Iran Crisis: What Happens Next?

[carpro]

Let the Israelis handle it.

 

[mnw]

Even if the Israelis did something it would still drag the West into the matter.

The UN might drag its feet to do something about Iran but they would slap sanctions on Israel in no time flat. Germany and France have to do a lot of talking before they act on terrorists but they would hit Israel hard and fast. In that case the US would most likely take Israel's side and so even then we could not stay out of it.

Maybe I am just pessimistic, but if it comes to military action with Iran we are looking at change to our way of life beyond what we could imagine.

 

[carpro]

There is less probability that the Iranians will force a fight with us if Israel takes out their nuke facilities. After what the President of Iran has said, Israel would be acting in self defense.

U.N sanctions against Iarael will do no good at all.

Germany and France will do nothing but talk.

And you don't think Iran with nuclear weapons will change your life? With their connections to terrorists? Will it not affect your life when Iran nukes Israel?

 

[mnw]

I think the concern is that if a war is started against Iran then it will almost certainly provoke other Islamic states to join in.

Do we know 100% that Iran will fight against the West with nukes? I am not sure. They must know that any nuclear attack would see retaliation on a scale to blow a whole in the planet the shape of Iran.

I could see it more going towards a "Cold war" situation.

 

[carpro]

I believe it is 100% certain they will nuke Israel when they are capable.

 

[mnw]

For me, I can not see how that would fit with Biblical eschatology. Though I know that is dependent on your stance.

Anyway, I guess we will see in the coming years.

 

[Scott J]

What will happen?

Who knows... but we probably know what won't happen. The west won't take the threat seriously enough to stop Iran from getting nukes. The US, and Bush in particular, is the only nation willing to take decisive leadership on something like this... and that type of action has already taken its political toll on Bush here. It is unlikely that he could get support for an effective military option against Iran.

Further, the situations in Iraq and Saudi Arabia could get much worse with action against Iran.

Liberals have effectively handicapped American ability to respond with their Iraq demagogury. In fact, the insurgents might have given up by now if liberals in this country didn't persistently give them encouragement that their "Vietnam"-like media strategy was working. They seem convinced with good reason that we will quit before they do.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by mnw:
I think the concern is that if a war is started against Iran then it will almost certainly provoke other Islamic states to join in.

Do we know 100% that Iran will fight against the West with nukes? I am not sure. They must know that any nuclear attack would see retaliation on a scale to blow a whole in the planet the shape of Iran.

I could see it more going towards a "Cold war" situation.

I doubt it. The Soviets, like us, didn't see "acceptable losses" from nukes as acceptable.

Radical Islamists a) doesn't care for the masses of Muslims that might also be slaughtered and b) have probably calculated that they could sponsor terrorist nuke strikes without leaving a clear target for retaliation. IOW's, they could send an obscure terrorists group in then wash their hands of the situation by arresting a few of them.

It is a no win situation to let Iran get nukes... but there is a near 100% probability that they will acquire them soon.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by mnw:
For me, I can not see how that would fit with Biblical eschatology. Though I know that is dependent on your stance.

Anyway, I guess we will see in the coming years.

I believe the nukes start exchanging inside 15 (my guess) years, and it does fit Biblical eschatology. The believers won't be here then. He will have called his ambassadors home, the tribulation begins, and wars and rumors of wars accompany the next 7 years of tribulation, culminating in the great war, where nukes fly.

 

[billwald]

Let them build their nuke. Big Deal.

 

[mnw]

To clarify, I don't believe Iran using weapons to destroy Israel before the rapture fits eschatology. And though they probably will try later, it will not work. So I do agree on that point.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mnw:
For me, I can not see how that would fit with Biblical eschatology. Though I know that is dependent on your stance.

Anyway, I guess we will see in the coming years.

I believe the nukes start exchanging inside 15 (my guess) years, and it does fit Biblical eschatology. The believers won't be here then. He will have called his ambassadors home, the tribulation begins, and wars and rumors of wars accompany the next 7 years of tribulation, culminating in the great war, where nukes fly. </font>[/QUOTE]I probably agree mostly with you guys on end times...

... and since my childhood have never found a reasonable way to fit the US into the period. Would the sudden demise of the US result in a world divided into 4 parts... none of which particularly cares for Israel? Could it be the destruction of the "Great Satan" that opens the door for the great peacemaker? Especially to our "allies" in Europe that would be rattled to the core.

Would a massive nuclear destruction of the US provide a strong enough "delusion" to cover the rapture?

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hillclimber:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mnw:
For me, I can not see how that would fit with Biblical eschatology. Though I know that is dependent on your stance.

Anyway, I guess we will see in the coming years.

I believe the nukes start exchanging inside 15 (my guess) years, and it does fit Biblical eschatology. The believers won't be here then. He will have called his ambassadors home, the tribulation begins, and wars and rumors of wars accompany the next 7 years of tribulation, culminating in the great war, where nukes fly. </font>[/QUOTE]I probably agree mostly with you guys on end times...

... and since my childhood have never found a reasonable way to fit the US into the period. Would the sudden demise of the US result in a world divided into 4 parts... none of which particularly cares for Israel? Could it be the destruction of the "Great Satan" that opens the door for the great peacemaker? Especially to our "allies" in Europe that would be rattled to the core.

Would a massive nuclear destruction of the US provide a strong enough "delusion" to cover the rapture? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't actually see any other cataclysmic event for America short of the rapture. It will cause great financial chaos plunging what's left into utter destruction. Of all peoples on earth, we Americans are the least likely to do well under that kind of destruction.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Liberals have effectively handicapped American ability to respond with their Iraq demagogury. In fact, the insurgents might have given up by now if liberals in this country didn't persistently give them encouragement that their "Vietnam"-like media strategy was working. They seem convinced with good reason that we will quit before they do.

There may be some "liberals" that feel this way. I certainly don't! Let me offer my opinion, although I know that a "liberal's" opinion is often scored regardless of what they say.

Maybe more "liberals" would be willing to give President Bush more slack if we felt we could trust him to tell us the entire truth before we commit ourselves to war.

I will also say that more "liberals" like me would agree to intervene if we saw that a rogue country, which Iran surely is, was actually producing a nuclear weapon with a reasonable intent to use it anywhere in the world. I know that this "liberal" would support such an action.

Believe it or not liberalism encompasses a wide diversity of beliefs, as does conservatism, I'm sure.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
To me the costs are justified in lives saved. Whatever the cost.

I don't want to hear anyone, and I mean anyone, blaming the oil companies if prices go up if we and/or our allies attack Iran.

 

[fromtheright]

I didn't blame the oil companies during the war in Iraq.

 

[KenH]

There sure were a bunch of people blaming the oil companies after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year.

 

[fromtheright]

That's a different story. The hurricanes were the fault of Pres. Bush and the oil companies, dontcha' know?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
I will also say that more "liberals" like me would agree to intervene if we saw that a rogue country, which Iran surely is, was actually producing a nuclear weapon with a reasonable intent to use it anywhere in the world.

Good point, Terry. I don't know that the American people have enough trust in the current administration after the intelligence fiasco with Iraq to believe its rhetoric toward Iran.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
That's a different story. The hurricanes were the fault of Pres. Bush and the oil companies, dontcha' know?

Yeah, I know. Some folks in Mississippi have filed a lawsuit against any oil company doing business in Mississipi and are claiming that the oil companies are responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Why a judge hasn't laugh these folks out of court is amazing to me.