I'll keep this quick and simple. We have Russia trying to bring forces down from the north (it'll take awhile too), but they are politically engaged which could be dangerous. We have some new information that the U.S. is lining up it's stealth forces in the region (to use or just in case); if we elect a Republican President for the U.S. this November the chances go up.

Here is the article at Wired that talks about us amassing a stealth fleet down there. If Mitt, I assume it will be Mitt, if he takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up with him in office; atleast we assume so, because we have only so much information. But, one reality is, is that we are NOT at all bringing down the tensions in any way at all, we are increasing them at every possible turn. So the real question is who do the American people elect; and do they realize it may in fact mean another war is on the war if they vote right. Yet, we do have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in office who is doing his damnedest to keep middle-leaners happy by being very aggressive on this. The bad part is that if he loses the election it can potentially mean that Obama is slightly to blame if there is a war. Because, he will have intentionally made a aggressive situation explosive in the wrong hands and if the reigns change to Mitt's hands it may go in the wrong direction and tip over.

What do you guys think about this situation? One, if a Republican is President will we go to war? Two, will we go to war anyway? I'm going to guess there is no way Obama will go into Iran, because if he does he will damage the Democratic party almost as much as Bush did...

(MODIFIED ENDING-EDIT)

A few good video sources to watch on the topic before posting, also do a general search on the sift of attitudes and other videos members have accumulated about this very specific issue; which is getting more talk and watch time each day here on the sift. You can be guaranteed that sooner or later a decision will be made by either us, Israel, Russia, Iran, or even possibly CHina that will bring this matter to a head--we will see if MAD may play a role in it, I certainly, dearly, hope this will not happen. BUT something WILL happen. But, when...?

Empire analysis of the Iran issue (recent) from @geo321 and is 47 minutes long.
FORA.tv's 2006 history lesson that is also VERY much worth watching, make sure to set some time aside as it's an hour and a half and this is provided by @radx.
2008 -"America's Secret War With Iran", here on Videosift is another, "piece of the puzzle" and shows more of the tension being built and actively pursued by the U.S., thanks to @highdileeho. This is about 25 minutes.
2010 - "CHOSSUDOVSKY:U.S.A will start world war 3 with IRAN" again on Videosift and this just reconfirms what we fear may happen eventually and even scarier is in 2010. First I have a video for 2006, '08, '10, and the news story in 2012 (plus what we know). THIS is a scary, scary ramp up to a way, it seems almost inevetable; someone WILL pull the trigger, but who and what will it do to us all on this little blue/green ball. This is from @enoch. It is ~ 9 minutes.

I don't think I need a 2012 video here, we all know the details and they are getting worse. Russians are getting militarily and politically involved, sending possible massive troops to the Northern Iranian border; they have nearly declared MAD if we take this too far. Israel plays really loosely with the "rules of engagement" (whatever that means) and has possibly infected and disabled the Iranian nuclear program to some degree, along with numerous nuclear scientists being assassinated (or dying, oddly or a little to young from a "heart attack")--we all know that they may actually be the worst at keeping the peace here and we know why: the bomb, or to be more specific: military grade "nuclear fuel" for a sustained nuclear reaction for a nuclear bomb--the one thing that is SO very hard to get. The bomb is really an afterthought, assuming you've got scientists that can carry the one; any physicist worth his salt could design one--hell "I" almost can and I'm NOT one (but, I do KNOW A LOT)! China is China--we don't know why they may get involved, but oil and Russia and America posturing uncomfortably towards each other--especially if MAD is on the table--will get them involved somehow, someway. America is the hardest to answer here except for ONE thing: if Israel goes in and someone decides to respond, WE WILL BE at war! It matters not who is president at that time. As to presidents, the stronger the Republican base pulls Mitt's "Ego personality" right, we have an issue. Because, right now the Republicans WANT a war, at least the ones that count do and that is beyond dangerous. Like Sarah Palin saying she would attack them on day one, and Iran saying they would wipe Israel off the map. Is it the religious punch that does that to these people or just their idiocy?

BTW, atleast by tags, their are 66 Iran videos on the sift and 1000+ (our comments here increase that as well, plus 1000 is the limit of that stat on Videosift's search result count) comments on the Sift about Iran. There is 9 videos containing America and Iran and 236+ (again, here--I'll assume you realize these stats increase the rest of the way) comments on the Sift. There are 32 videos on Iran and War on the Sift and 510 comments. America and War bring up thousands and thousands of posts. I'm guessing some of this is slightly wrong as many "newer" Sift members are NOT good with tags, so that puts a hamper to trying to find trends in topical discussion and video posts on the Sift. Basically, I think our comment and Iran video tagging rates are climbing, and THIS is why I also made this Sift Talk post to ...possibly...bring that up as well.

I'm guessing we may need a "Middle East" or perhaps "Western Asia" or "Persia" channel sooner than later if this really does start. It's just odd sticking Iran and Afghanistan in "Asia", although they are.

(P.S.--Really though why don't we have a "Middle East" channel are we just using the "Islam" channel in that place for now instead?)
Seems like it would have been a decision done long ago already to me, due too the war...)

Anyway, have at it.