Are the U.S ready to invade Iran?

The U.S have 17,000 troops positioned off the coast of Iran, Supposedly carrying out "Exercises"
These exercises have been described as war games and this has been the largest military deployment since the invasion of Iran in 2003. A few weeks before the war with Iraq the US positioned ships off the coast of iraq and did the same thing.
Would the US be so predictable and do the same thing they did last time?

Link: US Navy in show of force in Iran

On Monday May 28th the US are due to attend talks in Iran about co-operation in Iraq.
I think it is unlikely that they will recieve their co-operation anytime soon and maybe the US are expecting this?

George Bush's current and final presidential term will end on 20 January 2009.
Tony Blair will step down as Prime Minister later this year, on 27 June 2007.
The impending invasion of Iran will almost certainly be timed with these factors in mind.

I think the most likely times for the war to break out would be either, very soon so that there would be a possibility of the war being over by the time George Bush's term is over. And when the new Prime Minister had been established in the UK.
Or in a couple of years when George Bush has left office.
I find the last one unlikely though as i find it hard to believe that they would want to put ships in place off the coast this far in advance




What are their intentions?

The US lacks the military strength to invade Iran. Attacking Iran is another thing. Whether the president of the United States is crazy enough to do so: yes. Whether it is worth it: no.

Those troops are probably there to protect US regional allies and to carry out minor operation in case of an attack.

There is no reason to invade Iran. It just isn't necessary. Just take out all of their infrastructure, sit back and watch the Civil War.

Judging from judging this Iraq invasion and the deaths that have resulted, I'd suggest that yes Iran is the very-prime target and should have been all-along, less the assault on America from Alqaida through Afghanistan.

Iran's the big number and will soon have the uncontrolled option of sending bad things to north America that North America and other Countries may not be so able to trace.
Iran must be dealt with swiftly and surely whether Israel or other 'deliverers' deliver the stoppage of threat. It's a matter of long term peace, I think?

Dallas

INVADE with 17k troops??????

wow.

Best of luck with that.

It is a flexing of the biceps of America, a little "oooo look at me" deal.. then the Iranians "play games" off the coast, and we watch, ect, ect..

No this is not an invasion, it would take something HUGE for the people to allow the to happen........ which you never know, it could happen.

this probably will happen, Iran will get blamed for something and Be labeled terrorists. it's what happens, our "cause" is terrorism. It's a reflection of Nazism, we're going to liberate them of their opressive government.

Not looking forward to the next few years...

Iran has always been a difficult country to take. Iraq is flat and covered by sand, Iran is rocky and mountainous. Lot of place to setup ambushes. Even if we had a huge invading force...(like 1m soldiers) it would be quite difficult. I would seriously hope that we dont mess with Iran. They have a decent size standing army with decent weapons supplied by the Russians...they also have a 100k man sub-army of nothing but suicide bombers...can you imagine 10-20-30 suicide bombings a day in downtown Tehran?


[edit on 1-6-2007 by Pfeil]

I firmly believe that iraq was to be a stepping stone on the way to invade Iran. But since Rumsfield and his merry bunch of neocons botched it so badly they cannot.

If we cannot make the capital of iraq safe when at least some of the population is on our side, Tehran with 3 times the population and ALL hostile to the invaders will be a non starter.

Of course Iraq was a stepping stone. Same goes for Afghanistan. It was a good idea in principle, but has failed as of yet. Maybe this article I read today could shed some light. Maybe Turkey will assist US forces in Iraq, while Israel and the US attack Iran.

abcnews.go.com...

Quite the article SBDAL I had thought Turkey was only interested in Northern Iraqi Kurds and their locality, but perhap's their growing more ambitious?
But I think we all, if not already, must deal with Iran. Perhap's Israel will take care of the initial rectification on Iran's nuc ambitions?

Dallas

The US economy ground to a virtual halt in the first quarter of this year. It has been anemic at best since the wars started. A few people are increasing their wealth to an obscene degree becuase of the war but the real American economy is gasping for air. If these chuckleheads in Washington decide to throw another couple of hundred billion dollars (that we don't have) into yet another war it will be like driving a stake into the heart of the country. The US is borrowing money to wage its wars. We're mortgaging the country.

The USSR was defeated not by any military confrontation but rather because they allowed themselves to be dragged into an arms race they couldn't sustain. It eventually bankrupted the country and resulted in its dissolution. Don't kid yourselves. The US is on very, very thin ice. The economic, international and trade fallout from a war with Iran could very well be unsurvivable. There's just no margin in it. Given the current administration's piss-poor track record for correctly assessing intelligence (a rather unfortunate word given what we've all come to learn) and the world-class cluster-f they've created in Iraq are you really ready to trust them when it comes to Iran?

Originally posted by Dallas
Quite the article SBDAL

I had thought Turkey was only interested in Northern Iraqi Kurds and their locality, but perhap's their growing more ambitious?
But I think we all, if not already, must deal with Iran. Perhap's Israel will take care of the initial rectification on Iran's nuc ambitions?

Dallas

Well I don't know if Turkey is growing more ambitious. If the Turkish army DOES cross the border into Iraq, I am sure it will not be without the consent of the US, it will be under the pretext of eliminating the PKK. Could that be true? Sure, but I feel there is more to it than that.

I love the fact that we're going to attack Iran for trying to develop nuclear technology when American Corporations are the ones selling it to them. You don't hear that on the 6 o'clock snooze though here's a link on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its not so much the US is going to bomb Iran for trying to develop nuclear technology-thats not the issue at all. The issue is that they wont provide full disclosure of their program. The world community and the US would be more than happy to let Iran have their trchnology if they would come completely clean on it and allow 100% access and monitoring to ensure they dont do anything suspect. There's your problem.

For the baby Hawks out there:

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed El Baradei told BBC radio today: "I have no brief other than to make sure we don't go into another war or that we go crazy into killing each other. You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran'".

Asked who the "new crazies" were, he said: "Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose your will by force."

The full article can be found here.

The whole premis behind this thread is wrong. The US is not going to invade Iran...it cant. Too bogged down in Iraq for that to happen. A STRIKE on Iran however is a completely different story and possibility. I do not think regime change is in the cards...that would take an invasion. I do think that naval and aerial bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities can/may be carried out but that is completely different than what this thread is insinuating.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The whole premis behind this thread is wrong. The US is not going to invade Iran...it cant. Too bogged down in Iraq for that to happen. A STRIKE on Iran however is a completely different story and possibility. I do not think regime change is in the cards...that would take an invasion. I do think that naval and aerial bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities can/may be carried out but that is completely different than what this thread is insinuating.

Wether we're too bogged down or not, we really don't have a choice. Iran will not just sit by idly while we bomb the hell out of them from the comfort of the sky. They'll send their troops into Iraq (worst case scenario). If not that, they'll send in their suicide bombers to blow up American troops in Iraq, Hezbollah would most likely follow suit in Israel. With that scenario a ground invasion would be a must.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
INVADE with 17k troops??????

wow.

Best of luck with that.

It is a flexing of the biceps of America, a little "oooo look at me" deal.. then the Iranians "play games" off the coast, and we watch, ect, ect..

No this is not an invasion, it would take something HUGE for the people to allow the to happen........ which you never know, it could happen.

I totally agree with you! There are so many people on ATS shouting that Iran should be invaded and destroyed for the sake of longterm peace. The truth is, if the US invades, they'll be in for longterm war!

The Islamic Republic of Iran has two kinds of armed forces ... totalling about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totalling around 900,000 trained troops.

...

Iran also has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized. This is the largest number of troop mobilization in the world.

...

Iran's military doctrine is to defend its territorial integrity only.


en.wikipedia.org...

So yeah, you could bomb the hell out of them, but you could never invade and hope to kill all 11 million of them... And what's the point in invading a country who's military doctrine is to defend territorial integrity only? There can be only one reason, and that is to provoke a fullblown war, as Iran would never strike first...

Oh they wont sit idly by while we bomb the piss out them. I never doubted that, but Iraq didnt sit idly by all the times we've bombed them either. Iran will get nuked if they go too far in their response however.

Isn't it clear by now that it doesn't matter who the US goes to war with? It just matters that the war lasts as long as possible so the military contracts make as much money as possible?

Human life, the US soldiers life is worthless in the eyes of the US government. But the equipment he is carrying is hoped to be destroyed so the military industry can make more of it.

How do you destroy the soldiers equipment? Send him to war and get him killed... it's easy if you leave the soldiers outnumbered.