It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraqi Civil War = Reason to Attack Iran?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:29 AM
Thank you Dbates- your thread on US Arming insurgents is what gave me this theory.

I think the United States PLANNED to "win the war but lose the peace" in Iraq. Why? Iran.

The US being peeved with Iran is nothing new, and the recent emphasis on their nuclear program was not the beginning of that peevishness being escalated into a murderous rage.

We invaded Afghanistan to get Unocal's pipeline built from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, because the Caspian Sea is a rich with gas and oil. Iran has border disputes with Turkmenistan in the Caspian Sea. Iran has the leverage to get more than we'd ideally want them to have.

Iran is key to the Heroin trade, and drug trade can be an important source of black budget funding which is sure to become increasingly important as the PNAC plan for expanded American influence is implemented.

Iran is a strategic ally of India in the event of war between India and Pakistan. We've put a lot of effort into keeping General Mushar-puppet in power there and we don't want him pressured, especially in the already chaotic West, more than he already is.

The list goes on, but I only get 4000 characters.

If Iraq falls apart along demographic lines, the most important part of Iraq, the South, which has a substantial oil and is strategically important to Kuwaiti and Saudi security will have to be defended.

The minute that Sadr's wing makes a move in Iran's favor, the US will go back to Iraq (which it will have left by the time the civil war hits its high point) on a very limited mission to set up an Independent Shia State in Southern Iraq, probably with Ali al-Sistani in charge.

But that won't be enough. The Iranian threat is still there. And, unlike the rest of Iran, the oil-rich South-West province of Khuzestan is heavily Arab, not Persian.
Ethnic Map:

They also differ linguistically:

The Arab vs Persian card gets played, we incite unrest in SW Iran, the Iranians react, we accuse them of crossing the border, we accuse them of starting the Iraqi civil war, etc etc etc. If we're lucky they make a grab for Iraq's southern oil, but if not we accuse them of preparing to, and next thing you know we beat them back to the mountains and proclaim the flat ground around Ahvaz to be a buffer-zone, and give it to our new friends, who, for lack of a name, I will call Kuwait Junior.

Of course when the Kurds get shifty in the North, Turkey will do what people were saying they'd do back in 2003- they'll invade Northern Iraq. Voila, the Sunni triangle is an orphan, probably to be adopted by Syria, which will want the arable land, and the oil gets divided up between our new friends and Europe's pal Turkey.
I bet the EU even signs off on this plan, because when we go back we'll go to them hat in hand, say they were right, ask for their advice, lay out a detailed plan with timetable and all, do exactly what we said, and the first thing you know old Jed's a millionaire, rollin in bloodstained black gold, and thanks to Iran's unfortunate loss, with much more coast (and thus more ports) to ship it through, though for that matter the Saudis would be lining right up to curry favor by letting us pipe it through their infrastructure since we'd control this dangerous new Shia power on their border

Questions? Comments? Snide Remarks?

new topics

log in