My prediction:

By the end of the second quarter of 2008, the US and several of her allies will be in open warfare with Iran.

Unlike Iraq, this war won't be an invasion of Iran, but rather, it will consist of a naval engagement and naval blockade of Iran and a series of air strikes against key Iranian defensive-oriented military bases and, of course, Iran's nuclear facilities.

Also targeted will be Iran's political regime and structure in an effort to help topple the Iranian regime.

And, between now and when the military campaign begins, there will be an ever-increasing effort on the world's stage (the UN) by the US and her allies to force Iran to rethink and change its actions concerning her nuclear program and her activities in the Middle East...which will bear no fruit, so to speak.

Also, the US and her allies will exhibit an ever-increasing effort to try their best to convince the Iranian people that regime change is in their power and that the world will be behind them in their effort to change the Iranian political structure and government...which will also bear no fruit, so to speak, at least not until the open war begins.


Just a "heads up"...

(I could be wrong with this prediction, of course. But everything I've read about the international situation with Iran and the Iranian regime's history-and I've read an aweful lot on these topics over the past five years or so-points to this outcome.)

You know, I wonder is the president will take it to the people of the US and tell them about his plans, whether he thinks they will approve or not.

I really feel that he knows that they won't approve of it, but he won't care. Going into Iran may be more of a dangerous thing than invading Iraq.

Somehow I doubt that the Bush Administration will worry too much about US public opinion on this matter since I think they realize that there is already little chance that the Republican Party will win the next election, if you know what I mean.

And, if you look at the Republican contenders for the next election, the bulk of these politicians also agree with the US taking a very strong stance against Iran's activities and regime.

So, I think the Republican Party has already calculated that they could live with losing the next election as long as the US continues its policy of transforming the Middle East...even if this means the outcome of such a war with Iran potentially falls on the shoulders of a Democrat Administration.

(This is also the reason why such a war will occur before the next election.)

And, if you ask me, Iran's activities in the Middle East has been one of the primary reasons for Middle East discomfort since 1979...perhaps more than any other influencing agent. Take out Iran's regime, enable her population to become a much more secular democracy (which is very likely to happen if her regime collapses), and there will potentially be a very long-lasting and hopeful future for peace in the Middle East. Surely there will be Shiite fundamentalist outcry as the result of such a war. But, their primary benefactor will be eliminated. And, Al-Qaeda elements will be further marginalized due to the democratic rise of the Shiite in the Persian Gulf region.

U.S. seeks pact with Shiite militia - Los Angeles Times

This might be of interest to some, something I saw this morning while waiting for my commuter train to take me to work.

I guess the Ayatollahs in Iran have always hated the US, if not the west like Western Europe and Britain. The Shah was an ally of the US before Khomeini and his children toppled him in 1979.

I'm also concerned about that bomb that Russia now has - supposedly more powerful than anything the US has and isn't nuclear - especially since our relationship with them has deteriorated back to the 1960's era

Oh, I wouldn't put too much trust in Sadr since there is much evidence that suggests that he acts much more in the interests of Iran than Iraq. And, even though there are currently activities initiated by Sadr that might convince some that he acts in the interest of Iraq, this is likely to be an illusion long-term.

In short, I think the Iranian regime is begining to realize that, as long as there is turmoil in Iraq, the American forces (and influence) will be sizeable in Iraq. So, the quicker that turmoil significantly decreases, the sooner the American forces leave Iraq in bulk, and the sooner the Iranian regime can turn Iraq into somewhat of a province of Iran. Or, at least another Lebanon or Syria.

(If you ask me, the guy to watch in Iraq is Sistani rather than Sadr. He has enormous religious sway in Iraq and he wishes that Iraq has a secular government that exists outside the influence of foriegn entities.)

And, believe it or not, not all of the Ayatollahs in Iran actually hate the US. It's just unfortunate that they aren't the ones with significant political power in Iran right now.

Oh, I wouldn't be too concerned about Russia.

Right now they are just learning how to flex their muscle again after picking up the pieces, so to speak, from what was left of their country as the result of the Soviet Union collapse.

And, if you ask me, the US and Russia have more interests that unite them as allies than divide them as enemies.

U.S. looks to sanctions on Iran's Quds force - Yahoo! News

More news about Iran and Iraq.

I agree with you on this, BD. The Russians are right now so "politically lost" that they cannot decide for themselves just what sort of government that might be best suited for them. Where we are failing, is that America is so tied up in Iraq that we cannot spend much time in the way of helping the Russians see and enjoy the full fruits of an open market society. I find it puzzling that we obviously are spending so much to guarantee the flow of the oil supply from the Middle East; but we are failing to recognize the enormous oil supply in Russia's Caucasus region.