War with Iran


Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2006
I saw an article today on yahoo news about the bush administration making the case that Iran is supplying/training Iraqi rebels. The arguments are very reminiscent in style of the classified intelligence reports that (incorrectly) justified the Iraq war. Last week we moved another carrier group into the area.

Edit: Snipped a comment that could be misconstrued.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Iran was training the Iraqi insergents. Wouldn't surprise me in the least! Does that mean we should head in and start fighting there, I don't think so. And by the way, I don't wish harm on anyone, including the President.
It wouldn't surprise me if Iran was involved in Iraq either. Imagine if Russia invaded Canada, can you imagine that we *wouldn't* stick our nose in it?

All the signs though are pointing to Bush wanting to hit another country on his axis of evil. I hope he is stopped from doing that, or runs out of time before he's done. Its just scary to me how little control the country has over who he wants to go to war with. We really are dependent on this guy who's turning out to be a war monger. He's getting thousands upon thousands of people killed and making America a more dangerous and less free country as a result.

I think we need to revisit the war powers act. Its wrong for a president to be able to take us into a "first strike" situation without congress's approval. Retaliatory strikes sure, limited CIA type engagements sure, but this "pre-emptive" nonsense really makes us vulnerable to a crazy president. The guy could take us into world war 3 without so much as a nod from anyone else.
I would agree that I do think that Iran is helping the resistance in Iraq. Having said that I don't want to go to war with another country. I heard this morning that things were getting a little heated and that Bush was thinking of pulling out of the area. I don't no how true that is though.
I too think that Iran is probably helping out Iraq. Yet...I don't think war on yet another front would be a good idea. I thought the troops were already being stretched to their limits as it is.
Yes, I don't see how we could effectivly go to war on another front at all. But it sure looks like that may happen everytime you turn around. I sure hope not.
It would not surprise me in the least to find that Iran is involved with Iraq. Actually, I would be more surprised if they were not. but I think we need to finish cleaning up our current situations before we embark on any new additions to the pile.
It seems like the consensus opinion both in this forum and by many Democrat Senators is that Iran is actively fighting us in Iraq. It looks like they are providing men and weapons as well as training. But it also looks like those of you who have commented believe that is ok. I will give you my two cents worth…

Iran has been at war with us since the 1970’s. They have captured US citizens and they have attacked US targets abroad. Before Sept 11th, Iran’s surrogate Hezbollah had killed more US Citizens than any other terrorist organization. Now they are training people to kill US service men in Iraq, they are providing members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and they are providing weapons manufactured in Iran. No matter how we view the situation, Iran views itself in open warfare with the United States. So what do we do?

I actually agree with many of the post on here. I think to rush into an invasion of Iran right now would be a bad idea. If things were in much better shape in Iraq, that might be different. However, right now we need to focus our ground forces in Iraq and get that country stabilized.

On the other hand, I think increased operations along the Iran / Iraq border would be helpful. I also think air strikes on targets within Iran might help. But no matter what, attempting to negotiate with the Iranian government is probably one of the worst ideas available. Iran has no desire for anything other than more US blood in Iraq.

I have argued many times that we were already in World War III. I don’t believe President Bush took us there, I believe our enemies have been fighting us for years without us really fighting back.
Andy, I'm interested to know why you specifically mention Democrat senators. Do Republican and other independent senators not believe that this is the case so much? Or, perhaps you're presuming that everybody knows that they pretty much unanimously believe this to be the case? I'm really not quite sure.

Now, here's two cents for the thread: an enemy is but in name.
Sorry Dong,

I didn’t mention Republican Senators because I haven’t seen many of them quoted on the issue at all. I talk about the Democratic Senators because when it comes to a war with Iran, they are the least likely to want to have anything to do with it. They are also the least likely to want us to succeed in Iraq.

I am not sure I follow your “an enemy is but in a name” thought. Iran has to be near the top of our list on enemies. No matter what we decide to do about Iran, they have killed many Americans, and hope to kill many more.
I think I'll continue to be cryptic for the time being: success is dependent on the goals.
I am a little lost on where you think that we think it is O.k.? I read over the posts and I really did not get the impression that we thought what they were doing was O.k. I will agree with you that I to feel that we have been at odds with Iran for along time and it would not surprise me in the least if we ended up in an war with them.

Perhaps “o.k.” was the wrong choice of words. It seemed like most of the comments were along the lines of, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran is involved in Iraq, but I hope we don’t go to war with them.”

Perhaps I am misreading these post, but to me they say that some of the people posting in here acknowledge that Iran is involved in killing our soldiers, but don’t want to do anything about it.

Am I wrong?
If we don't put any cap on how far we will escalate this self-created conflict, we'll end up at war with everyone. Its not that anyone wants Iranians killing our soldiers, its that even if they are engaged in some limited way thats preferable to the losses we would suffer in a further-prolonged engagement in the middle east. Remember we wouldn't have any losses if we weren't there in the first place.

Beyond just the casualty numbers we'd be looking at in Iran, the plan forward gets even more murky than it is with just Iraq on our plate. We'll anger and cost the Russian's money. Syria and Turkey will wonder how imperialistic the US is becoming as they watch us storm from neighbor to neighbor. North Korea will rush construction of their nukes, since they'll be the only "axis-of-evil" member left uninvaded.

All this because of the unsupported position that we cant negotiate with enemies in the middle east. So I guess I'll ask again, maybe more directly than Dong: What is our end game in Iraq and the Middle East? I'm asking what is the strategic goal, and how does war with Iran bring us closer to achieving it compared to say ...diplomacy?
Our end game in Iraq is a self sufficient government, capable of handling it’s own responsibilities, and dealing with threats on its own within its boarders. In the Middle East in general, we continue the processes that have long been established there. We don’t pursue military options unless we are forced too. In Iran, it is a little more dicey because they are actively killing our soldiers. Senator Clinton has said Iran “must” not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. How far is she willing to go to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? And what do we do when the EU says that they don’t believe negotiating or implementing sanctions will help in Iran?