Originally posted by Nakash
Let me correct you both- Syria lost big time with this invasion and will lose in the civil war (Baathist regime, lost it's top regional leader aside
from Assad). Iran on the other will win big...BIG. Khomeini years ago stated that his top priority was a fundamentalist goverment in Iraq, Iran, and
Syria. One left and Ahmajeen will get his unified Caliphate.

The Mullahs are salivating for a civil war, they only care about a big united Arab
world which they can subdue ruthlessly and then command to megalomaniac world conquest plans. Sorry, but that's their long term goal.

I have to disagree with you my friend. It is in no way in Iran's interest for Iraq's current situation to spiral into civil war and that is why they
have already began a dialogue with the United State's government in order to prevent such a tragedy, Iran will be a winner if the status quo
continues and the fundamentalist Shias, with close links to Iran, keep their political power, through the process that the United States has nurtured.
The way things are going, the Sunnis are kept in check with a Shia dominated "Iraqi National Army", and such figures as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Muqtada
al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani are gaining impressive powers in Iraq. The first two figures mentioned are very close the Iranian government.
Hakim leads a party called "Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" a party that was created under the supervision of Khomeini and was based
wholly in Iran until "Operation Iraq Freedom". His militia, The Badr Brigades, is the single biggest militia in Iraq, trained and armed by Iran.
The second figure al-Sadr has also gained much influence in southern Iraq, especially in Basra, where his militia dominates the official police
forces. His recent visit to Iran (2-3 weeks ago?) cemented his status as an ally of Iran where he vowed that his militia would do everything in its
power to support Iran's nuclear program. He also ran in the last election and his party do fairly well. His introduction in "United Iraqi Alliance"
further demonstrated his close ties to the Iranian backed parties.
The third figure mentioned, the most influential man in Iraq, is an Iranian national. His resistance towards any meetings with United State's
officials and his meeting with Iran's (then) foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi backed the assumption that he supports Iran.
So the three figures that currently dominate Iraq's political scene are very much pro-Iranian. I don't see why Iran would want to disrupt the
current balance of power.