Toro
Diamond Member
Did I miss something? Is this 2005?
There might be a strike against Iran's nuclear program, but you don't know much if you think there is a full-blown invasion and occupation of Iran on the way.
Never mind. You people are fuxxing idiots who don't know how to read a super simple op. Where does it say anything about a full blown invasion and occupation? We don't have nearly enough troops to handle iran with the same logistics used on iraq and afghanistan. The op simply predicts we will attack iran and we have moved from simple planning to staging the logistical backdrops needed in iraq and afghanistan.
Your OP implies invasion and occupation.
If this administration attacks Iran, it is because they believe that Iran is very close to a nuclear weapon. This pretense was less necessary for the past administration.
The question then becomes, are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons? If you are comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons, then there is no reason to attack Iran. If you view Iran as a threat with nuclear weapons, then we attack them.
Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon in the future. It is the biggest and most powerful nation in the Middle East and is surrounded by nuclear powers, with Russia to the north, China, India and Pakistan to the east, and Israel and America in Iraq to the West. The surprise would be if Iran weren't trying to trying to build a nuclear bomb.
There is zero chance of an invasion of Iran but there is a significant chance of some sort of surgical strike. I don't think it will happen though. I'm not sure why the Nobel Peace Prize winner would be more inclined to strike than Bush, especially when Obama is publicly feuding with America's biggest ally in the region.