Why the US now has to invade Iran

As I listened to AAR Morning Sedition's interview with Time Baghdad bureau chief, Mick Ware, this morning, I had a terrible sinking feeling -- I was literally becoming sick to my stomach, naseaus.

Mick Ware, as you may know, is an incredibly brave and truthful journalist when he is interviewed on the radio (although somehow all that knowledge rarely makes it inside the covers of his employer).

His main point was that Iraq is on the verge of an expanded civil war. The Shiites have formed a government and they have no intention of holding out the hand of reconciliation to the Sunnis and former Baathists. In fact, they openly plot a renewed purge of all Baathists from the government. The Coalition Provisional Authority's purge of high level Baathists is what started the insurgency in the first place, and the new government plans to go much further. Ware said they are out for blood.

But that wasn't the worst part. Ware said that he interviewed outgoing prime minister Allawi, who told him that once the new government is in place, the US government will have zero influence on the Iraqi government. Instead, the Iraqi Shiite dominated government will form extremely close ties with shiite Iran.

Think about it: Over 100,000 Iraqi lives, over 1500 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, Iraq's infrastructure, oil industry and several whole cities devasted, so that we can deliver Iraq to our worst enemy in the region, Iran -- and have no influence.

Think of the position of US armed forces in Iraq several months from now: in the middle of a civil war, protecting a government that pays no heed to it and is in fact aligned with an enemy state of the US. Ware said they will be "150,000 potential hostages." This will be an absurd outcome.

Now the planned bombing of Iran makes sense. The US will have little difficulty with an Iraq aligned with Iran on religious/cultural grounds. The US cannot stop this inevitability, because they already accepted majority rule in Iraq -- de facto, shiite rule.

But if Iraq must be aligned with Iran, it will have to be aligned to a politically different Iran. Hence the US must force regime change in Iran in order to save its position in Iraq.

...which is the neo-con road-map of world conquest.

regime change??? Have you swallowed the whole fascist bait???

This post cannot be serious. If so, please explain why "Iran is our worst enemy in the region" (because * said so doesn't count).


:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

the logic (or illogic) of the administration's position. Obviously, I am not in favor of regime change in Iran. But from the administration's position, this is why they now feel they have to overthrow the mullahs.

too quickly....in the mind of Bush and the neocons, Iran IS our worst enemy in the region...never mind the point that the NEOCON MADE THEM OUR WORST ENEMIES...

In a sense, the scenario in the OP rings true....I've been bothered by the Civil War/Shiite Purge/Coalition with Iran scenario for some time and wondered how Bush could let that happen and still claim "freedom is on the march";"they love democracy" etc., ad nauseum....


Bush either has to do something about Iran or, pray that the atrocieies don't take place until after he's left office so it's somebody elses problem.

Respect their sovereignty. Get the hell out of Iraq and start reparations immediately.

The thought that another invasion, the taking of hundreds of thousands of more lives because of our own fear and dearth of diplomacy, is sickening and is not on the table.

because you are clacking away at your keyboard demanding it? Let's look at what they are doing, rather than what you want them to do.

Whether you see it or not (You seem to have gotten comfortable with this idea of regime change and killing innocent people who are far, far away)

the OP is just exposing the neocon position on this, he is not a neocon.

It's sounds for the life of me like he/she is arguing that this is something we have to do. I don't see it any other way.

Back to my planet. :hi:

of assuming that Bush is a: Sane or b: Competent.

He's neither...

will never trust bush or those who tolerate him. They now see the American people as their enemies because bush was reelected.

As a show of good faith, we will have to impeach and remove bush and his administration from office. Until then we can never pay enough reparations to the people of the Mideast. We can never ask for or receive forgiveness until we do.

relations with Iran during Bill Clinton's administration, this whole fucking thing just makes me wanna PUKE! In fact, I think I will! :puke:

was actually struggling to reform Iran? US belligerence has played a role in weakening him, while Clinton was strengtening his efforts by showing that Iran could receive tangible benefits from the US and internationall community. Khatami was actually charming the American public -- the first smiling mullah!

It's a pity, a shame that this did not continue.

I think they wanted to weaken the reformers so they could maintain the possibility in the future mischeif.

moderates back in the early '90's? That's means they have a democracy of sorts, doesn't it?

What will be the pretext for invading Iran? :shrug:

but not necessarily a democracy. In other words, they have a unique system in which electoral politics plays a role. But so does the organized religious establishment.

At the time of Khatami's election, the mullahs could choose who could run. They put up some hardliners, and then Khatami, thinking that putting him on the ballot would allow people to "blow off steam" by voting for this moderate. They were shocked that Khatami won in a landslide.

But Khatami did not have the power of a president in most electoral systems. He fought for years to get appointments and new policies, only to be vetoed by the mullahs.

So Iranian politics were very complex, and Khatami needed allies inside and outside the country to overhaul the sytem. That's the role Clinton played. Basically the US was saying, "we support Khatami, and the more he, as the democratically elected president get done, the more we will life sanctions, increase contacts, etc," which is what most Iranian people wanted.

Then the moron was elected here, and took a hardline against Iran. This gave tremendous power to the mullahs who stopped Khatami's reforms dead in their tracks. Their logic was, see, you cannot trust or deal with the west; they really are our enemies.

seems like syria is more of immediate problem. we don't even have to occupy syria, cuz they ain't gots no oil.

why order of business #1 was not sealing the syrian border, i have no idea.

There are some positions which simply stink. The US is in one now.

Attacking Iran makes Iraq *much* worse and requires all sorts of things the US does not have.

It took a lot of stupid decisions to get them where they are now. Chances that stupid decisions will continue with this bunch are pretty good. I don't know if they want to go for grand prize, but I will say that I think they could be that stupid, based on their previous fuckups. Shrub may think he is a god, or on a mission from God that cannot fail. I believe the NeoCons have always looked at Iraq as a lucrative, easily captured base on the way to Iran.

just don't have the troops or the money to attack Iran. I just don't believe would be capable of doing this and I think the people that back Bush now (the ones who put up and help fund one superfluous war) would not allow another. Maybe I'm wrong. It just doesn't seem possible for this to happen any time soon.

Committing our second violation of international law makes a nice pair??

Nice to know that you've accepted the notion we have the right to attack other countries without provocation, and your sole qualm is our lack of resources. :puke:

Then again, sitting there at the computer, you really don't have to deal with the thousands of dead people, do you?

:eyes:

if you think I am endorsing rather than describing their quite obvious planning, then you are completely clueless.

so either there are several of us clueless, or you were unclear.

"Hence the US must force regime change in Iran in order to save its position in Iraq."

Dude.

"I was literally becoming sick to my stomach, naseaus."

It's called context.

So it's something we have to do, but Hamden is going to be nauseous about it.

Hope you feel better soon.

If I tell you I am opposed to the administration's course of action, and you don't accept that, well there's really not much left to say, is there.

Your mind-reading is just way too powerful.

I'd rather discuss the strategic substance with other posters.

Your OP:

"Think about it: Over 100,000 Iraqi lives, blah blah blah... so that we can deliver Iraq to our worst enemy in the region, Iran -- and have no influence."

"Think of the position of US armed forces in Iraq several months from now...This will be an absurd outcome."

These are your words, not "the administration believes this or that".

Yes, the thread has run its course, the reason being that you've furiously backpedaled yourself into a corner...so please feel free to discuss "strategic substance" with other posters. Your cavalier attitude toward war is actually making me a bit nauseous.

I didn't and still do not agree the first 'violation of international law' (Iraq war). By saying 'it makes sense' I was trying to put my head around the way THEY think. They want the world to be their puppet so if the Shiite Iraq governement turns their back on BushCo, what would he do? It makes sense that he, in his deranged thinking would then come up with a notion that they have to control the governement the Shiites are conspiring with against us. They are evil and greedy and it makes sense they would want to control another oil rich nation.

Your kind of mean btw. You could have at least asked me what I meant instead of attacking me like that.

edit - deleted sentence - I don't feel like telling you how the iraq war impacted me personally

either our posts or the shrubistas. I entirely understand what you mean, and that was the spirit of the original post.

As I wrote to him in another post, his mindreading is just too powerful for us.

edit - messed up wording like a madman

just aircraft. In the shrub administration fantasy, they will bomb alleged nuclear facilities. This will demonstrate the impotence of the current government in Iran, and a spontaneous uprising will then topple the government.

Just as after the toppling of Saddam, US troops would be greeted with sweets and flowers.

For an Iranian invasion, they need a catalyst to drum up blind support by the American Public. No one will accept expanding hostilities in Iran unless US soil is attacked or the troops suffer a major loss due to a terrorist attack. Possibly even a small nuke. If either occurs close the windows now! I see, hear and feel a DRAFT coming.

they would need some kind of "event", or they couldn't possibly justify it ("fighting tyranny" just isn't good enough).

Being crapped on by bush for this long is hard enough to take. think they wanna spend another 6 years in iran? It'll take a draft to replenish the troop levels at home.

If you are avocating it, I would disagree. We only have enemies in the region because we have made them ourselves. Iran is a democracy we overthrew to install the shah. If we truly wanted Iraqi freedom, we should live with the results of that, NOT continue to preemptively invade them or their allies as they make their own choices.

However, as we all know, Iraqi freedom was never the reason.

see my responses to others who have come to the same conclusion.

Would I say I was sick to my stomach about a plan I endorse?

are they quoting someone or your words? its unclear.
It could be read either way.
That's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking you, but still responded to how it APPEARED you wrote those last paragraphs.

If I may, I would suggest if they are quotes from Ware, you need to make that more clear.
You're getting very angry at people misreading your post, but I think if you reread it, and separate your intent from it, it is a little unclear who is saying what.

Yes, you said you were sick at your stomach, but if someone was unclear as to your stance, you could be sick at your stomach EVEN IF you agreed with the inevitability of the administration's stance.

It is EASY for you to know what you meant, even if you wrote it sloppily...because you wrote it so you KNOW what you meant. For the rest of us, we do not have the luxury of your thoughts to compare with what you wrote, we only have your words.

If you don't want to have this problem, be a little more clear when you write.

but I have to suggest that you and wtmusic were the only people who took it that way. And at least you asked, while wt accused.

If I sounded angry, it wasn't because anyone misunderstood. It was after I explained what I meant, wt continued to try to characterize my beliefs, as though he knew what I meant and I didn't. Now that's absurd. If you read through the thread, you will see what I mean.

Ware was discussing the coming civil war, and the fact that the US will not have influence with the Iraqi government. It is my analysis that this explains why, in the administration's logic, it must change the regime in Tehran.

When the History Channel documentary says something like, "Hitler was drawn deeper and deeper into Soviet territory," I doubt they are endorsing the foreign policy of the Third Reicht.

I has to be my fault for misunderstanding instead of your fault for being unclear.

whichever.

It isn't going to happen without Russian complicity. Iran is the 20th century Poland and Russia is willing (if the time ever comes) to allow others to do the dirty work.

Something has to be in it for them. When Condi starts globe trotting to Moscow and you actually see Putin smile back at her watch out.

I think this administration no longer cares about Russia's official opposition and despite the polite facade, both sides now realize that they are strategically opposed. The complicity of the US in installing anti-Russian governments in Ukraine and Georgia is an even more blatant disregard of Russian interests than would be an overthrow of the Iranian regime.

They have a nice missle system called the Sunburn, almost a hypersonic anti shipping cruise missle launched by a special stealthy blue Mig-29.
This little card is a carrier task forces worst nightmare and piles it on big time to gunboat diplomacy. Venezuala and Cuba also now have these little beauties. Check out Janes for details.

Yes load Iran up with nuclear material for (so called) peaceful purposes. Make noises about verifiable use of nuclear material. Encourage America to invade, then sit back and see how well your new hardware works without having to fire a shot. If you are Russia no matter who wins, Russia probably wins.

The US has assumed it has complete air superiority. Russia has had the opportunity to watch Iraq I, and try to create new weaponry.

If the US tries to bomb Iran and planes are shot down by new Russian hardware, then shrub will have completely destroyed the credibility of US superiority on the ground in Iraq and in the air over Iran.

One purpose of having an armed force is NOT to use it so that the fear that other states have of it act as a deterrent. Shrub has been demonstrating for all the world to see exactly where our weaknesses are.

R&D is now bogged down with a staggering ground war and we have truly shown most of our cards along with weaknesses.

An invasion of Iran will not be the same thing as an invasion of Iraq.

Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets. When you put other persons lives on the line (not your own) it is easy to think strategically. Most people (voters) do not want to have to think about war and simply want to go on with their lives. So we trust Governments and look a the mess we get into.

I for one do not trust George Bush and his brand of neo-cons, nor do I want my children or my neighbors children to participate in wars of aggression.

never really ended, it was simply a truce for a while. Serbia in 1999 was as close as we've been since the Cuban missile crisis of a hot war between NATO and Russia. Putin is strongly opposed to a war on Iraq, but I think the neo-cons want a confrontation with Russia. These are old cold warriors, they want to assert American supremacy once and for all. They want to show Russia that they can interfere in their sphere of influence and attack their allies and there ain't a damn thing they can do about it.

wherby we are not permitted to out Freepers or even use that word to describe a fellow DU member.

That is all I can say.

But the problem is this: Bombing Iran is not going to bring about a regime change. It is going to make the Iranians rally around their leaders, that's what having a common external enemy does to people (the neo-cons, of all people, should know this well, it's the foundation of their entire philosophy). My bet is that they are planning for a replay of the war on Serbia, heavy aerial bombing followed by a capitulation by the mullahs (like Milosevic) and then a CIA/NED-sponsored "orange revolution". It worked in Serbia, but I seriously doubt the US could orchestrate an orange revolution in Iran.

So if they want regime change, they will have to invade with boots on the ground and the full nine yards. Iran will make Iraq look like a cakewalk. Four times the size, twice the population, a much stronger military, and they've spent two years observing US tactics and strategies in Iraq. They are well prepared. So it would be what you might call a bad idea to attempt that. But it is true - the alternative is an Iraq that is aligned with America's arch enemy and leader of the Axis of Evil. An Iran that emerges from the Iraq war stronger than it was before.

And, of course: Iran is going to set up their petroleum exchange in Tehran trading oil in euros. Iraq will possibly follow suit and trade their oil in euros too. The new oil minister, Ahmed Chalabi, has ties to Iran (in adition to being a neo-con favourite). Goodbye, American empire.

My, what a brilliant strategic move it was to invade Iraq.

but I also don't think that when the bombing fails to dislodge the mullahs, the US will invade. At that point, the joint chiefs will tell shrub that it simply isn't possible.

On the other hand, the PNACers and neo-cons used to have a clever quip before the Iraq war, which was actually reported in the MSM: "Some officials want to go to Baghdad, real men want to go to Tehran."

I kid you not.

drooling over a war on Iran, but I believe (and hope) that you are right, that the military leaderhip will say enough's enough before it comes to a ground invasion. It would, after all, be pure, unadulterated insanity to attempt that.

The wise decision to make at this point would be to declare victory, withdraw from Iraq, stop invading countries, drastically reduce defense spending in order to balance the federal budget and thus prepare for a world in which the greenback is no longer everyone's reserve currency, and then invest heaviy in R&D on renewable resources and alternative energy sources.

That'll be the day.

Iraq was riven by competing ethnic groups and religious groups. Iran has a settled national identity.

Iraq's military was destroyed in the first gulf war. Iran's was not.

Iraq was under economic sanctions. Iran is not, nor will it be.

Iraq wasn't pumping much oil, so it was hard for it to pump less (although we did it, yea). We can't even survive with Iran's oil off the market for a month.

And believe it or not: Iran's people have no interest in being invaded, or for that matter, giving up atomic weapons, for the US's interest in Iraq.

But now you need a buffer zone to protect your troops in the original buffer zone. Then the buffer zone of the buffer zone have troops that need a buffer zone.

The more you try to control , the more that needs controlling.

that's exactly what happened to the British empire. It was absurd. Example: To protect Egypt, we need to protect the source of the Nile. So we take Buganda. To protect Buganda, we need to build a railroad to the coast. To make the railroad pay, we need to create the colony of Kenya ... it just goes on and on and on and the US is getting stuck in that dynamic.

The US plan is to have a Shi'ite government - to please the majority of Iraqis - that will be ineffectual, and therefore easily pushed around by US power. They don't care how fundamentalist it is, as long as it isn't effectively nationalist. This aim I think has been kind of achieved - the Iraqi government, pro-US or not, will have little power.

They would like to see Iran removed so that their power in Iraq is uncontested, but I think they are trying to see if they can create a semblance of a stable Iraq before invading. That, of course, has been a miserable failure.

They've stepped into a quagmire that they thought was a stepping stone, and now they are stuck - they can't advance without stability, they can't retreat without abandoning their hopes of profit.

If they invade anyone it might be (not likely) Syria not Iran. Gosh, Iran may actually have WMD's. 10 car bombs in one day is a clear sign there is stablity in Iraq.

I hate what happened when you started this thread.

Your original post makes perfect sense, but some folks read something into it that isn't there and hunker down when they are wrong and get defensive. That's wrong.

It happens to me frequently here, so hang in. :)

it's good to hear. It's amazing how easy it is for a thread to get sidetracked.