What would it take for you to justify military action against Iran?

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

that's good

i'm not just talking invasion, though, ANY military action like bombing 'strategic' locations (most likely with DU weapons)

and Commy, what if some incident happens here or somewhere else and they say they linked Iran to the terrorists (kinda like they claimed Iran armed the insurgency). Like a small nuclear device went off and the government claims the material came from Iran?

again I don't think the Iranian government would be that stupid. Of course the US military machine is looking for any excuse, and that scenario would certainly provide that reason to invade. But so far Iran has complied with every UN resolution, allowed inspectors to come in, have been very open about their nuclear program-which so far has been entirely about energy.

Do I think an invasion would be justified, even if Iran was linked to terrorists that hit the US? NO. The Iranian people should not suffer as a result of their government's (in this case hypothetical) insanity.

And again, I don't think Iran is that stupid. Even Saddam Hussein, in his final years, was complying to every UN resolution, was negotiating with every international agency that wanted to check things out....

Going head to head with the most powerful military machine on the planet is suicide, and they all know this.


Back to the hypothetical...if Iran were tied to terrorist attacks against the United States I still would be opposed to US military action against Iran...for reasons stated above. Governments and citizens should not share the same fate, especially in the case of Iran, where the people have little say as to what the government does.


Its like the nuclear strike debate. Why would Russia pursue a first strike policy knowing they would be annihilated hours later? Or vice versa. If you know you are going to be removed from power by doing a certain thing, going by patterns since written history began, most rulers would choose not to pursue that policy. Most often the first act of anyone in power is to pursue policies that will keep them in power. Throw radical fundamentalism in the mix and I don't think it changes anything. Look at the US, maybe the most radical fundamentalist group on the planet, right wing hawks. Their goal is to keep power at all costs, even if that includes invading inconsequential islands like Grenada every now and then, if only to ensure their credibility.


I think it more likely we will see provocateurs...people willing to commit violence in order to give the US an excuse to start a war with Iran.

Its a standard operating procedure to follow 3 basic steps when dealing with governments that don't cooperate with the US.

Step 1 involves bribery on a massive scale, usually through the WB or IMF.

Step 2 involves the Jackals setting up a coup (failed in Venezuela recently due to popular support for Chavez-the situation is similar in Iran). Assassination is also an option.

Step 3 is outright invasion.


Saddam originally subscribed to the bribery thing, that eventually failed, so they went on to a coup. that also failed. they tried to assassinate him but his knowledge of CIA operations (having been on their payroll as a jackal) prevented them from doing this. So invasion was used. twice.

In the case of Iran, they have plenty of resources, they probably won't subscribe to bribery. Popular support within the country is very high as well, so a coup won't work. Assassination may be used, may have been tried, but again, popular support is o high another will take his place. This leaves invasion as the only option left for Washington in their pursuit of sovereignty over the region, one I think they will choose.