Do you think that the U.S. will go to war with Iran in 2013?

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

First, the USA is not going to commit conventional ground troops in either N. Korea or Iran.

US has ~30000 troops already in Korea. If you think US is going to back out if it comes to war, you are mistaken.

Fourth, the US military would primarily provide air and logistic support with a sprinkling of special operations forces and perhaps a Marine expeditionary force in reserve. This is primarily because the S. Korean military is highly capable and would take the lead in any conventional ground operation against Pyonyang. Hence, US casualties in the event of a ground war would be very light.

Ok, wrong. S. Korean military even as late 2012 had battle plans that basically called for US help in case of invasion. Generals were talking about how we can't win another war against NK without US help even in late 90's and early 2000's. SK military does not have the hardware necessary to counter a full invasion. SK needs US hardware and expertise, not just some logistical support and sprinkling of spec ops and perhaps a MEF.

[Pope Joan]

Let Israel fight their own battles. I am sick and tired of being their proxy.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Let Israel fight their own battles. I am sick and tired of being their proxy.

Iran and their efforts at nuclear armament is not just Israel issue. There is a reason UNSC whole heartedly supported Iran sanctions. Stopping or delaying nuclear proliferation ought to be concern of all nations committed to peace.

[Obamacult]

First, the USA is not going to commit conventional ground troops in either N. Korea or Iran.

US has ~30000 troops already in Korea. If you think US is going to back out if it comes to war, you are mistaken.

Fourth, the US military would primarily provide air and logistic support with a sprinkling of special operations forces and perhaps a Marine expeditionary force in reserve. This is primarily because the S. Korean military is highly capable and would take the lead in any conventional ground operation against Pyonyang. Hence, US casualties in the event of a ground war would be very light.

Ok, wrong. S. Korean military even as late 2012 had battle plans that basically called for US help in case of invasion. Generals were talking about how we can't win another war against NK without US help even in late 90's and early 2000's. SK military does not have the hardware necessary to counter a full invasion. SK needs US hardware and expertise, not just some logistical support and sprinkling of spec ops and perhaps a MEF.

1. these troops are a token that acts more as a political deterrent to attack than any substantive military force. Indeed, these troops represent a single division that is a drop of water in a large sea in the unlikely event of a ground war on the peninsula.

2. you conveniently omitted the most important and critical contribution the USA offers to a ground war on the peninsula, namely air dominance that would easily enable S. Korean forces to check and overrun any N. Korean offensive without the introduction of US ground troops.

[Freiheit Reich]

I hope so, I would love a long ground based war and maybe I can get another chance to work in the Middle East. There are jobs that pay well there. I hope KBR gets the contract again. The company is corrupt and likes to make life bad for employees (extreme rules, constant threats to fire people for minor violations, putting unfriendly and rude people in charge as managers a lot, etc.) BUT jobs pay well so it is worth putting up with the bad lifestyle and work conditions.

Just play the game, say 'yes sir' no matter how bad your manager is and collect your paycheck.

[Alien Space Bats]

these troops are a token that acts more as a political deterrent to attack than any substantive military force. Indeed, these troops represent a single division that is a drop of water in a large sea in the unlikely event of a ground war on the peninsula.

Actually, those troops do provide somewhat more than just a "tripwire services". We maintain quite a few advanced rocket artillery (MRLS) assets in South Korea (210th Fires Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division), specifically for the purpose of pasting advancing KPA armored columns (there's a reason why the combination of MRLS and clustered sub-munitions is sardonically known as a "grid removal system"). As a sidebar,roughly 10% of 2nd Division (maybe more, now that part of the division is fighting in Afghanistan) is comprised of KATUSA's (South Koreans serving in the U.S. Army), an arrangement that has been in place since 1950.

Of course, this just underscores my assertion that the DPRK can't possibly win a war with the ROK sans nuclear weapons. The danger is that, knowing this, they'll use tactical nuclear fires on H+0:00 combined with all of the rest of what's expected should war come (conventional artillery, chemical weapons, etc.) in order to try and secure a decisive advantage right at the outset and exploit that advantage, before anyone can do anything about it. If that happens, Camp Casey (near Dongducheon [actually, Uijeongbu, for all you M.A.S.H. fans out there]) is likely to be on the target list. Camp Humphreys (near Pyeongtaek), not so much...

Fifth, the risk from Iran does not require a ground campaign to eradicate. Iran is a risk to export terrorism and proliferate fissile weaponry, technology and material. Hence, all that needs to be done is to bomb the shit out of a very focused target set -- suspected nuke sites and political centers. More likely, a few standoff missiles directed against critical technological and manufacturing facilities associated with Iran's nuke program would be sufficient to set back the program months, if not years. Probably more important would be the message to Iran from the West that nuke capability was not acceptable. A rational Iranian leadership would bellow and posture for a while, probably launch some missiles at Israel or perhaps some US targets, but they would back down in the long term.

You're correct in your general assertion, but not the details. We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iran, and likely won't (save for special forces, but those hardly count); for this small blessing, we can thank the American people, who wisely chose not to elect Mitt "47%" Romney (sadly, I can imagine the Romney foreign policy team wanting boots on the ground in Iran...), thereby helping us dodge that bullet.

As far as proliferating nuclear materials and technology, Iran would have to be very, very stupid to even think of such a thing — and while I can come up with a very long list of things that Iran's leadership are, "stupid" finds no place on that list. Such things can be tracked back to the proliferator, and — to steal a phrase from Ghostbusters, getting caught having helped someone build the nuke that evaporated some major European or American city would be Bad™.

It will take more than a few standoff missiles to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, or even set it back for any significant period of time, however. If any of that program lives in hardened facilities (which seems likely), it will likely take the use of B-2's delivering earth penetration ordnance (MOP's), which Israel does not possess (this helps explain why Israel wants the U.S. to be in on such a strike from the start).

Finally, on the last point: The political logic of a nuclear Iran does not actually make Iran any better off; if anything, it leaves Iran both more diplomatically constrained and militarily vulnerable. This is why diplomacy holds some hope of a peaceful resolution; President Ahmedinejad staked far too much of his political capital on the nation's nuclear program, and backing off that program would therefore be a political embarrassment for the Islamic Republic. The next Iranian President, however — whatever his politics — has the opportunity to carve out his own policy, especially because Ahmadinejad has since become so appallingly unpopular. Obviously, whatever he does needs the Ayatollah Khamenei's approval — but then Khamenei has always maintained a certain public ambivalence when it comes to nuclear weapons (and one that is probably genuine, at that).

So if the next Iranian President offers a deal on the sanctions in which Iran is either assured of the ability to enrich uranium to levels sufficient for medicine and commercial power generation, but not sufficient for use in a nuclear weapon, or in which Iran is guaranteed sanction-free access to such materials from abroad, then we have the broad shape of a bargain. This is especially true because the Israeli position on Iranian nuclear materials enrichment and possession (which is shared by many of the more hawkish voices in America) — namely, that Iran may not have or enrich any nuclear materials (meaning that the nation cannot use nuclear power generation or practice nuclear medicine in any form) — is politically unsustainable, at least in the U.S. (if not in Israel), on both humanitarian and environmental grounds.

[Regnum Dominae]

Won't happen.

[Obamacult]

Actually, those troops do provide somewhat more than just a "tripwire services". We maintain quite a few advanced rocket artillery (MRLS) assets in South Korea (210th Fires Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division), specifically for the purpose of pasting advancing KPA armored columns (there's a reason why the combination of MRLS and clustered sub-munitions is sardonically known as a "grid removal system").

These forces are token -- they primarily are in place to signal our political resolve to defend South Korea. The South Korean military is more than adequate to defend against a conventional North Korean ground attack.

The US does not need to station troops in South Korea for tactical military reasons because US air dominance in the event of a North Korean ground attack would destroy the North Korean army before they advanced far beyond the DMZ.

The only US forces we need in South Korea are spotters to laze the advancing enemy columns for the close air support from Japan and off shore carriers.

The danger is that, knowing this, they'll use tactical nuclear fires on H+0:00 combined with all of the rest of what's expected should war come (conventional artillery, chemical weapons, etc.) in order to try and secure a decisive advantage right at the outset and exploit that advantage, before anyone can do anything about it.

That would be destructive - but the danger would be to North Korea because it would cease to exist before it was able to fire more than a few missiles. Most likely, the US would disrupt and destroy artillery along the DMZ and missile sites inland before they were fired. Indeed, any mobilization of these weapons would be detected before hand and even a pussy like Obama would order a preemptive strike.

The American people would support Obama 100%.

You're correct in your general assertion, but not the details. We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iran, and likely won't (save for special forces, but those hardly count); for this small blessing, we can thank the American people, who wisely chose not to elect Mitt "47%" Romney (sadly, I can imagine the Romney foreign policy team wanting boots on the ground in Iran...), thereby helping us dodge that bullet.

Nobody, including Romney claimed that the USA needed conventional ground forces to deter the Iranian nuke program. What Romney (and Obama) have asserted is that all options should be on the table. This is diplomatic speak for "don't make nukes under any circumstances".

More importantly, as I have stated repeatedly, we don't need conventional US ground forces in Iran -- there are myriad indigenous ground forces available within Iran (Kurds, communists, nationalists, etc.) that we can leverage and support with arms, intel and money to undermine/destabilize the Iranian thugocracy on the cheap without risking a single US trooper.

If we get serious we have the ability to not only shut down Iran's nuke program -- we can effectively shut down their will to export to terrorist groups.

The goal being that we don't care if the mullah retain power -- they just need to shut down any hopes of regional hegemony. Live and let live -- on the terms of Western democracies.

Yeah, they have to eat a shit sandwich, but they are despots and we aren't. So fuck them. Liberty marches forward against despotic regimes, at least those that export tyranny.

This is essentially the conservative-libertarian doctrine --'if your an autocracy, that is your business, just don't export your shit society to neighboring nations'

As far as proliferating nuclear materials and technology, Iran would have to be very, very stupid to even think of such a thing — and while I can come up with a very long list of things that Iran's leadership are, "stupid" finds no place on that list. Such things can be tracked back to the proliferator, and — to steal a phrase from Ghostbusters, getting caught having helped someone build the nuke that evaporated some major European or American city would be Bad™.

Iran is a faith-based regime, they have enslaved and murdered thousands of their own people, not to mention the carnage that their terrorist beneficiaries have committed in the name of religion -- and you are willing to put your trust in a thugocracy that doesn't even trust their own people and has murdered them by the thousands?!

Moreover, Iran has been active in exporting fissile weapon delivery technologies to dangerous regimes like North Korea. We know they exported lethal sophisticated IED weaponry to the Iraq insurgents that killed hundreds of US troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis. We know they export lethal strategic missile weaponry to faith-based insurgents in the Middle East, most notably Syria and Lebanon. So what makes you think this dynamic will not change ?

Why do you trust the actions of a despotic regime that has the blood of thousands of innocents on its hands and doesn't trust its own people, instead murders them by the thousands for the 'heinous' offense of seeking representation?

More specifically, Iran doesn't need to use its nukes to achieve its tyrannical ends. It can simply threaten to use these weapons to blackmail nations in the region and undermine Western interests.

It will take more than a few standoff missiles to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, or even set it back for any significant period of time, however. If any of that program lives in hardened facilities (which seems likely), it will likely take the use of B-2's delivering earth penetration ordnance (MOP's), which Israel does not possess (this helps explain why Israel wants the U.S. to be in on such a strike from the start).

Dude, if the USA wanted to prevent Iran from obtaining nuke missiles -- it could get the job done in short order. End of story.

And if Israel wants advanced weaponry to shutdown the Iranian nuke program - it will get the advanced weaponry.

The only factor preventing this from occurring is a lack of political resolve in the halls of leadership in the USA and Israel.

Finally, on the last point: The political logic of a nuclear Iran does not actually make Iran any better off; if anything, it leaves Iran both more diplomatically constrained and militarily vulnerable. This is why diplomacy holds some hope of a peaceful resolution; President Ahmedinejad staked far too much of his political capital on the nation's nuclear program, and backing off that program would therefore be a political embarrassment for the Islamic Republic. The next Iranian President, however — whatever his politics — has the opportunity to carve out his own policy, especially because Ahmadinejad has since become so appallingly unpopular. Obviously, whatever he does needs the Ayatollah Khamenei's approval — but then Khamenei has always maintained a certain public ambivalence when it comes to nuclear weapons (and one that is probably genuine, at that).

Iran is moving toward acquisition of a nuclear bomb because it sees what happens to regimes that denounce or fail to acquire nuclear weaponry (Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad, etc) and they see what happens to regimes that acquire nukes (North Korea, Pakistan, India)

Hence, they understand that nukes guarantee some level of autonomy and protection relative to regimes that don't have the weaponry.

But make no mistake, Iran is trying desperately to gain a nuke capability -- this is not negotiable.

So if the next Iranian President offers a deal on the sanctions in which Iran is either assured of the ability to enrich uranium to levels sufficient for medicine and commercial power generation, but not sufficient for use in a nuclear weapon, or in which Iran is guaranteed sanction-free access to such materials from abroad, then we have the broad shape of a bargain. This is especially true because the Israeli position on Iranian nuclear materials enrichment and possession (which is shared by many of the more hawkish voices in America) — namely, that Iran may not have or enrich any nuclear materials (meaning that the nation cannot use nuclear power generation or practice nuclear medicine in any form) — is politically unsustainable, at least in the U.S. (if not in Israel), on both humanitarian and environmental grounds.

Iran doesn't need nuclear energy (it needs refineries and oil fired turbines for energy generation). Iran has plenty of natural gas and oil reserves to provide power on the cheap -- it doesn't need nuclear energy anymore than Saudi Arabia needs a nuclear power plant.

Iran doesn't need fissile material for medicine. This is a friggin smoke screen that even the Iranian people know is bullshit.

Iran is moving aggressively toward acquiring a nuke weapon capability to deter USA and Israeli attacks and allow them to become the regional hegemon.

Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon capability soon if Israel or the USA do not act.

in the event that Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon capability -- the non-proliferation treaty becomes toilet paper -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, and with it any non-state, faith-based actor with a few million bucks will have nuke capability as well.

Then I would advise against spending time around ports in great Western cities where ocean going container ships are docked because a tactical nuclear weapon will be denoted there within our lifetime.

But hey, at least law abiding Americans won't have any 'assault weapon' with mags over 10 rounds.

[Alien Space Bats]

Iran is a faith-based regime, they have enslaved and murdered thousands of their own people, not to mention the carnage that their terrorist beneficiaries have committed in the name of religion -- and you are willing to put your trust in a thugocracy that doesn't even trust their own people and has murdered them by the thousands?!

Moreover, Iran has been active in exporting fissile weapon delivery technologies to dangerous regimes like North Korea. We know they exported lethal sophisticated IED weaponry to the Iraq insurgents that killed hundreds of US troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis. We know they export lethal strategic missile weaponry to faith-based insurgents in the Middle East, most notably Syria and Lebanon. So what makes you think this dynamic will not change ?

Why do you trust the actions of a despotic regime that has the blood of thousands of innocents on its hands and doesn't trust its own people, instead murders them by the thousands for the 'heinous' offense of seeking representation?

Trust is the wrong word to use here.

Nations generally act in their own self-interest, and in general should be expected to behave in their own self-interest; the only caveat is that when a nation's perception of reality becomes skewed, it may need to have said perception of reality... er... "adjusted".

Iran doesn't need nuclear energy (it needs refineries and oil fired turbines for energy generation). Iran has plenty of natural gas and oil reserves to provide power on the cheap -- it doesn't need nuclear energy anymore than Saudi Arabia needs a nuclear power plant.

Iran doesn't need fissile material for medicine. This is a friggin smoke screen that even the Iranian people know is bullshit.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Read the Wikipedia article on Iran's energy sector. You'll find that the country suffers from overuse of oil and gas for energy generation, and a host of economic problems that stem from such overuse. Part of this problem is political: Iran subsidizes domestic oil and gas use in order to keep the cost of living down for its citizens, a move that results in tremendous energy inefficiency. Being able to transition to nuclear energy protects the Iranian people from future increases in the price of oil and gas, which are inevitable given global trends.

As for nuclear medicine, the materials needed for that are generated by small medical research reactors. There are a new generation of such reactors that use far less enriched uranium than before, but you still essentially need a nuclear reactor to create the radioisotopes needed for nuclear medicine.

And herein lies the problem: Iran could rely on foreign sources for these materials — if it could be certain that they wouldn't be embargoed. But right now asking Iran to ask the West not to do that comes down to that same word you refuse to use w/re to Iran: "Trust".

They don't trust us not to hold their cancer patients hostage, just as we don't trust them not to subsidize terror. And that's probably with good reason — on both sides, because we have, in fact, held back medical assistance to regimes we dislike. That's just a fact.

[Obamacult]

Iran is a faith-based regime, they have enslaved and murdered thousands of their own people, not to mention the carnage that their terrorist beneficiaries have committed in the name of religion -- and you are willing to put your trust in a thugocracy that doesn't even trust their own people and has murdered them by the thousands?!

Moreover, Iran has been active in exporting fissile weapon delivery technologies to dangerous regimes like North Korea. We know they exported lethal sophisticated IED weaponry to the Iraq insurgents that killed hundreds of US troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis. We know they export lethal strategic missile weaponry to faith-based insurgents in the Middle East, most notably Syria and Lebanon. So what makes you think this dynamic will not change ?

Why do you trust the actions of a despotic regime that has the blood of thousands of innocents on its hands and doesn't trust its own people, instead murders them by the thousands for the 'heinous' offense of seeking representation?

Trust is the wrong word to use here.

Nations generally act in their own self-interest, and in general should be expected to behave in their own self-interest; the only caveat is that when a nation's perception of reality becomes skewed, it may need to have said perception of reality... er... "adjusted".

Iran doesn't need nuclear energy (it needs refineries and oil fired turbines for energy generation). Iran has plenty of natural gas and oil reserves to provide power on the cheap -- it doesn't need nuclear energy anymore than Saudi Arabia needs a nuclear power plant.

Iran doesn't need fissile material for medicine. This is a friggin smoke screen that even the Iranian people know is bullshit.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Read the Wikipedia article on Iran's energy sector. You'll find that the country suffers from overuse of oil and gas for energy generation, and a host of economic problems that stem from such overuse. Part of this problem is political: Iran subsidizes domestic oil and gas use in order to keep the cost of living down for its citizens, a move that results in tremendous energy inefficiency. Being able to transition to nuclear energy protects the Iranian people from future increases in the price of oil and gas, which are inevitable given global trends.

As for nuclear medicine, the materials needed for that are generated by small medical research reactors. There are a new generation of such reactors that use far less enriched uranium than before, but you still essentially need a nuclear reactor to create the radioisotopes needed for nuclear medicine.

And herein lies the problem: Iran could rely on foreign sources for these materials — if it could be certain that they wouldn't be embargoed. But right now asking Iran to ask the West not to do that comes down to that same word you refuse to use w/re to Iran: "Trust".

They don't trust us not to hold their cancer patients hostage, just as we don't trust them not to subsidize terror. And that's probably with good reason — on both sides, because we have, in fact, held back medical assistance to regimes we dislike. That's just a fact.

1. Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon capability.

2. Iran is a net exporter of both carbon fuels and electricity. Hence, this is not a nation that needs to dangerously alienate itself from the Western world under the sham of needing a nuke plant for peaceful energy uses.

[The Serbian Empire]

In A.D. 2101, war was be beginning with Iran. 2013 is not A.D. 2101.

[Iyyute]

NO!

[Sucrati]

NO!

My thoughts exactly. We could have moved into Iran to support the Revolution there back in 2009(?). But we abstained. Instead we supported the Arab Spring and it bit us hard in the rear.

[St George]

Not with a Democrat in the White House.

[TaQud]

no

/thread

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nope

[Fruition (Ancient)]

I think it's more likely for U.S. to go to war with North Korea.

[Frisivisia]

Obamacult, y u awaken zambie?

[Pope Joan]

We will not be close to disengaged in Afghanistan until 2014 at the earliest. Until then we would be stretched much too thin. Maybe we'll send a few drones, maybe even attack some command and control with a quick strike. But nothing sustained. It would drain us.

And it would tie up our resources enough that others (North Korea?) would see it as a prime moment for aggression.

[Mkuki]

I doubt it, but you know Obama....

To be serious I don't think we'll go to war with Iran. Not under the Obama Administration anyways. Obama has done his best, quite successfully I think, at avoiding unilateral actions in concern to international relations. Multilateralism is his game.

[Costa Alegria]

And it would tie up our resources enough that others (North Korea?) would see it as a prime moment for aggression.

Not really. The US has a carrier group plus extra troops based in Japan plus bases in the Pacific where reinforcements and strategic bombers can be deployed from. The US has enough firepower in its fleet in Bahrain alone to deal with any threat Tehran possesses.

But does this mean they will go to war? No. Does it increase the possible chance of a surgical strike against Iranian nuclear targets? Possibly, depending on how belligerent and antagonistic the Iranians want to get.

[AnotherCouncilTenancy]

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens sometime Between May-August. Anyway, if the U.S. does go to war with Iran, do you think that a military draft including men and women will be put into place. The idea of a war with Iran and a military draft scares me to death!

We're probably not going to war, no. I don't see any possibility of Obama, Cameron, or any other NATO leaders supporting a pre-emptive move, lest they be put on the same shelf as Bush and Iraq. And Iran is in no position to attack Israel (the only thing they seem interested in doing) with Syria incapacitated by a civil war and Egypt still adjusting to a young government. They've never fought Israel without them, and I doubt they'll try to now, especially with Iraq, Jordan, and the Saudi's against them.

Even if there is a war, there won't be a draft; not under Obama, and not under anybody else who wants to stay in office and not be hated by every young person in the country.

[Mkuki]

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens sometime Between May-August. Anyway, if the U.S. does go to war with Iran, do you think that a military draft including men and women will be put into place. The idea of a war with Iran and a military draft scares me to death!

We're probably not going to war, no. I don't see any possibility of Obama, Cameron, or any other NATO leaders supporting a pre-emptive move, lest they be put on the same shelf as Bush and Iraq. And Iran is in no position to attack Israel (the only thing they seem interested in doing) with Syria incapacitated by a civil war and Egypt still adjusting to a young government. They've never fought Israel without them, and I doubt they'll try to now, especially with Iraq, Jordan, and the Saudi's against them.

Even if there is a war, there won't be a draft; not under Obama, and not under anybody else who wants to stay in office and not be hated by every young person in the country.

Iran's gone to war with Israel? I know Israel has attacked Iran before, but not the other way around.

[Costa Alegria]

Iran's gone to war with Israel? I know Israel has attacked Iran before, but not the other way around.

When did they do that?

[AnotherCouncilTenancy]

We're probably not going to war, no. I don't see any possibility of Obama, Cameron, or any other NATO leaders supporting a pre-emptive move, lest they be put on the same shelf as Bush and Iraq. And Iran is in no position to attack Israel (the only thing they seem interested in doing) with Syria incapacitated by a civil war and Egypt still adjusting to a young government. They've never fought Israel without them, and I doubt they'll try to now, especially with Iraq, Jordan, and the Saudi's against them.

Even if there is a war, there won't be a draft; not under Obama, and not under anybody else who wants to stay in office and not be hated by every young person in the country.

Iran's gone to war with Israel? I know Israel has attacked Iran before, but not the other way around.

You're right, they haven't. Exactly who was in the Third and Fourth Arab-Israel wars got muddled in my head. I'll edit that.

I stand the same on them not going to war without those two though; there would be no point in fighting if you can't have boots on the ground to secure the place, and Iran geographically cannot do that on its own.