Free Iraq, Bomb Iran?! Can we only win in Iraq if we kick the Iranian leadership out?

Free Iraq, Bomb Iran?! Can we only win in Iraq if we kick the Iranian leadership out?

1. The reason I bring this up is because when people talk of reasons Iraq is failing right now one of them is usually it's outside influences mainly from Iran and Syria are hampering the process. Is this really the case?

2. If we went after the leadership of Iran(Not the Country, or it's people) could we do it, or would Iran become Iraq x 10 for the West?

3. If there was regime change in Iran right now would it help or hurt the situation in Iraq? Could this be a reason why the war on terror has not moved forward?

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

A regime change in Iran wouldn't fix all of Iraq's problems although it could help if the right people came to power.
Remember the problems a regime changed unleashed in Iraq ?
There is also the possibility that a worse bunch of leaders could come to power in Iran.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions in regards to Iran. We're asking who won't do what we want them not to do. I think we should ask what we want them to do instead.

People need a future. The Iranian people, under any leadership, will not sit around quietly not spreading a religion, not building a regional power, not maximizing profits from their oil, etc... they will DO something. It is in our interest to find something that they can do that will be good for them without being detrimental to our interests, and to provide whatever incentives we must to make that the most attractive option.

Any new leadership will just do something else, if not the same things as this regime, and odds are that this won't be anything we like considering Iran's ties to China, which create significantly diverging interests from those of the US. The best case scenario for us would be complete chaos and a breakdown into war between secularists and Islamists, and that certainly wouldn't help matters in Iraq very much- it would expand the war to levels that the Iranian government never dared, and next thing you know we'd be pondering the need to hit Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Balochistan and blockade the whole of the middle east, I'm pretty sure China would interpret as being just shy of an act of war upon them.


Edit for 'cause I doesn't speak English like'n I ought t'.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by The Vagabond]

The problem is that by occupying Iraq the coalition has bitten off more then it can chew this is something that The Vagabond sort of refers to in his/her above post. The coalition sat back and did nothing until the cat was out of the bag . I have wondered why a a few stray bombs haven't found there way across Iran's border along with securing Iraq's borders to make it harder for aid to reach the insurgents from beyond Iraq's borders.

Maybe the nature of the insurgents supply lines don't make suitable targets for the USAF but that dosnt explain why Iraqs borders haven't been secured.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The reason I bring this up is because when people talk of reasons Iraq is failing right now one of them is usually it's outside influences mainly from Iran and Syria are hampering the process. Is this really the case?

The Hussein government stockpiled weapons throughout the country. But, those are probably only available to sunnis. The shias have been an oppressed group in the country for a long time, they have to be getting their weapons from somewhere.

We know that the iranian government gives boatloads of weapons the palestinian government. We also are fairly certain that they've been giving the shia militias training and expertise, to build things like improvised projectiles that melt the metals packed in with them, which reform in flight and are able to penetrate thick armour. I think it stretches the imagination to think that they are giving at least a similar amount of support to the palestinians as to the shias on their own border, within the territory of Iran's normal rival and foe.

As far as syria, they're also a baathist government, have ties to the regime, and it appears that a good number of regime leaders crossed over to syria after the fall. These would be the people organizing and commanding the loyal elements of the old hussein army.

2. If we went after the leadership of Iran(Not the Country, or it's people) could we do it, or would Iran become Iraq x 10 for the West?

Whats 10x worse? It'd be war, and that'd mean lots of american deaths. At the same time, the iranians wouldn't have an outside supporter like, well, Iran, to aid them.

If there was regime change in Iran right now would it help or hurt the situation in Iraq?

ANy instability in Iran is going to help the american situation in iraq, short of a disaster that causes massive fluxes of refugess and weapons.

Could this be a reason why the war on terror has not moved forward?

Iran is the major exporter and supporter of radical islamic terrorism in the world. It is the 'soviet union' of international terrorism.

Our policy with iran is bizzare though, we treat iran like we treated the SU, we look to contain, fight via proxy, and neutralize. Thats silly. We only did that with the SU because war with them was thermonuclear war. War with iran woudl be devastating, to iran. We should be handling them directly, not via containment.

I mean, the persians invented chess, so why the hell are we playing their own game against them. Just smash them and, poof, thats the end, they're gone. Its not like with the soviets, where if an army entered the ukraine, every major american city would get nuked.



But, at the same time, outside influence is hardly the sole reason for why iraq is unstable right now. THe US didn't put in enough troops, and didn't get control of the situation before allowing a government to be created. The US also didn't take reconstruction efforts seriously enough. I mean, we had al-Sadr sending his Mahdi Army against us, and we did nothing to him. They attacked the US, and have only gotten stronger for it. Complete bumbling on the part of the US.

Originally posted by xpert11but that dosnt explain why Iraqs borders haven't been secured.

They havent' been secured because we have idiots in charge. Bush isn't interested in any kind of solution to iraq. He is interested in internal US politics. He only started to change his stance on Iraq when it was clear that the republicans were loosing the '06 Congressional Elections. Hell, he even had already told rumsfeld that he was out, in the lead up to it, and then just didn't bother to announce it until it was clear that they had been defeated.


He's responding to the military situation in iraq based on the political situation in the US. Thats flat out stupid.

What we need is someone that will realize that we need to win the war, regardless of what political situation is going on at home. SOmeone that will radically change strategy because the military situation demands it, not 'stay the course' because it scores political points at home.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Nygdan]

Attack Iran to win the war in Iraq, then when that goes pear shaped attack Syria maybe to win the war in Iran.
Then we may need to have a crack at Nth Korea if the war in Syria isnt going to plan, i'm sure there will be some other country after that needing a spanking to continue our efforts to free .....Oh what was that country we were trying to free from terror again!
By this stage there will probably not be anyone left in the US as they will all be fighting oversea's.
The US will then have to quit the middle east and nth korea to recapture America because there are wmd's hidden there.
Good Plan you guy's, just count me out as i'm pretty busy for the next 10-15 years.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats 10x worse? It'd be war, and that'd mean lots of american deaths. At the same time, the iranians wouldn't have an outside supporter like, well, Iran, to aid them.

Not to mention the death of lots of innocent Iranian women and children, ohh right that doesnt count, my bad.

You are right Mojo, we shouldn't attack Iran or Syria since we are losing so bad in Iraq.

Mojo, you are the kind of guy that can't ride on the freeway in fear of the insects your wind shield will kill. Mojo we are already counting you out, but, consider converting to Islam if you convert maybe you will be extorted less when they eventually make their way West.

War isn't pretty but neither is extortion and if we don't stand up to these parties now be prepared to be extorted for the next hundred years. I much rather lose my life than lose my values, if you are different than that you have no idea what it is to be an American.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
You are right Mojo, we shouldn't attack Iran or Syria since we are losing so bad in Iraq.

Mojo, you are the kind of guy that can't ride on the freeway in fear of the insects your wind shield will kill. Mojo we are already counting you out, but, consider converting to Islam if you convert maybe you will be extorted less when they eventually make their way West.

Actually mate you'd be surprised what i'm capable of. I grew up on a cattle station in the bush so ive killed my fair share of bugs and animals. Ive even stood up for mates in plenty of blues in my 40 odd years so guess what, you dont know me at all!
As far as converting to Islam goes i'm a devout atheist so i dont think that would work out for me.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
War isn't pretty but neither is extortion and if we don't stand up to these parties now be prepared to be extorted for the next hundred years. I much rather lose my life than lose my values, if you are different than that you have no idea what it is to be an American.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

No war is not pretty particularly when the reasons for it keep changing to suit someone's agenda sitting in a nice big office 10000km's away.
Btw you are right that i have no idea what it is to be an American because i'm Australian and proud of it.

Athiests are easiest of all the religions the to convert to Islam, especially when you have a scimitar to your throat. Athiests fear death because they believe all there is is the here and now. You are still a prime candidate mate, don't get yourself down!

A devout athiest, lol, sounds like a bunch of self love.

Mojo you are the kind of person who would of never wanted to fight the Nazi's in WW2, as far as you are concerned out of sight out of mind. Indifference as far as I am concerned is an illness and is a reason why we end up having to fight these wars.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Athiests are easiest of all the religions the to convert to Islam, especially when you have a scimitar to your throat. Athiests fear death because they believe all there is is the here and now. You are still a prime candidate mate, don't get yourself down!

No actually atheists generally do not fear death as much as someone who "believes", you may end up in hell for all those sins. I'd much prefer an eternity of nothingness to an eternity of damnation.
So you wouldnt fear death with a scimitar to your throat, kudo's to you mate.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Mojo you are the kind of person who would of never wanted to fight the Nazi's in WW2, as far as you are concerned out of sight out of mind. Indifference as far as I am concerned is an illness and is a reason why we end up having to fight these wars.

Here you go again getting personal, how the hell would you know what kind of person i am from reading a couple of posts. My father and Grandfather were both servicemen and my uncle died serving his country. But as i said before you dont know me, just because i dont believe in this current war does not mean i would not fight to defend my family or my country. So have you signed up yet!
Indifference is just as much an illness as arrogance imo and the cause of just as many wars.

If you want everyone to get to know you mojo you should start your own thread or maybe your own blog for it.

What I want to know is what do you think we should do with Iran, should we back off and let them do whatever they want even if that gives them the nuke? Should we let them meddle in Iraq as they have been doin? What do you do to stop them?

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
If you want everyone to get to know you mojo you should start your own thread or maybe your own blog for it.

I wouldnt have felt the need to defend myself if you hadnt gotten personal.
and i wouldnt know where to start with a blog i barely know how to type.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
What I want to know is what do you think we should do with Iran, should we back off and let them do whatever they want even if that gives them the nuke? Should we let them meddle in Iraq as they have been doin? What do you do to stop them?

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

I thought my first post stated my position fairly clearly.Sorry if it didnt.

I wouldnt be starting anymore wars when you are still trying to deal with the two countries you are already in. Spread yourself too thin and you are ripe for even more casualties. Its not just a simple matter of chucking more troops out there as has already been shown. The only way to stop outside help from Iran is to totally destroy that country and everyone in it, then guess what, that will only forment further extremists from other middle eastern country's who are currently sitting on the sidelines. It really is not a simple matter of going to war with everyone. Take on Iran and then you'll no doubt have to go into Syria. where does it end.

What i wouldnt be doing though is starting another war and leaving the flanks open to attack which is what would happen if you needed to change your focus to Iran.
As soon as you take your eye off the ball extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan will take that opportunity and up their attacks.

If i had all the answers i wouldnt be sitting here.

I thought we already had the flanks covered since they are Iraq and Afghanistan. I too am not for running into war with Iran, however, if we could put together some sort of Muslim face on such an attack, if we had troops and the support of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Turkey, and Egypt just to name a few.

The Middle East has to understand that terrorism is as much their problem as it is ours. It is as dangerous to themselves as it is to the West if not more so. If the leaders of the Middle East refuse to accept this it might just be best in the long run to bomb Iranian Nuclear sites now rather than wait and see.

Iran with a nuke is something the West will never accept and if the rest of the Middle East continues to be indifferent get ready for the American Rain to come. If Iran thinks the US is bluffing it should continue to call just as it has been.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I thought we already had the flanks covered since they are Iraq and Afghanistan. I too am not for running into war with Iran, however, if we could put together some sort of Muslim face on such an attack, if we had troops and the support of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Turkey, and Egypt just to name a few.

The flanks are only covered as long as you have the personnel and support to cover them. By taking on Iran you are then shifting the focus of your operations and supply's.
Only my opinion but i seriously doubt any muslim country would back any type of incursion into Iran.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The Middle East has to understand that terrorism is as much their problem as it is ours. It is as dangerous to themselves as it is to the West if not more so. If the leaders of the Middle East refuse to accept this it might just be best in the long run to bomb Iranian Nuclear sites now rather than wait and see.

But terrorism wasnt the reason for invading Iraq was it?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Iran with a nuke is something the West will never accept and if the rest of the Middle East continues to be indifferent get ready for the American Rain to come. If Iran thinks the US is bluffing it should continue to call just as it has been.

I do agree that Iran should not be allowed to aquire nuclear weapons i just dont believe that attacking them now will achieve anything except fostering more extremism and terrorist attacks.

Sometimes, things get worse before they get better. This is also true in the Middle East. Of course, Iran is going to be upset when all their nuke sites get bombed and there will be extremism that derives from it.

The question is why will it derive more terrorism from it? I believe the reason why a strike on Iran would cause more terrorism is because those who would strike back, the terrorists, believe that a nuclear strike would hurt their interests. Hence, in a War on Terror we should often do things that in the short run will cause more terror because in the long run it is the only way to fix the problem.

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The question is why will it derive more terrorism from it? I believe the reason why a strike on Iran would cause more terrorism is because those who would strike back, the terrorists, believe that a nuclear strike would hurt their interests.

I think its definately in the terrorists interest to use a nuke if they had the capability, their all about spreading fear. How could it possibly harm their interests.
For me attacking Iran has too many downsides and not enough up. Best to clear up one mess before you make another one imo.

Originally posted by Nygdanthe iranians wouldn't have an outside supporter like, well, Iran, to aid them.

Our policy with iran is bizzare though, we treat iran like we treated the SU, we look to contain, fight via proxy, and neutralize. Thats silly. We only did that with the SU because war with them was thermonuclear war. War with iran woudl be devastating, to iran. We should be handling them directly, not via containment.

I mean, the persians invented chess, so why the hell are we playing their own game against them. Just smash them and, poof, thats the end, they're gone.

Not to be contrary, because really it was a great post, but I'd just like to posit a possibility which may or may not explain the situation.
Perhaps Iran can give itself outside aid, in the form of a gulf-wide oil embargo on the US, created by simply unleashing Iranian missiles on the ports, pipelines, and oil fields.
If we're worried about them doing that, then the reason we're playing their game with them is because we're afraid otherwise they'll play our game with us, our game being to smash the holy hell out of oil producing nations such as Iraq. In other words, maybe Paul Van Ripper's point is finally understood in the pentagon in the aftermath of the missile attack on the INS Hanit

Iran would never play "our game" because they know as does every other country on this planet that they would lose. The options for Iran are few and getting slimmer by the day. If Iran choose to attack oil targets(Im not sure what targets you are talking about, in Iraq or in Iran or where) such as ones in Iraq, we would do the same to their oil targets. Then we would go after their airforce and navy. So, personally oil targets don't seem like their best move. Iranians are influencing the situation by encouraging and funding terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South East Asia to cause havok when necessary.