Will there be a war with Iran?

[Sett]

Slapping sanctions on a country is the new cool thing to do instead.

[Jaundiced]

No. USA is not run by bunch of retards. They know what Iran has; a conventional, fully-functioning army as well as Russia and possibly China on their back.

You do know that Saddam had one of the most powerful militaries in the world in 2001..right?

Shock and Awe lasted two weeks.

[Aggrophobic]

I don't think you'd call a war with Iran a "war", more like a police action.

One hell of a "police action" in that case.
The Iraq war will seem like nothing in comparison.

But if Trump pulls out of the nuclear deal who knows. Iran will no doubt pick up where they left off.

[stankmouth]

God I really really hope not. When are they gonna come to their senses over there?

[Orange Joe]

lmao. I heard this exact statement from so many people voting for Trump.

"I'm Not voting for Hilary, she is going to put us in a war"

[ringpriest]

If you say you're against war but then surround yourself with neocons who make provocative statements about regime change, then who is to be believed?

The one saying he's "against war" is also a pathological liar - that said, he's also a foolish and ignorant craven egomaniac; I expect whether the US ends up in a war with Iran will depend on who has his ear and what catches the attention of his immature yet demented mind. Trump will likely go to war against someone at some point - he'll be searching for his "short and victorious war" (I suppose there's an outside chance he'll want to go down in history as a peacemaker instead, but peace is a lot more work than starting a war is.)

War against Iran - even if the US "wins" it would be an utter disaster; doubtless the Chinese (and Russians) are doing everything in their power to make it happen. (So that would be a "yes" I guess - Trump has demonstrated zero self-awareness or capacity for critical thinking, and might as well have labels on strands of his hair saying "pull here".)

- - - Updated - - -

Iran is far stronger than anything else you've encountered since WW2.

Oh, come on now - surely the country that has been unable to vanquish the Taliban since it invaded Afghanistan fifteen years ago, and is now in the process of destroying Mosul in Iraq while capturing it for the second time a dozen years after the first time will have no problems with a larger, more populous, united, and advanced nation between the two of them.

[Corvus]

Oh, come on now - surely the country that has been unable to vanquish the Taliban since it invaded Afghanistan fifteen years ago, and is now in the process of destroying Mosul in Iraq while capturing it for the second time a dozen years after the first time will have no problems with a larger, more populous, united, and advanced nation between the two of them.

There is a vast, vast difference between a stand up conventional fight and an insurgency. In the days prior to the First Gulf War all the naysayers were saying the exact same thing about the Iraqi army - it was the most powerful army that the US had faced since WWII. And it got absolutely crushed in a very, very short period of time. Then the exact same thing happened a few years later. The problems only occurred later when there was no real transition plan which led to the insurgency.

Remember that during the Iran-Iraq war that Iraqis were the smaller, more technologically advanced army - the Iranians resorted to numbers and human wave attacks, including by children.

A conventional war between Iran and the US would be hopelessly lopsided. The problems would occur afterwards in an occupation was attempted. Though I'm sure the Saudis would be quite happy to take over occupation duty given that they don't exactly believe in human rights...

[Crispin]

Who is "we" dude? No one is going to ask Denmark what the fuck they're going to do. USA has invaded Iraq for no reason. Did they ask Denmark? USA would invade Iran, without taking the permission from mighty Denmark, if they think they could pull this up.

I see you still havent gotten a clue about western alliances, Denmark among many other small nations were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. while the US have the military strenght to beat down anyone on this planet, they arent interested in becoming a pariah state, which is avoided by having several alliance countries join their wars. So when friends of mine join their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'll say we, because Danes are fighting next to Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch etc. etc.

[Kallisto]

If Trump does as he claimed he would and pulls out of the anti-nuclear treaty with Iran, Iran would probably restart their nuclear program in relatively short order. This might not immediately mean war, but would lead to increasing tension between Iran and Israel that would (imo) ultimately result in Israel striking Iranian nuclear sites and draw the U.S. into that conflict.

Sad thing is pulling out of the treaty will likely push Iran into looking at the weapons. Which funny enough before the treaty was in place had MI6, CIA and Mossad all in agreement that Iran was showing no interest in doing.

Bush took a hard line because Shia militia were being at least funded by elements within Iran. Bibi has to take a harder line because he has to appease certain elements within his coalition within the Israeli government. Which is why pretty much for a good decade, maybe two the line has always been the same. "Iran is 5 years away from a Nuke. It was said in early Bush years and even today the more anti Iran focused groups are telling us 5 years.

[Mavett]

Direct engagement? very unlikely, those who oppose Iran are perfectly fine with them bleeding out manpower and resources in Syria and to a lesser extent in Yemen.

[Deleted]

I see you still havent gotten a clue about western alliances, Denmark among many other small nations were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. while the US have the military strenght to beat down anyone on this planet, they arent interested in becoming a pariah state, which is avoided by having several alliance countries join their wars. So when friends of mine join their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'll say we, because Danes are fighting next to Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch etc. etc.

Plz tell me this guy is trolling...

and LOL sweden? Ur aware they r neutral state n not in Nato?

[lockedout]

No and we're not going to war with North Korea either.

Of course not they don't have any oil and aren't near anything of value.

[Crispin]

Plz tell me this guy is trolling...

and LOL sweden? Ur aware they r neutral state n not in Nato?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partic...during_Freedom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-...%E2%80%93_Iraq

Because only NATO countries participated in the 2 wars amirite? Like South Korea and Ukraine, oh wait. The issue here is your ignorance.

[Flurryfang]

Sorry to say, but in the current day and age, there is a long way from talking to action. Trumps people can easily say that Iran is gonna be trouble very soon, and they might be right, but going to war takes much more then just a hunch of danger. With the opening of trade with Iran, there is alot more to gained from keeping peace and increaseing trade, then actually going to war and maybe getting into trouble with more middle-eastern countries.

[Ravenblade]

The US has proven to be very hannibal'esque in the last two decades. Winning battles and defeating their enemies they can but using their victories they cannot. This won't change with Trump and his legion of finest cockwombles.

[caervek]

Unless something changes drastically, like a violent coup in Iran (not likely) then there isn't much chance of Iran attacking anyone. Which means any war would have to be instigated by the USA. Due to the current political climate and international opinion on the USA's love of starting wars (and it's bullying of Iran) it's highly unlikely the international community would help the USA attack Iran just because it felt like it, so the USA would be alone in doing so.

Now I am not saying that the USA would have trouble battering Iran (it wouldn't), but it would face widespread condemnation and perhaps even sanctions for doing so and the resulting political damage of such an attack would surely be enough to make any president, even Trump, think twice.

I vote no.

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that Saddam had one of the most powerful militaries in the world in 2001..right?

Please tell me this is sarcasm? in 2001 Saddam's military was down to less that 40% of what it was during Desert Storm (where they lost) and most of their equipment was dilapidated, broken or unserviceable. To put it in perspective their long range supersonic bombers were still lying burnt out in abandoned air bases where they had been surprised a decade earlier (well the ones Iran didn't shoot down in the 80's anyway) and the majority of their air force was either AWOL, lost in '90 or broken.

The only thing Iraq had going for it was troop numbers, and they counted for **** once they started defecting and taking bribes.

[koontakent]

Maybe the USA should keep their dicks outta the middle east for 10 years and see how it all pans out for them.

Hell who knows, maybe they'll do well not having one of their countries bombed to shit make some money and get outta poverty and stop the cycle of shit that's being made from them.

Want to stop refugees? drop making their home a war zone. We keep talking about these people like they're a threat but fun enough the only countries they're hurting are their own

[Deleted]

For as long as Iran keeps on taunting the surrounding countries. A war is never off the table.

I will bet Saudi Arabia & Iran will go at it first. Then the west will get involved because they pledged to defend Saudi Arabia "Money talks"

I bet Pakistan and India will go at it first, seeing as Trump wants to be buddies with Pakistan. India might start some shit and then Pakistan could respond with nukes.

[Blobfish]

Look at all the Saudi puppets!

[ati87]

Sorry to say, but in the current day and age, there is a long way from talking to action. Trumps people can easily say that Iran is gonna be trouble very soon, and they might be right, but going to war takes much more then just a hunch of danger. With the opening of trade with Iran, there is alot more to gained from keeping peace and increaseing trade, then actually going to war and maybe getting into trouble with more middle-eastern countries.

I take your argument of ''restrained'' and I destroy the entire argument it with ''iraq''....

12) iran is just 2 years away from a nuclear weapon is something these warmongers are saying for the last 20 plus years
2e) Their is no evidence (and their is plenty of evidence) that Iran has any intention to build a nuke. To make a nuke and to build a nuclear power plant are 2 totally different things. At best they researched the possibilities of nukes (not develop mind you) at some point which is nothing really.

Here is the thing.\

It's worrisome when at least half the relevant advisers of the next president would push for war or conflict, especially given knowing their misguided opinions you can be sure that they wouldn't care if the ''evidence'' was made up or not (just like with Iraq)