Will The U.S. invade Iran ?
94144
Question of when, not if.
532755
Probably, unless we want a mad man to build a nuclear bomb & blow up Israel - his wordes not mine or President Bush's words. Are you willing to sacrifice Israel & do you believe The President of Iran will stop with one country if no one stops him. The world will truly be his unless some stops him, as the greatest world power that falls to The United States. As a mother of a solidier it is not with pleasure that this is said. God bless our Military!
129651
Another war - If the U.S. attachs Iran, it's likely China and Russia will side with Iran.  That could get us nuked.
322678
Probably not. The US is currently involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cost of attacking Iran could prove to be very, very high. I imagine the Israelis will take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities at some point, should the US not intervene.
82143
It depends who does what.  If Iran announces it's got nukes, or blocks the Strait of Hormouz, then them.  If North Korea suddenly gets in into their heads to invade the South (or else decides to lob a couple at Japan -Koreans on both sides of the DMZ, along with most of Asia, have bitter memories of Japanese occupation.  Syria, perhaps, though not as likely, given the problems Bashir Assad already has.  However, Iran is the most likely of the three to go nuts -especially with those madmen Khameini & Ahmadinejad at the helm.  And Iran's the primary backer of the insurgency in Iraq -an invasion would force them to cut off ops in Iraq.  It's a strategic question more than anything else.  Iran makes the most sense, since they have a lot of influence in Central Asia & the Caspian -two areas we're trying to gain influence in, along with Russia & China.  It also makes life harder on the Saudis & Syrians, and means it's one less threat we have to face in the Middle East.  Or, it could be something totally out of the blue, caused by someone attacking an ally of the U.S. (though one could argue that's what Iran's doing in Iraq now).
307286
I think there is a strong chance that the War on Terror is going to continue into Iran.\n\n"A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:\n\n"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
109426
Not going to happen. Europe and the US going to war with Iran is a possibility.
210236
I don't see anything happening over Iran too soon.  Any US president would be insane to start a war with Iran and should be sent to a psychiatric facility immediately.  The EU and NATO definitely won't do anything to piss the Iranians off, Iran has missiles that are within range of their countries.  The UN doesnt have the balls to do anything either (plus you have Russia and China who'll oppose a lot on the Security Council).  Frankly, I think Israel is the only one who can be counted on to do anything at all--which in their case is going to be military action.  That, sadly, is going to drag us (the U.S.), if not Europe, in as well.
324242
There is no need to conquer Iran.  There probably will not even be a need to attack Iran, but if the need arises, we would still not need to conquer them.  Iran presents two strategic problems for the US: the leadership and, to a certain extent, the people are rabidly opposed to Israel; and they actively support, supply and finance the insurgency in Iraq.\n\nSo far we have let the Europeans ply their typically Chamberlainesque appeasement tactics to the nuclear problem, but sooner or later we will have to explain to them and to the Russians that Iran will simply not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.  Period.  The problem will then almost certainly go rapidly away.  If it does not, we will destroy their nuclear facilities from the air.  No need to invade.  Pay no attention to Iranian threats; the worst they can do is lob a few missiles at Israel, like Saddam did in the first Gulf War.\n\nThe second problem is more intractable, but it has, I believe, an indirect solution.  Invade Syria.  That would cut off Baathist support for the insurgents, sever the main route for insurgent communications, and send an unambiguous message to the other states in the region, including Iran.
618
Never. Iraq was not a succesful example for US. They'll put more economical pressure on Iran rather than military action.
348487
At this point, it looks like Iran will have to strike first.  Americans don't have the fortitude to start another war.
606651
I have no doubt that the USAA could easily defeat the Iranian Army and Air Force, though they would be harder to defeat than Iraq's.  A long war would cause considerable damage to Iran--at the very least all electrical generating stations would be bombed, you wouldn't be able to use your computer after the first day or two; and there would be no water supply as a result.  Having said all that, most Americans are probably against the war because we're already having enough trouble in Iraq trying to win the peace. \n\nKeep in mind that just because you have an atomic bomb doesn't mean you can actually deliver it anywhere.  If there were a war, any Iranian plane or missile trying to leave Iran would be noted and blasted out of the sky.  And I doubt Iran would try to use the Bomb inside its own country.  And if Iran did manage to drop the Bomb somewhere, it would give the US good reason for appropriate revenge on Iran.  Are you sure you want that?
1142993
soon, it definitely depends on Iran - if Iran does not comply and keeps going for nuclear weapons, we will be invading Iran for sure.  \n\nNear-term Iran, However I think China down the road may be WWIII if there ever is one.
666309
I am very concerned over this. As long as we have this administration anything can happen. Did we do anything with international rules in Iraq? If we dont handle Iran with diplomacy and use force we will surely live to regret it.
106571
Good god NO. If we attack Iran Syria will invade Iraq and our troops there will be flanked from the east and the west, not to mention what other Arab countries would jump in. Our troops in Iraq would get slaughtered.
537394
of Course ! that will be one of US hiding reason after WMD for invade Iran. Bush will take that option coz Iran is a threat for economic and politic of US.especially for rhe democracy program in middle east.
595556
The outcomes of such war would be pretty unsure, provided the US don't use chemical or nuclear weapons. The reason being that Iranians can be less equipped than the US but they are millions (millions of people in the Army i mean + those who would take a weapon should the US attack, exactly as it is happening in Iraq). \nDespite what many Americans or other people may think, Iranians are not stupid nor very much afraid of Americans. I think a war against Iran would end up exactly as the war in Iraq. Thay may fix Ahmadinejad but not all the clones coming out of there, turning the war into a permanent guerrilla, which in turn would cause a Vietnam-like situation. \nIt's what is happening in Afghanistan; it's what's happening in Iraq (And the US don't seem to envisage any tactics change) and it will also happen with Iran and Syria (Where Bush is planning to go immediately after Iran, as soon as he gets another valid excuse to gain some more oil fields). \nAnother point is: Are you all sure that EVEN IF, should the US win a war against Iran, causing millions of victims, that would be a victory in economic and diplomatic terms. No because what many out there didn't get yet is that in the world there are other countries too apart from the US and that means that certain actions are subject to the approvals of others too, at least because if you start a war next to my home country, i may have to handle refugees, terrorists etc. \nIn short, i think the outcomes of a war between US and Iran are very very far from seeing the Americans 100% winners. As a matter of fact they are not winning in Afghanistan nor in Iraq at the moment (It's a fact!).\n\nAnd mind me, all the above doesn't come from an antiamerican integralistic muslim, but rather from a Pro-America italian who has simply realized that the US are going a little bit too far in their so called "DEMOCRATIZATION" of middle east. And for those who may find my statements insulting, i'd suggest you all to wonder why the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia yet, since they are the root of the problem in that area...Will it be because Saudi Arabia produces 1/3 of all oil reserves in the world? Or because they enjoy a special relationship with the US? Or because they allow the US to keep their airforce bases over there (although not liking americans)?.....\nWinning a war is not simply killing the enemy and leaving the country. In these cases it's more about FIXING THE ONGOING ISSUES AND STABILIZING THE AREAS. \n\nThis would be best achieved with a President that is not Bush!A new Reagan would do as he had the brain it took and the balls to keep it real when situations get hard to handle, like in this case.