Iranian invasion of Iraq

[CPL.Luke]

does anyone else think that there may be an Iranian invasion of Iraq following a US withdrawal?

 

I say this because of the long standing gruge between the two countries, and with the US gone There wouldn't be any major opposition to an Iranian invasion. There is also a fairly large contingent of shia muslims in Iraq tht practically demand a theocracy and ouldn't mind at all if the Iranians gave it to them.

 

EDIT: sorry for the poor grammar and spelling, th keyboard i'm on sticks alot.

[ParanoiA]

does anyone else think that there may be an Iranian invasion of Iraq following a US withdrawal?

 

I say this because of the long standing gruge between the two countries, and with the US gone There wouldn't be any major opposition to an Iranian invasion. There is also a fairly large contingent of shia muslims in Iraq tht practically demand a theocracy and ouldn't mind at all if the Iranians gave it to them.

 

EDIT: sorry for the poor grammar and spelling, th keyboard i'm on sticks alot.

 

I don't know. On the one hand, I could see them invading following our withdrawal since they have nukes and could threaten to level Israel or something if we come to Iraq's aid. And America would love the excuse to physically deal with Iran, although I'm not sure how we'd deal with a nuclear hostage situation.

 

On the other hand, I don't see them invading because even if there was no military action to stop them, they would at least have the whole world against them. Well, most of the world anyway. That could cripple them and cause long term decay.

 

Good question...

[Sequence]

Thats all Bush would need to make another quagmire in Iran.

[Pangloss]

Unnecessary. The moment the US pulls out, Iran has already won -- the Second Shi'a State has been created. Why incur the wrath of the outside world by actually invading, which would surely prompt a response similar to that of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?

[CPL.Luke]

yes ut by the time they invade they may already have nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. How would a peacekeeping force get to Iran if the Iranians have everyone around them under threat of nuclear war?

 

keep in mind we need permission to fly over pakistan and other such nations.

And Iran has already demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice en mas human wave attacks.

[Pangloss]

I understand your concern, but it simply isn't realistic. The world won't sit still for Iran invading Iraq under any circumstances, and you're ignoring such factors as Europe's efforts to change Iran's policies and overinflating the value of (not to mention the existence of) Iran's so-called suicide brigades.

 

And as I said above, they simply have no reason to do so. Iraq doesn't give them anything they need, it gives them a whole lot of trouble they don't need, and they win without invading, becoming the power brokers for something like half the oil supply of the Middle East.

 

And it gets even better when you consider the power shift in OPEC -- Iraq was historically part of the Saudi pricing alliance. Now the balance of power will shift to Iran-Venezuela and the alliance that favors higher prices.

 

Why in the God's green acres would they want to shoot themselves in the foot like that?

[CPL.Luke]

because they think they can. They want a new caliphate and the first step in that would be the absorption of Iraq into Iran. now if Iran were to leave iraq on their own for a period of time, its possible that Iraq could become a power again and giver the Iranians a headache, but if it is absorbed early on then it could directly control the oil and the land mass.

 

as for the suicide squads, you should remember that the Iranians broke the stalemate in the Iran Iraq war, by sending several hundred thousand soldiers at the Iraqi lines in a mass human wave assault. Literallly causing the Iraqi soldiers to flee for fear of running out of ammunition.

 

Thats what prompted the US to provide millions of dollars worth of arms and equipment to the Iraqis, because their was a very real possibility that if Iraq didn't stop the Iranians, they would march clear across the middle east.

 

granted such a force probably doesn't exist on standby, but it doesn't take long to create a force thats only purpose is to charge the enemy lines until they break.

 

 

And like I said before, if they have nuclear weapons there is no longer any military option, as no country bordering Iran-Iraq would allow UN forces through for fear of nuclear retalliation.

 

and like you said if Iran suddenly controls half of the middle easts oil supplies and have close enough ties with non-US friendly oil producers, then economic sanctions don't work as they can sanction us as well. by controlling such a significant portion of the oil supply they effectively prevent any efffective economic sanction as their counter sanctions would do far more harm to us than it would to them.

[Pangloss]

Iran was attacked by Iraq in that war, and the motivations of their soldiers was therefore different from what it would be in a war of aggression. A number of legitimate questions have been raised about the efficacy and accuracy of Iran's claims about suicide squads. At the moment it appears to really be more of a political weapon than a tactical one (but, I readily admit, appearances can be deceiving).

 

You're also missing the point that they would be invading the only other shi'a-controlled state in the entire world. Wars of aggression usually require a popular mandate. The average Iranian is not interested in a "new caliphate" -- that is a motivation mainly for the ruling elite. But when it comes to attacking fellow shi'a, I think they would very much have an opinion about that.

 

You do raise a valid question, IMO, about how gutsy the international community would be about stopping a war of aggression by an Arab/Muslim nation in possession of the atomic bomb. I think that's an interesting topic for speculation, even if it doesn't apply to Iran.

[aguy2]

No one has even mentioned Sunni/Syria or Sunni/Turkey. The Persains must know that an actual invasion on their part would instigate all out war between Shi'a/Persains and Sunni/Arabs and possibly Sunni/Turks. Nonetheless I would think the best guess for the US to get out of this mess is to diplomatically encourage de facto Syrian and Iranian protectorates over their respective co-religionists.

aguy2

[CPL.Luke]

^now that sounds like the seeding of austria and parts of czechslavakia to germany in the 1930's

 

 

and oh yes I just did invoe george's rule

[bob000555]

Even Iran isn’t stupid enough to use nukes on a US supported country even if they get the bomb they know we have enough ICBMs to level them a hundred times over. Iran knows there walking a thin line between being annoying and being wiped off the face of the Earth I doubt even they aren’t stupid enough to invade Iraq. They know Bush’s ego is to big to let Iraq go to “the axis of evil” even at the cost of millions of lives.

[aguy2]

and oh yes I just did invoe george's rule

George's rule?

aguy2

[CPL.Luke]

the rule that the longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely it is that someone will reference the nazi party

[CPL.Luke]

Pangloss I'd also like to mention that while I don't believe that the Iranian suicide sqauds would be good for anything other than forming giant bullseyes for American or other western nations planes. Most middle eastern nations lack a significant air force (or one thats coordinated enough to handle a massive attack such as the Iranians could launch.

 

 

and in my oppinion the US will try not to involve itself in the affairs of a nuclear armed country.

 

unless were just providing the air support...

[Pangloss]

Well if we did it wouldn't be the first time. But I guess the more important question will be whether the REST of the world is willing to do something about a nuclear armed country, or if they'll just sit back and throw mud, and then castigate the US when it does something.

[aguy2]

the rule that the longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely it is that someone will reference the nazi party

 

Yup, I've seen the pattern. Of course one can take the position that the '33-'45 whammer jammer was 'Armagedon Won'. WWII can be seen as what should have been the final defeat of parochol/paganism expressed as flag/state worship in Deutschland, and worship of a man as God, as expressed in Japan.

 

We would really have to work a lot harder than we are to come up with a bigger and more decisive defeat of the forces of fascism and idolatry, but of course we could flaunt the fact that collectively we are dumber than a bag of bricks, and look forward to the really 'big one' and not back at it?

aguy2

[ecoli]

the rule that the longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely it is that someone will reference the nazi party

 

you mean Godwin's Law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[CPL.Luke]

oh woops, I knew i should have looked that one up properly before posting

[JohnB]

I don't think Godwin's Law applies. No-one was being likened to the Nazis, it was a more a reference to the likely result of a policy of Appeasement.

 

Such policies have never worked in the past so why any thinking human being could possibly think they would work in the future is beyond me.