Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What about Iran?

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

  • What about Iran?

    Hello everybody,


    After listening to the analyses of what we are going to do to Iraq, and what Iraq may do to us, I cannot but ask myself, what about Iran? Iran was listed as one of the member of the axis of evil, and is no great friend of ours. Do we think that Iran will sit idly by while we overun Iraq, and essentially encircle them geopolitically? True, Iran is no friend of Iraq, but I think that they would rather have Saddam than us on their front porch. The question is, will Iran intervene militarily if we do invade? And if they do, how will that impact our plans? And why is it that we have not heard from them yet about our current actions?


    And why is that no so called tv "military" analyst has yet to discuss about that eventuality, instead of raving and giving technical data about some new bombs we are going to drop on some poor Iraqi bastards who don't have a clue why we are invading their country?

  • #2
    If i remember correctly Iran did launch a brief foray into southern Iraq at the end of the gulf war.You can probably be certain that there are unofficial dealings going on with them through a third party to make sure no misunderstandings happen.I doubt if Iran can afford to intervene they are on pretty shaky ground domesticaly.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think Iran will make any military moves to help Iraq per se. They'll probably find some way to support the Shia in the south though. I can see the coalition maintaining a strong presence in that area to guard against the possibility of an Iranian incursion.

      I'd be more worried about the political trouble that Iran can cause in the rebuilding process after Iraq is defeated.
      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

      Comment


      • #4
        Iran has the 'Badr Brigade' of Shia dissidents ready to cross the Border if and when the Balloon goes up. It might have up to 15,000 to 20,000 members. It is mostly an infantry force reliant on Iran for logistical support. Word has it that the US and Iran have already agreed on the deployment of this Brigade in advance of the Invasion. The Badr Brigade will cross over and occupy a small portion of Iraq, presumably in a Shia area. In return for allowing this, the US expects the Badr Brigade will promise to be good boys and not rock the boat after the occupation of Iraq begins. That's the story anyway.
        Regardless of the above the Iranian Red Crescent and other Shia charities will definitely be sending in convoys of food and medical supplies to help the refugees and casualties of War.
        http://www.irelandinhistory.blogspot.ie/

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think Iran is dumb enough to enter the war on the side of Saddam.
          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

          Comment


          • #6
            The Iranians want to seem Saddam go. Just before Bush spoke the UN, they informed the US they would maintain a neutral status. However, they also said they were anything, but comfortable with the growing American presence in the region.

            Iran will probably continue to support factions in both north and south Iraq. We can not form a government without these groups. Iranian assistance will be rewarded with some kind of say in how a post-Saddam Iraq will be shaped.

            The greatest fear is that Iran will once again turn to intimidation to obtain Middle Eastern Super-Power status. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians tried to use a sustained terrorists campaign to force it's neighbors to support them. However, the local monarchies simply turned to the US and accepted a larger American military presence.

            Their chances of success will be greater in the near future. Iran could use terrorism, missiles, and unconventional weaponry to bully the local monarchies into accepting Iranian tutelage. However, even that strategy is unlikely to succeed because of the strong US presence. Even if we did withdraw, major moves by Iran would almost certainly invoke an immediate US response.

            Despite the risk, the best course of action is to monitor, wait, and keep an open mind. Pragmatists have gained power in Iran. This faction view a more friendly relationship with the West as important to Iran's long term economic strength. Change's in Iranian idealogy toward the west is slowly taking a turn for the positive. We should not do anything to push Iran back toward fundamentalism.

            While the newer generation of Iranians are less committed to radical Islam, they haven't forgotten the Shah, and our support for his corrupted regime. This coupled with fears of Western intent makes any push to have negative results.

            That doesn't mean we ignore Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear capable Iran is at least as dangerous as a nuclear capable Iraq. If Iran appears to be close to achieving nuclear capability, the US might need to take out their facilities and personnel. We'll need to establish strong evidence that Iran was close to building a working nuclear weapon first. We could release the info immediately after the strike.

            I also believe it's imperative to show we cut them from the "Axis of Evil." Like Saddam, Iran is using the strong words of the hawks to justify their actions and gain support. As I stated weeks ago, Iran informed the UN that it had information the US was developing a nuclear weapon capable of threatening the Arab nations in the Middle East. Such a belief justifies their own nuclear program. Playing the bad cop is fine to some degree. However, it can also cause more problems than it solves.

            The best strategy on Iran right now is observe with silent concern. If Iran does take a more threatening route, we can deal with that directly. However, we lack the support or cause to take immediate action on our old foe. I believe the Pragmatists will continue to gain power. The fruits of alliance will dominate fundamentalism. People just want to create better lives for their families.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              There was a time when most liberal Iranians enjoyed America as a somewhat misguided ally. Now that Supreme Leader Bush has declared them part of some great "axis of evil" The general Iranian populace has taken to disliking the US.In order to see Iran correctly you must see the liberal yearnings of the younger 20 somethings who dont feel the same fervor about Islam as their parents did. But even friends of the US dont like being called evil.Just another of those speeches that bush shouldnt have stratamatejically given. Anyway Iran isnt that great of a threat. If we give them a slice of the pie on the pipeline they'll be ok.They're not so dumb as to attack the US directly.But some Iranians will be killing some Iraqis... no doubt
              Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am glad to hear that Iran would remain neutral for now. But would Iran's neutral stance change if the war were to last longer than expected, or if the outcome of the war is in doubt?

                Oh, just wondering... There was a lot of talk about a massive airborne drop on Bagdad (maybe on Saddam's soup even), and cut the head off of the chicken before things start to get messy. What do you guys think the outcome will be? The risks involved? If you were the CINC, would you push for such a bold move?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Iran will stay out for the durations of the conflict. The invasion of Iraq itself doesn't effect it's vital interest. However, they will likely try to impose their political will early on during the Nation-building operation that will follow the combat operation. Iran has a long established established relationship with several of the Kurdish factions that would play a role in any Coalition government formed to rule Iraq immediately following Saddam's removal.

                  The first 18-24 months of a nation-building operation are critical. Each day without an independent governing body increases the possibility of mission failure. Iran will probably make certain demands through the Kurds on how a new Iraqi government should look. It will likely include a rapid withdrawal of US and Coalition forces. If we refuse any of thier demands, things will certainly deteriorate rapidly. They'll claiim the United States is trying to form a puppet Christian or Westernized regime that threatens Islam. The next thing you know troops will come under attack. We'll respond with a counter-insurgency operation that will do little more than confirm suspecions and further deteriorate chances for success.

                  Right now, they have no need to intervene in any invasion. Besides, doing so would almost certainly result in resistance from other factions. Iran's best option is to wait until the smoke's cleared and try to establish their political goals as part of a new Iraqi government.

                  Trying to seize Baghdad is too difficult an objective for the early ours of the invasion. Commanders always try to create options for themselves. Landing paratroopers actually limit the options available. Linking up with the paratroopers will become the primary objective, everything else will have to wait.

                  Paratroopers could be used to seize strategic locations near Baghdad. Saddam has decided to make Baghdad his decisive point. We should exploit that. A large airborne operation near the city, just within the boundaries of the Iraq's vision (fifty or sixty miles without air-recon) would almost certainly result in Saddam tightening his positions. If he does attempt to move forces to destroy the paratroopers, air support would simply devastate them.

                  We should focus on cutting off the city of Baghdad, while seizing everything around it. All our forces should use the city as a link-up point. Then we can the main RGFC, and Iraqi defenders with maximum combat power. Who know's by then, the Iraqi commanders might not be so willing to support their leader and will just surrender rather than fight.

                  However, Americans must understand that even if a brigade of Iraqi troops decide to resist in Baghdad, we can incur high casualties. While I don't think the Iraqis know what they're in for by trying to fight an urban battle; that doesn't mean they can't give us fits.

                  Headshot,

                  As I've stated on numerous occassions, the Axis of Evil speech, and others, were misguided and thoughtless statements of US foriegn policy. I don't think Bush took any kind of Speech class in his life. If he had, he would have seen his writers developed an "American audience only" speech that would cause serious problems internationally. Bush tends to forget his comments are statements of US global policy. I'm just amazed skilled advisers like Rice, Powell, and Cheney would ever support the Axis of Evil policy.

                  And yes, I know it's bad to call one's country evil. Americans are getting a taste of it's own medicine in recent weeks.

                  Despite all this, I firmly believe the Axis of Evil crap is being used by countries like Iran and North Korea to excuse WMDs and other programs that were established long before the Bush Administration. My comments on Iran were based on old information dating back into the late 1990's. It's not like either Iran or North Korea were angels until Bush's Axis of Evil Speech, and they both decided their best defense layed in nuclear weapons. This has been going on for years. Bush just provided them with a very convenient excuse.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh


                    As I've stated on numerous occassions, the Axis of Evil speech, and others, were misguided and thoughtless statements of US foriegn policy. I don't think Bush took any kind of Speech class in his life. If he had, he would have seen his writers developed an "American audience only" speech that would cause serious problems internationally. Bush tends to forget his comments are statements of US global policy. I'm just amazed skilled advisers like Rice, Powell, and Cheney would ever support the Axis of Evil policy.

                    And yes, I know it's bad to call one's country evil. Americans are getting a taste of it's own medicine in recent weeks.

                    Completely agree with you. This concept of Axis of Evil is so simple-minded.

                    I just wonder how can the speech writers believe that the American people is so intellectually-challenged that they need such a huge over-simplification of these important issues.

                    Theodore Roosevelt used to say: "Speak softly but carry a big stick". The current administration has forgotten the first part of this very important advice.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Iran next eh ? I heard that they had several spud-guns and even a pea shooter. Dangerous guys.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marko
                        Iran next eh ? I heard that they had several spud-guns and even a pea shooter. Dangerous guys.

                        Marko... Iran is probably closer to make nuclear weapons than Iraq has ever been. Iran will probably be the next nuclear power.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Tzar, if Iran is close to making nuclear weapons, do you think that they should be the next target for our war on terrorism? Or even a target for a pre emptive attack?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The theory is that once Saddam is tumbled, Iraq will be built up as the model liberal democracy of the Middle East thereby creating a domino effect within the region.

                            There are all sorts of problems with this plan which is why I don't favor a war with Iraq.

                            Also, a quick peak into Iran suggests without outside influence the Iranians might just be on the edge of doing this on their own. And it would be much more credible in the Middle East because the evil taint of the West wouldn't be on it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have to agree with you Tex, I simply do not think that this domino theory would work, at least not in the short term. How long would it take for Iraq to be built up as a solid democracy after the war? Let's remember that this is not Japan in 1945. The Iraqis are not a culturally or religious homogenous people. A democracy may take time to take roots. In the meantime, the establishment of an unstable Iraqi democratic govt. w/ direct US support may make Tehran feel a bit nervous to continue its reforms.

                              Maybe the govt should do as Tex says. Let's not use our force and strength to push or even impose political reforms for these countries. Instead, let's be subtle about it and let the Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian people take care of it themselves.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X