Iran still thumbing it's nose at US

[Ocotillo]

Recent reports have been coming about the goings on in Iran, that other middle eastern country that a lot of Americans likely confused with Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Don't confuse Iran with Iraq though.

Recently, elections were held in Iran and despite hopeful reports from some, it seems that the oppostion that longs for Western style freedoms and democracy are still an impotent minority. The former mayor of Tehran won the election and he was considered the hard liner against and Ayatollah. Some former Iranian hostages contend the guy is one of the militant students that held the American embassy workers against their will during the Carter administration.

In any event, since the fall of the Shah and taking of the hostages, Tehran has been pretty much a pariah to Americans. Iran has supported terrorists in Lebanon and Israel. They were of no help when we sought Osama Bin Laden. Yet, this anti-Western theocracy has found and ally in one George Bush.

Bush has been saber rattling a bit lately that "all options are still on the table" regarding the use of military force. This in response to Iran's refusal to stop it's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iranians know better. Under Bush, their infuence has grown and shows more promise than at anytime since the Islamic revolution that brought the despot Khomeini to power.

At one time, Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. They fought a bloody war with massive casualties in the 80s. Iraq with former CIA asset Saddam Hussein in charge, received help from the then Reagan administration. Hordes of young Iranians, many of them just boys, were sent ahead of the Iranian military forces as human mind field clearers. Despite his secular background, the Sunni Saddam had little regard for the Shia Iran.

Now Saddam is gone. The primary regional threat to Iran being the most powerful player in the region has been removed by the "Great Satan" Iraq, shattered and in chaos, became an opportunity for the Iranians. They have been supplying the Shia majority in Iraq to fight the Sunnis and former Baathists which has been verified by our military. With the Shia majority winning the now famous election in Iraq of the parties that would compose the Iraqi cons ution, Iran is on the verge of winning Iraq without firing a shot.

The Shia continue to press forward with the adaption of a government that will give them the greatest power and leave the Sunnis with little if any. Before you shed a tear for the Sunnis, keep in mind they are home to the most virulent anti-Western strains of Islam.

Now the occupation of Iraq has become more unpopular within the U.S., there is talk for the first time from sources within the Bush administration of pulling out. Cynics say there will be some pull out to help Republicans in the '06 elections. In any event, the handwriting is on the wall. The Americans will eventually withdraw. There is a lesson for future American presidents here. Don't go to war without almost total support of the American people. When the country is divided by roughly 50/50 it cannot sustain the sacrifice and cost of doing what is necessary to win a war. Americans be they Democrat or Republican will stand together to defend this country when it is attacked or threatened by an enemy. Such support was given for the action in Afghanistan when only one member of congress voted against the attack on the Taliban. Military action against Iraq did not enjoy the same support. While support for the war initially was strong, the case for war was not and soon came unraveled. Another lesson for future American presidents: shoot straight with the American people and if you are going to engage in "elective" wars, you better damn well have your ducks in a row and and overwhelming case.

So what happens when the Americans withdraw? Quite possibly a civil war between the Sunnis and Shia intensifies. It's already going on with our military in the middle of it. Iran which is already beginning to formalize relations with the new Shia dominated government of Iraq, supports the Shia who overwhelm the Sunnis. The secular Baathists flee to Syria. The Sunnis flee to Saudi Arabia where there support has been primarily coming from. Quite likely, the Kurds will be brought under control of the Shiites as they have no regional allies.

So an Iran like theocracy that is allied with Iran takes power in Iraq. Iran's infuence extends from old Persia all the way to the Mediterranean Sea where the Iranian supported Hezbollah enjoys great power.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia the Sunni extremist fed up with the failure of the royal family and it's relations with the Americans have an Iranian style revolution of their own. The worlds largest oil reserves are then controlled by a Sunni theocracy that is more alligned with Osama Bin Laden then the USA.

So what to do about Iran?

Our ground forces are clearly strained at this time and in the short term we could not "invade" Iran much less occupy it. The Air Force and Navy are not doing much these days and a shock and awe campaign could be carried out attacking targets within Iran including, the nuclear development site(s) and other important sites. Of course oil prices would go through the roof. If oil production in Iran were interrupted, China may come into the picture as most of that oil is earmarked for them.

When you get down to it, the big winner of our misadventure in Iraq is Iran.

What do you think BushCo will do?

[whottt]

Um...Iran was started flooding Iraq with special ops even before we were in Iraq...

Everytime you have heard the Bush admin complain about Iran interfering in the process this is what they were referring too...

When Sadr, who is a ing moron, suddenly started organizing highly effective resistance against the US troops it was Iran that was supplying the bulk of the force.

When they had a rally of 10,000 strong against the US presence in...I think it was Najaf...those were primarily Iranians.

But this guy doesn't realize those Iranian Shias are not any more popular with the Iraqi Shias than the foreign terrorists are with the Sunnis...The hardline Iranian Islamic movement in Iraq is not as strong as this guy thinks...

It's organized, but it's not strong...Jaffari and Sadr are all pro Iran right now...neither of them will be once they get into power.

Sistani, the most powerful Shia in Iraq, if not the best organized...is not Pro-Iranian...

And the fissures between these leaders are religious differences...that Westerners won't even notice...

Jaffari might be the most pro-Iranian but he is very Westernized in many way...and he wants a Nationalized Iraq...even though an Islamic one.

I don't know why anyone thinks the new leader of Iraq is going to just cede the country to Iran...when he can have all that power for himself...it will not happen.

The middle east is too complex to sum up in black and white terms....if you have two groups? They generally have a history and hate each other. If you have one group...they generally have competing divisions....and often bad blood.


And everyone is underestimating the Nationalistic tendencies of the Iraqis forged during the Iran war.


As for Iran...that past election was an obvious sham and the Iranians are outraged over it...which is why the Iranian government is all of a sudden cracking down on their own population and they are having insurgency problems themselves in certain sections of the country...


Iran remains the most pro-Western Muslim dominated country...but it's under the surface...

But if you think they are in love with their Islamic government...

Trust me...no government that has 40% uneployment is a popular one.


Iran is so desperate to gain influence in Iraq because the Ayatollah's grasp on power is so tenuous...and they cannot survive a pro-American country on their other border.

When it is all said and done...they will have one, one way or the other. The Kurds are pro-American and they do have an ally, they have the best ally...their ally is the US.


And don't underestimate Bush's willingness to take us into a war with Iran. And even if we don't...don't expect Israel to sit there and let Iran build up the capabilities to nuke them off the planet.

[exstatic]

Duh, Korea too. They know we won't do because we are stuck in the Iraqi quagmire.

[whottt]

Iraq or not we don't have a military option in North Korea....they have nukes, they have nukes capable of hitting the Western US...they are also backed by China who doesn't want another economically powerful Democracy sitting on their border.

[Nbadan]

Recently, elections were held in Iran and despite hopeful reports from some, it seems that the oppostion that longs for Western style freedoms and democracy are still an impotent minority. The former mayor of Tehran won the election and he was considered the hard liner against and Ayatollah. Some former Iranian hostages contend the guy is one of the militant students that held the American embassy workers against their will during the Carter administration.

I think it's been pretty well established that the new Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wasn't among the group of embassy hostage-takers.

I think your completely right in the rest of your assumptions though, the war in Iraq definitely pushed Iran to a much more hard-line approach to the West.

[Nbadan]

In any event, since the fall of the Shah and taking of the hostages, Tehran has been pretty much a pariah to Americans. Iran has supported terrorists in Lebanon and Israel. They were of no help when we sought Osama Bin Laden. Yet, this anti-Western theocracy has found and ally in one George Bush.

The right-wing has long had established relations with powerful people in Iran, despite the facade they put out for public consumption. These relations evolved during the hostage release negotiations, held without the Carter Administration's knowledge by the way, showed up again when Reagan sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and once again during the Iran-Contra deals.

[Ocotillo]

I did not say that Shia Iraq would become part of Iran. The will ally themselves with Iraq and develop a working relationship that benefits both parties.

If we jump into help the Kurds after withdrawing, that is taking sides in the civil war and will push the southern Iraqis even closer to the Iranians.

[Ocotillo]

BTW, the post was just me rambling late (for me) last night and could have been better written but it gets across my point somewhat.