on a missile, it has to be dropped from a bomber.

On topic: Yes I am sure America can take down Iran in a war, but as a consequence, as always, it will create more terrorists than it kills.

Castellano

"Why do anything with Iran anyways?... A ridiculous undertaking since even if Iran does come up with a bomb it is kind of impossible to fit a 1st generation device (like the one N Korea has) on a missile, it has to be dropped from a bomber."

imishin


Or go off inside an innocent looking container as it arrives Rotterdam Harbor, with catastrophic harm.

Would the Iranian regime do something like that?

Given the right circumstances, I really wouldn't want to find out. And also, I don't want to know how the Iranian regime protests would sound in the middle of another cartoon row, given the knowledge that Iran is possesion of nukes. But pretty menacing I'm sure. Pretty menacing for our entire civilization, which certainly includes Russia.

Russia's position in this matter doesn't make any sense. Are you telling me seriously that it serves Russia's national interest to help Iran buy time at the UN and elsewhere?

The russian foreign nomenklatura must be quite sure this won't ever turn against them, right?

It is really quite puzzling to think why the hell are they doing this. Even considering Putin et al. outlook, the pleasure of watching the americans, israelis and west europeans running into trouble does not compensate the pain derived from the risks associated.

Perhaps there a is complex power game that I'm missing, but I doubt it.

It really demands an explanation.

Having said that, Russia's offer to produce the fuel, a couple of years ago I think, was the best diplomatic way out of this.

cuba

If it took decades for Britain to loose it's naval supremacy it's not hard to believe that the US can loose a lot of military power in such a short period of time.

You can't really compare 1938 to 2008 and you can't say that you wouldn't have hoped for the same thing in 1938. Circumstances change. People learn from theirs' and history's mistakes. Diplomacy has also improved markedly since then and successful diplomatic solutions have been proven to work in the most unlikely of places.

I don't think nuking iran will do much for the US's already-poor reputation and i do think there are alternatives. I'm not saying that i disagree with any military response period (for example i agree with the invasion of afghanistan).

It's not like Iran can do anything with a nuclear bomb anyway (as previously mentioned).

m1tch311

Right now US army's stretched too thin. Now if the US pulled some outa Korea........ The Regime in Iran is increasingly unpopular with the young generation who i think would be willing to help the US establish a friendly state.

__________________
My RIGHT as an American to PWN!!

Officer of Engineers

There's only two brigades in South Korea.

__________________
Chimo

m1tch311

I mean more monatary wise, a lot of US money gets poured into south Korea.

zraver

Uhm no.

m1tch311

actually yes.. How do you think the US affords its lavish tip top facilities in south korea? The south korean say they help but not really thats all US defense spending. Its estimated to be like 15 billion a year

Shek

We've already pulled a brigade out of South Korea and sent it stateside due to Iraq.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3