Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Speculation on A U.S.-IRANIAN DEAL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Speculation on A U.S.-IRANIAN DEAL

    Thinking out of the box again.

    THINKING ABOUT THE UNTHINKABLE: A U.S.-IRANIAN DEAL

    ... as an exercise in geopolitical theory, consider the following. Washington's current options are unacceptable. By redefining the issue in terms of dealing with the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there are three areas of mutual interest. First, both powers have serious quarrels with Sunni Islam. Second, both powers want to see a reduction in U.S. forces in the region. Third, both countries have an interest in assuring the flow of oil, one to use the oil, the other to profit from it to increase its regional power.
    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.

    Copyright 2010 Stratfor.
    Full text attached below.
    Attached Files
    Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

    Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

  • #2
    This is well written until it never really explains the 3rd option. The only thing I get for sure is that we count on Turkey being the counterbalance that Iraq was. What does the USA do in Iraq? Is this option to basically do nothing? I will say that this highlights what a mistake it was to invade Iraq!
    Some opinions:
    1. This assumes the USA can control Israel. I disagree. They just may unilaterally attack.
    2. For many reasons, I would not trust Turkey to do anything.
    3. This option would not address the real problem: Iran could still build and export nukes. This option seems to sell the Israelis down the river. If so, I believe that would be an incredible mistake.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dave123 View Post
      ...I will say that this highlights what a mistake it was to invade Iraq!...
      I don' believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. I believe the actions taken in the aftermath of a successful and brilliant invasion are where the mistakes lay. If in fact it was styled as a punitive expedition, with some Iraqi governmental and military infrastructure left intact, then things would have turned out different. Many advised this as 20/20 foresight, not hindsight. However, Liberal elements of the Bush administration (to include Bush himself) and now the Obama administration want to remake these countries like Sweden. This Wilsonian entanglement will continue for years with further losses of blood and treasure.

      Striking any type of deal with Iran does not really provide any good options as I do not believe any deals would be honored by the Iranians.

      Comment


      • #4
        ANY

        deal struck with the Iranian governments of late, not just the current one, is a win - lose proposition. Their win our loss.

        We have little or anything in common with thier government and if we believe we share the same goals we need to reconsider.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          So you don't beleive it was a mistake.

          So what positive can you find in the pile of negatives of Iraq for the US??

          Saddam is gone. As Cheny would say "SO". BMFD. What if he wasn't? We would be a couple billion richer and have 4000 plus lives more. Not to forget several 10s of thousands of Iraqs that have been killed since his untimely departure.
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            So you don't beleive it was a mistake.

            So what positive can you find in the pile of negatives of Iraq for the US??

            Saddam is gone. As Cheny would say "SO". BMFD. What if he wasn't? We would be a couple billion richer and have 4000 plus lives more. Not to forget several 10s of thousands of Iraqs that have been killed since his untimely departure.
            I believe what I said in post #3. Yes, having Saddam gone is a good thing. Having it styled as a punitive expedition accomplishes removing a regional threat and shows to the region that "Don't Tread on Me" is more than just empty rhetoric. It is my opinion that force is what commands respect in the Arab world. The casualties you cite are for the most part due to not having a punitive expedition approach, but to having a nation-building approach. As for the plight of the Iraqi people, they need to take that up with their own and those that got them into this mess, and then solve it on their own.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ah, just when did Saddam come looking for us to thread on?
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                Ah, just when did Saddam come looking for us to tread on?
                It starts with DS/S and all of his behavior after. His removal was a good thing. Our attempts at proselytism are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Very interesting article, good points about US reaching understandings with Stalin and Mao. I think the analysis presented makes sense. If the US pursued these other options, I'm sure people will say "We're giving Iran a victory". Well, they already won. They learned the lesson from North Korea, that the way to achieve power is through nuclear capability.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Alatriste View Post
                    I don' believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. I believe the actions taken in the aftermath of a successful and brilliant invasion are where the mistakes lay. If in fact it was styled as a punitive expedition, with some Iraqi governmental and military infrastructure left intact, then things would have turned out different. Many advised this as 20/20 foresight, not hindsight. However, Liberal elements of the Bush administration (to include Bush himself) and now the Obama administration want to remake these countries like Sweden. This Wilsonian entanglement will continue for years with further losses of blood and treasure.

                    Striking any type of deal with Iran does not really provide any good options as I do not believe any deals would be honored by the Iranians.
                    Saddam was scum, yes. But he did counter balance the Iranians. Now we have a power void. The USA is stuck there, because if we leave, Iran moves in. Imagine what that would do to the cost of a gallon of gas. I don't think Bush had any true understanding of the politics of the region. He thought that we would be seen as liberators. Of course, blood is thicker than water, and we are outsiders. Now he is on a ranch somewhere in Texas and we are stuck with the mess. I like the way Bush handled 911, but the Iraq invasion baffled me at the time, and still does.
                    Thatís why I say it was a mistake.

                    I agree with you that any deal with the Iranians is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dave123 View Post
                      Saddam was scum, yes. But he did counter balance the Iranians. Now we have a power void. The USA is stuck there, because if we leave, Iran moves in. Imagine what that would do to the cost of a gallon of gas. I don't think Bush had any true understanding of the politics of the region. He thought that we would be seen as liberators. Of course, blood is thicker than water, and we are outsiders. Now he is on a ranch somewhere in Texas and we are stuck with the mess. I like the way Bush handled 911, but the Iraq invasion baffled me at the time, and still does.
                      Thatís why I say it was a mistake.

                      I agree with you that any deal with the Iranians is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
                      The big problem with the Iraq invasion (apart from the misunderstanding of the population, the misinformation that led to it and the mismanagement that followed it) was that it took focus and resources away from the war in Afghanistan and that is being paid for in blood today. Afghanistan was always the war that mattered while a contained Iraq wouldn't have made that much of a difference to the world today.

                      Hindsight is 20/20 and I was all for it at the time but it has become more and more a strategic mistake that I am sure that most of the planners now wish they had done things very differently.
                      Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

                      That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dave123 View Post
                        Saddam was scum, yes. But he did counter balance the Iranians. Now we have a power void. The USA is stuck there, because if we leave, Iran moves in. Imagine what that would do to the cost of a gallon of gas. I don't think Bush had any true understanding of the politics of the region. He thought that we would be seen as liberators. Of course, blood is thicker than water, and we are outsiders. Now he is on a ranch somewhere in Texas and we are stuck with the mess. I like the way Bush handled 911, but the Iraq invasion baffled me at the time, and still does.

                        Thatís why I say it was a mistake.

                        I agree with you that any deal with the Iranians is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
                        That's pretty much the line I take. The only exception is that his removal could have been quickly replaced with an other. The destabilizing took place because we decided to try and build a New Zeland on the Euphrates.

                        Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                        The big problem with the Iraq invasion (apart from the misunderstanding of the population, the misinformation that led to it and the mismanagement that followed it) was that it took focus and resources away from the war in Afghanistan and that is being paid for in blood today. Afghanistan was always the war that mattered while a contained Iraq wouldn't have made that much of a difference to the world today.

                        Hindsight is 20/20 and I was all for it at the time but it has become more and more a strategic mistake that I am sure that most of the planners now wish they had done things very differently.
                        Agreed. However, many had 20/20 foresight. They were simply not listened to by the Wilsonians.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          U.S. says happy to work with Iran on tackling drugs

                          VIENNA (Reuters) Ė The United States and Iran, whose relations are fraught over Tehran's nuclear programme, have held a rare meeting where Washington said it was happy to work with Tehran on fighting drugs.

                          U.S. envoy Glyn Davies said he had met on Friday with Ali Asghar Soltanieh of Iran, which is chairing the week-long U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) meeting in Vienna.

                          "It is in our interest to participate with the CND," Davies told reporters on Monday. "We are very happy to work with the chair even if he is from a country which we have differences with."

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X