President Bush would want to do it before the election. We have limited terms for presidency, he is not eligible to run again.
I don't think elections are so much about money as they are about power, ego and legacy. Bush wants a republican to win the white house to finish Iraq so that he has some what of a decent legacy left. Attacking Iran before hand will likely push the election to democrats so they'll sit on their hands until 2009 and had over the problem to the next president. The only time I do see them bombing Iran is between November 2008 (After the Election) and January 2009 (Before they leave office). But even that is has a very low possibility.
things should be solved peacefully, more bombings will cause usa and the world losses , if few good oil wels burn up it will be hard to stop the fire.
america will not bomb iran. this is the cold war all over again, so much political posturing and issuing of ultimatums. don't forget that russia and china are both allies of iran. america may be strong but it is not suicidal. this just aint gonna happen.
Any of you who believe we will not bomb Iraq want to bet $1000 on it? We could put the money in escrow , or whatever
We're coming up on election year, our military is spread fairly thin as it is and are getting to the point of being warn out. When we recieve a new president I expect him to clean up this mess. At the same time, with that mentality I have a vision that they will be very leary of taking us into another war. I would suspect we wouldn't be a part of another invasion for a while and we can let France do the job if they wish. Honestly, I have no interest in helping them. But if England got involved then I think America needs to do whatever we can to assist. England has been one of our few friends during the last 5 years.
thanks PHPGator, but i don't think that either britain or america has the stomach or the stupidity to bomb iran. as i said before there will continue to be threats and counter-threats, lots of political posturing and vote winning speeches but no action. not from britain, america, france, or even any completely bonkers country that has its own radical and completely off the wall agenda. iraq was a different ball game, with all nations involved being pretty sure from the onset that there were no weapons of mass destruction leave alone nuclear warheads, all that stuff about hidden weapons was a line spun to the public so that they would approve the invasion. but iran does have nuclear capability, and it does have powerful allies in russia and china, so don't worry, this cold war will be a 'freeze off' for several decades then just thaw out the same way it did with the USSR.
it would be biggest mistkae of BUsh if he is planning to bombing over iran,i don,t thinks if Bush planning to bombing over iran
Regardless, I don't think President Bush will allow a country like Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If the Iranian government has them, you can bet Al-Qaeda will have them. They are Islamic fundamentalist who have already expressed a wish to destroy US and Israel. It is a matter of survival to the western world.
You all forget though, what if the UN Council decides to use military action if sanctions continue to fail and Iran start to pose a substantial threat?