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.


How Much of Iraq Will Become Part of Iran?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:19 PM
Look at America, Britain and Australia. Same language, culture, and often ethnicity; in many ways we are one nation. And if Canada and New Zealand where more involved in the Iraq war then militarily all five English speaking nations would be behaving as one.

Look at Iraq and Iran. Iraq’s Shiites (who make up about 60% of the population) share the same: Religion, culture, and often ethnicity and language. In many ways they are a natural unity. Trouble is that in the past Saddam (a Sunni) prevented these Muslim fundamentalists who make up the majority of Iraq’s population from getting power. The Shiites would often rebel on religious grounds (effectively wanting a more religious dictatorship) but secularist Saddam prevented these people of Iraq going the Muslim Fundamentalist way of Iran.

However we have…
1. Removed Secular Sunni Saddam
2. And installed democracy (for a people many of whom do not have much loyalty to this Western concept).
3. Which means: Iraqis Shiite should be free to unite with Iran (in same way the big five English speaking nations naturally end up uniting with each other).

Trouble is that as long as the Americans, British ect are in Iraq the Shiite fundamentalists aren’t fully in control. That said they could certainly make the mainly Sunni led resistance look like playschool; but at the moment the troops seem to help when needed and (as a general rule) stay out when not wanted. The Shiite have also been busy massacring their former rulers (the highly educated Sunni people) as many of these make up the “Resistance” against the “Occupation” our forces don’t always seem that keen to help. That said perhaps you would hardly expect the Sunni people to be jumping up and down with joy at being kicked out of power, and put under the authority of Muslim Fundamentalists at our hands? Just as you expect troops to weary about people who bomb them.

Getting Back to Subject: It would seem that nothing but our military presence in Iraq is preventing the Shiite’s uniting with Shiite, ethnic brother with ethnic brother. And if we have a war or any sort of military action against Iran then you can expect there to be hell to pay for anybody left back in Iraq. Especially when Iranian forces are already arming, training and probably funding certain allied groups in Iraq. So far it has largely been for free (an occasional message to the Americans-British seems to be mostly all that the Iranian regime has wanted).
But when we are out Iraq, Iran will be in control. And if we attack Iran; Iran will have Iraq at its disposal.

So how much of Iraq is-will be part of Iran? (I'm not just talking territory; I'm talking hearts, minds and armed militias).

For further reading…
This article backs up many of my points and anyway makes interesting reading.
Another Question: Why oh why are we not making the Sunni people independent with their own share of oil? Surely this would be a great way of pointing a gun to the back of any fundamentalist Muslim desires the Shiites may-have?
(Not to mention it would save many of their lives; not that, that seems to count for much in Western Foreign policy).

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:12 PM
Ok so 55 viewings, and it now on the 2nd page. Perhaps nobody on ATS thinks Iraq will become further integrated into Iran? Nobody at all? Wow there's so many people on here it’s almost like there's some sort of conspiracy going on!
In which case why won’t Iraq become further integrated into Iran? Is there something factually incorrect in what I’ve said-produced? Or do you think the U.S will just stay in Iraq forever (i.e. until there's little-no chance of that happening?)

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:20 PM
If Iraq broke up completely, the southern half would definitely all go to Iran. The Northern Kurdish areas might do so as well, or they might try and unite the Kurdish Turkey territories. the central Sunni half would probably lean towards Syria for protection.

I thought even before the war that peace and stability in Iraq could only be maintained two ways:

1. A brutal dictator to crush rebellion and religous tension (i.e. saddam)
2. Dissolution of the nation of Iraq and three independant states formed. However, given the middle east, they would not stay independant long.

The creation of Iraq as a single state was one of the biggest mistakes the French and British made after WW1.

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:30 PM
Like much of Africa, the middle east was divided up on rather un-natural lines. Rather than a natural division taking place, the tribes and cultures were summarily divided into areas of control (notice the straight borders).

With the freedom to decide their own allegiances it seems obvious that these disparate tribes and cultures would ally themselves with their 'brothers'.

Skadi has it right, much of the internecine feuding could have been avoided if the native people were allowed to separate along their own cultural borders.

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:26 PM
I'd disagree with your first point - we are not 'one nation' at all. We may have common links and history but we're separate entities (or we were until that cur Bliar took office).

We, like the US have a number of interests to consider: our own strategic objectives, NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the 'Special Relationship' (yeah right!), the ECHELON alliance etc etc. To paraphrase McMillan(?) - we have no permanent allies, just permanent interests.

As we showed with Vietnam when we have decent leaders we can recognise when the US's objectives do not match ours. Bliar unfortunately is a gullible fool and doesn't get this point.

Also what is people's obsession with Australia's minor, make-weight, contribution to the Iraq crusade? ROK contributes 8 times the forces the Aussies have managed to scrape together (see the 'coalition of the willing' thread), Georgia & Italy far more and Poland & Denmark slightly more / about the same.

I make Australia 8th/9th on the list in terms of boots on the ground.

Re your question I don't know the proportion but clearly Iraq as an entity is now at severe risk of being broken up / falling into separate states and Iran would be one of the winners.

Which is the bigger mistake?
Creating Iraq (the original line in the sand) or destroying it?

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 12:54 PM
I like your perspective Strangerous that we “have no permanent allies, just permanent interests”. But I disagree with you that Blair fails to understand this (or even if he did I think it would be largely irrelevant). Because I believe the real reason why Blair, Bush, Howard (etcetera) are united in their political stance on Iraq has less to do with their personal understanding and more to do with their “corruption” in the form of the stranglehold media barons like Rupert Murdoch hold over their political careers. Rupert Murdoch (and people like him) seem to mess with politics not just for their own political beliefs but also those of the companies and interest groups that buy into their media empires (Friends of Israel being just an interest group).

But you posed a really thought provoking question…
“Which was the biggest mistake creating Iraq or destroying it?”

In my view: destroying Iraq (if that’s what happens) was an even bigger mistake than creating it. That’s because before the first Gulf War Iraq had been quite a successful nation. It had over 90% literacy, a first world health and education system and political and social stability (admittedly at the point of a gun). One of the reasons for its success lies precisely in the way it had been created i.e. a large number of Shiite Muslim fundamentalists being ruled over by a relatively small number of Secular Sunnis. Paradoxically the nature of this type of government laid the foundation for its destruction because it enabled the West to remove its dictator-leader under the pretext of “regime change with a view to improving human rights”. Had Iraq been a democracy all along it would have been much harder to maintain the sanctions against its WMD’s once they no longer existed (or even if it hadn’t) it would certainly be harder to remove one democracy in exchange for another. That said would an Iraqi democracy have been much different concerning the West’s core objectives to Saddam. Judging by the way we do business with other regimes (as well as the way we had till 16 years ago done business with him) these objectives had precious little to do with human rights.
Rather it is my (informed) understanding that our core objections to Saddam’s rule was as following…
His rejection of the state of Israel and support of Palestinians terrorists as well as victims.
His claim to Kuwait (which had been part of Iraq for thousands of years up and till the British colonial occupation of the early 1920’s).
His vision for a westernised Arab World (the Ba’th party began with a largely Sunni political movement in the 1950’s to model the Arab world on America. However the West has never liked this idea as it risks creating a second super power. Whilst Muslim fundamentalists detest it on ideological-cultural grounds.

What’s interesting is that a democratically functional Iraq especially (with a capital E) a Shiite Muslim Fundamentalist one would be even more against the state of Israel than many of the Arab dictators who rule the Middle East, and instead prefer to use the issue to consolidate their power.
A Sunni (Secular Muslim) democracy would be more likely to compromise on its opposition to Israel, yet also be likely to be attracted to the Ba’th Westernisation model.
Whilst in both cases (fundamentalist or Secular leadership) there is always a chance that Iraqi leaders may (one day) be tempted to use Kuwait issue to consolidate their power (e.g. reduce the chance of the army rebelling as Saddam did in 1991).

With this in mind I'm surprised that America (with it being so pro Israel and all) is keen to put in place what will largely be a Muslim fundamentalist democracy (over 60% of Iraq’s population is Shiite). Then again America does actually operate an insane foreign policy. Maybe its leaders are too evil to realise its insanity? (The sort of thing you expect from people with rotten hearts) (I call it the psychology of evil). But regardless of whether I'm right about the nature of the cause this problem in the thinking of Americas senior leaders (whoever and whatever they may really be) the fact America supports a Muslim fundamentalist democracy and at the same time maintains a love of Israel remains a good demonstration of what I call “the insanity of American foreign policy.”

Directly Back to Point…

If Iraq had been built upon cultural and ethnic lines from the beginning there is still no guarantee that it would have been a democracy, or that whatever government they had would have been better than what they had under Saddam.

That said there would undoubtedly have been less blood spilt during the last 80 years because there would have been less of a need for whoever is in charge of Iraq to kill people stirring-causing trouble amongst other sections of Iraqi society. It’s also true that if we had invaded a Iraq with a more culturally and ethnically stable social fabric that whatever democracy we may try to introduce would have had a much higher chance of working. Of course some people would say it is already working in Iraq but when you look at things more closely you kind of realise that it’s a democracy that’s democratically on the way to two things: Self destruction, or the brake up of Iraq. And for all the talk of freedom it is certainly true that you cannot speak your mind without the risk of being abducted or even having your head cut of. In a more socially stable Iraq that would be a lot less likely to happen, but if such a Iraq was Muslim fundamentalist perhaps the survival of democracy (under anything much different to Iran model) would also be a lot less likely to happen.

If you could go back in time perhaps the solution would have been to divide Iraq into two Sunni and Shiite countries (maybe with nothing other than a few mutual constitutional defence guarantees).
However this time you would make sure that the Sunni ruled over a majority of Sunni and that the Shiite ruled over something close to an absolute majority of Shiite.
At the moment the Sunni are being exterminated, or forcefully converted (i.e virtually all their woman now have to wear Islamic clothing due to the fear factor). However things still aren’t too late. So long as we are in Iraq we could still create a Sunni state (if I was Bush I would do it under the political pretext of protecting the Sunni people). And so long as they have a better future than the one they have now I'm sure most of this resistance stuff coming from them against our troops would stop. After all we would be their liberators-liberators from Shiites that is. Right now I don’t see things going that way. All I see (for the next decade or so) is the remaining Sunni population being partially exterminated to the point where there is nothing but Muslim Fundamentalist Iraq with a very small and extremely subdued Sunni population. It will be one highly deprived of intellectuals and one certainly deprived of political people with both nerve and political interest. The new Iraq will be about as Iranian as Britain is American (which is actually quite a lot when you think about it compared with other places). It’s a double shame because a somewhat independent Sunni state would potentially be a great (Western) political-military base against any and all fundamentalist (Iranian style) ambitions the other (Shiite) Iraq may have.

Right now I imagine the cause and effect consequences of evil are going to make just about anyone who had a hand in Iraq pay (big long-short term problems to many of their wishes-interests big time). As a side note I’m philosophically increasingly of the opinion that there is no evil just stupidity, ignorance and insanity (all almost by definition) counter productive to the greater-better good.

But I'm still keen to know whether any fellow ATS’ers think a Sunni State would be a good idea?

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:23 PM
Not trying to hi-jack your thread but it IS an interesting question: Is Bliar a fool or very astute?

Obviously we'll never know what the US administration threatened the UK with if we didn't join the crusade (rumours of threats of ending the Trident missile refueling or changes to the ECHELON/UKUSA arrangements) but some pressure was certainly applied.

Personally I think the US admin has played Bliar, as an individual, like a fish - they know what he wants to hear and they made sure the story fitted his expectations.

That's the only expalanation I can find for Bliar taking us to war in the teeth of opposition from the Foreign Office, the MOD, MI5/SIS, his own party and Parliament and readily-accepting such action would harm our traditional good relations with the Arab world and bring another wave of terrorism to our shores.

Interestingly the Home Office (traditionally pro-Israeli) didn't object much at all which does reinforce your Murdoch / media point.

If it was the astute decision that it was in our long-term interests then surely many of the objecting parties would have realised that was the case.

Maybe we'll find out in 30 years but I suspect we'll never know

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:39 AM
Well it’s not that much of a side track at all Strangerous as if our leaders were more democratically representative of the peoples interests we might not have kicked out a perfectly good dictator only to “process” huge amounts of his country into perfect alliance territory pickings for our regional enemy (i.e. Iran).
Here is a link I must have given about ten times now. But it’s a really very good one as it shows what just one man like Rupert Murdoch can control (over 175 newspapers would wide) (and much more).
And when every one out of 172 newspapers he controlled at the time of the Iraq war supported the war in Iraq; you know there is something critically wrong with our democracy. But its gets worse; look at this ATS thread I did which started on who voted for New Labour and why did you do it; but which I quickly moved onto about why Blair (and people like him including his main rivals) are bad for democracy. We won’t even change our European Foreign Policy without first consulting Rupert Murdoch’s News International:

What Not To Do On ATS…
The next page is quite good as well; but the first was a disaster as I should have created two separate threads for the two different issues. Also I should not have been
Believe it or not I had come back from a party semi drunk then sat down at my computer and thought “what should I do now”. Yes next time I’ve been drinking I think I’ve got to try out one of those Bible Prophecy website instead) Will the end of world end in a pub fight? And which drink is the AntiPrice? Got to ask the Chaplin about that one!!

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:30 PM


Because no matter if they get the bomb or not, ours are bigger.

You're a fool if you think China and / or Russia will intervine for a backwards country and risk they're very existance.

Iran will either do what we say or it's people will starve to death - just like NK.

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:18 PM
Winning hearts and minds (US-style) again I see crisko?

God bless you for keeping the world safe from free will - we're all ever so grateful and promise to buy more of your products just to show our appreciation.

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:16 PM
I think crisko could be right. Maybe we will just resort to more violence to solve the problems (that in Iraq at least our disputable unjustified) use of violence has already caused?
And it wouldn’t be the first time. In fact I have to ask crisko if he does his history or do the decisions of the past just seem obvious naturally? Because when Britain last occupied Iraq that is exactly what we did. We just pulled more of our troops out and used more bombs instead. In fact it was during this time that Winston Churchill infamously made his memo to Downing Street suggesting the use of poisonous gas against the rebellious Kurdish population.

So yeah crisko would be spot on if we haven’t learnt very much in the last 80 years about occupation, rights, and liquidation. Of course no way would the U.S military use gas. Instead what would you prefer: An illegal gas shell? Or a legal Moab bomb. I would personally go for the Moab any day.
And it does remain to be see seen if this sort of approach to Iraq will be tolerated by the 21st century Western public (then again if it’s too dangerous to put journalists outside the Green Zone in Iraq then who knows?)
But Strangerous is also totally right about what this approach will do to Americas image globally, let alone for its ability to win “hearts and minds” (well unless there in an autopsy theatre I suppose).

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Strangerous
I'd disagree with your first point - we are not 'one nation' at all. We may have common links and history but we're separate entities (or we were until that cur Blair took office).

Also what is people's obsession with Australia's minor, make-weight, contribution to the Iraq crusade?

I make Australia 8th/9th on the list in terms of boots on the ground.

You have made a very fundamental error here. Australia IS NOT part of any American coalition force in Iraq. We have NEVER been involved in the war on terror. We have NEVER participated in any American activities in Iraq.

We told Bush to stick his war on terror up his ass.

Australia's military involvement ended the day the legally constituted UN multinational force succeeded in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in Desert Storm.

Australian troops in Iraq today consist of 150 guarding the Australian embassy compound, and 450 providing security for international aid and food convoys. We have not fought in any of the battles, and we most certainly are not, and never have been at war with any insurgents.

So please get your facts straight. Australia IS NOT part of any American coalition. Australians are overwhelmingly anti war, and anti American on this issue.

Count Australia's contribution to Bush's war on terror as ZERO. And we are very proud of that.

(edited for spelin)

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Warpspeed]

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:57 PM
Never said you were! You do have troops in-country though which can't be denied.

Merely pointing out people on ATS always mention Oz as being a key US supporter whereas your actual contribution is the thin end of SFA.

As you say your contribution is minor and you're avoiding combat ops.

We're anti-war and anti US too but still have c. 9,000 of our lads out there fighting George's war for him.

I'm sure most Poles, Koreans etc etc feel the same

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Strangerous
Never said you were! You do have troops in-country though which can't be denied.

Merely pointing out people on ATS always mention Oz as being a key US supporter whereas your actual contribution is the thin end of SFA.

As you say your contribution is minor and you're avoiding combat ops.

We're anti-war and anti US too but still have c. 9,000 of our lads out there fighting George's war for him.

I'm sure most Poles, Koreans etc etc feel the same

Oz is definitely not a supporter of America in the war on terror. Far from it. Saying we are a KEY supporter is just laughable.

We are not " avoiding combat ops" . How do you do that when Australia is not even involved in any war there. ? There is no combat to avoid.

If you still don't believe this, do a goggle search using key words like " Falluja, Australian" or " Insurgents, Australian, casualties" see if you can find ANY evidence of military activity or casualties. You will search in vain. We are not at war in Iraq, we have nothing to do with American military actions there.

Our troops are part of a multinational group involved in civilian aid programs there.

The only contact we have with American forces in Iraq, is that we have some Australian staff officers posted at US military headquarters. The purpose is to coordinate the food convoys and US patrols so there are no mistakes from American "friendly fire".

The insurgents are also notified in advance by the Iraqi government about the times and locations of these international food convoys. Again to avoid "friendly fire" from the insurgents. These convoys have never been attacked.

This let's the insurgents concentrate on American road patrols with their roadside bombs. We are welcome guests in the country, America is the hated invader.

Do you now begin to understand what is really going on over there? Do some google searches for the truth. Americans have been misled and lied to by the media. many still believe we are allies of America in Iraq, we most certainly are not. There is no contact between Aussie and US troops except at the highest command level. Certainly no joint operations.

I expect this will come as rather a surprise, but research it anyway. There is a mountain of truth for you to uncover about Australias true role in Iraq.

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:35 PM
Again I never said you were.

Perhaps you'd care to read my posts before trying to teach me about what you're doing (or not doing) in Iraq

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:04 PM
So glad you understand the true situation Strangerous.

We Aussies want absolutely nothing to do with Bush, his lies, or his immoral war on terror.

The people on ATS that think Australians are 100% behind America in this war, are 100% WRONG.

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:30 PM

And if CANADA ... where more involved in the Iraq war then militarily all five English speaking nations would be behaving as one.

That's why Quebec NEED to be appart from the Canada, appart from the english people because we are so much different, from the cultural, ethnic and language views. And our government is peaceful unless the present english speaking governments.

No offence.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Vitchilo]

new topics

top topics


log in