US-Iran war could be fought inside Iraq

[M4ko]

There is a posibility that Iran might enter Iraq and side with insurgents when US attack on Iran becomes imminent. This would be a better option for Iran instead of brining a full scale US attack on home soil. Of course this will not be a ground invasion, but could turn out to be massive migration of Iranian forces, blending in with insurgents. and increasing insurgency potential by many folds, making it a hyper insurgency. I specificaly disregard world opinion of Iran's action becuase this scenario is best executed when US has clearly declared war on Iran.

[Pandy]

If that happens, Iran would be screwed. One thing that I know is that they will be straight up fighting a two front war against US and NATO Forces, plus having ALL exports cut off... which is about 90% of their funding.

[that_one_guy]

well if you think about it, if we were to wage war against iran, i.e. a full scale invasion, the fighting would eventually drift into iraq much like in vietnam where some of the fighting took place in cambodia, etc. i'm sure there have already been insurgents from iran executing attacks in iraq, and war against iran would make just make them more eager to fight in iraq.

[budgie]

All this talk of a US-Iran conflict smacks of a bloated Superpower struggling to remain relevant.

There is already a war within Islam - between moderates and fundamentalists and more violently, between Shiites and Sunnis. If there is a proxy war going on in Iraq now it is the struggle between Saudi Arabia (supporters of the Sunnis and the main funders of AQ and the 9/11 attackers) and Iran (the backers of Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite factions).

Americans are caught in the middle by simply being there but it is laughable to hear the Bushies go on abou 'victory' because they fail to realize this is no longer their war.

[dedgod]

So what youre saying is...the iranians will fight till the last (iraqi) man....

[dedgod]

Americans are caught in the middle by simply being there but it is laughable to hear the Bushies go on abou 'victory' because they fail to realize this is no longer their war.
Unfortunately, at this point, i don't think we are caught in the middle..WE have already made our choice..We are supporting the sunnis over the shias. It may not be obvious but the signs are all over the place...

Oh and the comment about the US being a Superpower trying to stay relevant...please...there is only one superpower, and will be , irrespective of what happens in Iraq...

[budgie]

Unfortunately, at this point, i don't think we are caught in the middle..WE have already made our choice..We are supporting the sunnis over the shias. It may not be obvious but the signs are all over the place...

Oh and the comment about the US being a Superpower trying to stay relevant...please...there is only one superpower, and will be , irrespective of what happens in Iraq...

Unfortunately for US prestige the presence of coalition forces is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the different factions fighting one another in Iraq.

And the US is supporting the Sunnis? First I've heard since it is Sunni insurgents and their al Qaeda friends responsible for most of the attacks against coalition forces. Bush hasn't yet had the balls to move against the Shiite-dominated Al Maliki government over their tacit support of Shiite death squads and Mahdi Militias.

As much as some would like to think there is a war brewing between the US and Iran over Iraq, that is not the case. Bush's beef is with Iran's weapons program and trying to tie it to Iraq will only weaken his case.

[M4ko]

Unfortunately for US prestige the presence of coalition forces is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the different factions fighting one another in Iraq.

And the US is supporting the Sunnis? First I've heard since it is Sunni insurgents and their al Qaeda friends responsible for most of the attacks against coalition forces. Bush hasn't yet had the balls to move against the Shiite-dominated Al Maliki government over their tacit support of Shiite death squads and Mahdi Militias.

As much as some would like to think there is a war brewing between the US and Iran over Iraq, that is not the case. Bush's beef is with Iran's weapons program and trying to tie it to Iraq will only weaken his case.

budgie, before Iran builds it's nuke, it will bleed U.S. forces in Iraq as much as possible, which counters U.S. progress of achieving a goal to create a model democracy in the ME out of Iraq. So linking Iran to Iraq is not a baseless tactic, this time it's based on facts, but they need be alot more substantial to gain world approval to attack Iran.

[justagoodolboy]

An attack on Iran would not be in the U.S.' best interest because you would essentially turn an entire population against us. Any invasion would ignite nationalist emotions in the population and turn into an insurgency on an even great scale than Iraq The seeds for change are already planted in Iran. We just need to tend to them, and eventually the persian people themselves will take care of Islamic facism in Iran.

[remo williams]

Were this to pan out that way, I predict Iraq will resemble A-stan for quite some time. One big war filled sandbox. I'm not sure how this could be a good thing as fighting the local/import insurgents has been difficult enough. How would the situation improve with having better trained elements introduced? We'd still have to get into Iran at some point to secure it etc, even if it is bombed. I just see a great potential for the law of unintended consequences and Mr. Murphy to worsen the situation.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Unfortunately for US prestige the presence of coalition forces is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the different factions fighting one another in Iraq.

Strangely, US relevancy is not defined by the opinions of the various factions of sandal-wearing illiterates in Iraq. The US has bigger fish to fry. Despite all the efforts to denigrate the US and Bush, to embrace defeat and tie US prestige and power to Iraq, the nation rolls on, with unprecedented levels of prosperity. 99% of us would never never know there was a war on, at all, unless we turned on the TV, where were would quickly be told it was a crushing disaster. We'll have to take their word for it.

I also find it odd to blame Bush for showing too much restraint - after all isn't he the one who's also blamed for too much aggression? Which is it, because it can't be both. He exists and functions within a political framework where his opponents do have power, and do affect policy - and they are the ones forcing a curtailment of operations. Bush can be blamed to a certain extent, but I find far more blame to be assessed upon those in Congress who call our troops Nazis and murderers who have done their best to erode support for the war.

It's amusing to see the schism that exists in the minds of anti-Bush types who will on one hand, obsess and weep about the tragedy that is Darfur, with celebrities urging anybody and everybody to do whatever it takes to stop the genocide - yet when it comes to Iraq their voices are strangely silent. They are so wrapped up in their personal obsession with Bush that they're unable to articulate a cohesive and uniform policy. Just to be consistent, I suggest that if we decide one genocide is not worth our time, we make that policy moving forward, and get out of the business altogether.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

It's amusing to see the schism that exists in the minds of anti-Bush types who will on one hand, obsess and weep about the tragedy that is Darfur, with celebrities urging anybody and everybody to do whatever it takes to stop the genocide - yet when it comes to Iraq their voices are strangely silent. They are so wrapped up in their personal obsession with Bush that they're unable to articulate a cohesive and uniform policy. Just to be consistent, I suggest that if we decide one genocide is not worth our time, we make that policy moving forward, and get out of the business altogether.

I also find it amusing to see that your trying to compare a multi ****ged civil war in Iraq to a government sanctioned GENOCIDE of an entire race of people who besides a small group of resistance fighters can't defend themselves...yeah good luck with that "logic" :roll:

[JoaMei]

Sounds not very logical, the only chance Iran has to "win" against the US is by guerillia warfare in their own country.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I also find it amusing to see that your trying to compare a multi ****ged civil war in Iraq to a government sanctioned GENOCIDE of an entire race of people who besides a small group of resistance fighters can't defend themselves...yeah good luck with that "logic" :roll:

Well hey, let's invoke some of that logic and take a look at it.

gen·o·cide
–noun, the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Maybe it's the old age, but I don't see any mention of terms like "civil war" or "government sanctioned", or anything at all about the ability of either party to defend themselves, much less any requirement to count the number of ****gs involved. Genocide is defined by what is done, not how it is done.

If the coalition backs out of Iraq, genocide is exactly what will happen - as to which side will be the genocide-er vs. the genocide-ee, I have no idea, but that is not germane to the argument. My point remains; left-leaning individuals can tow the party line and find all the justification in the world for US troop involvement when it comes to saving the "correct" groups of people - but when the same circumstances exist elsewhere in a less politically palatable area, they are somehow able to turn a blind eye.

[budgie]

budgie, before Iran builds it's nuke, it will bleed U.S. forces in Iraq as much as possible, which counters U.S. progress of achieving a goal to create a model democracy in the ME out of Iraq. So linking Iran to Iraq is not a baseless tactic, this time it's based on facts, but they need be alot more substantial to gain world approval to attack Iran.

Again,the myth that Iran gives a damn about US forces in Iraq. They'll build their nuke no matter what. And the people most responsible for 'bleeding' US forces in Iraq are Iran's enemies the Sunnis.

[budgie]

Strangely, US relevancy is not defined by the opinions of the various factions of sandal-wearing illiterates in Iraq. The US has bigger fish to fry. .

Like Iran?


Despite all the efforts to denigrate the US and Bush, to embrace defeat and tie US prestige and power to Iraq, the nation rolls on, with unprecedented levels of prosperity. .

Y'know, good for you. But wealth, or power for that matter, isn't everything - it's important what you do with it.


I also find it odd to blame Bush for showing too much restraint - after all isn't he the one who's also blamed for too much aggression? Which is it, because it can't be both. .

My point: "Bush hasn't yet had the balls to move against the Shiite-dominated Al Maliki government over their tacit support of Shiite death squads and Mahdi Militias." was that Bush may like to trumpet the Mailiki government as a shining example of progressive democracy in the Gulf but let's face it, many of the sectarian problems originate from the new Shia dominance. He harps on about Iran and its agents to make excuses for sanctioning/bombing/invading another state but let's face it, the real enemy the US continues to fight are Sunni Wahabbis.


Bush can be blamed to a certain extent, but I find far more blame to be assessed upon those in Congress who call our troops Nazis and murderers who have done their best to erode support for the war..

I'd like to know exaclty which congress members have used those words. It is time to accept that the people and their representatives are sick of this senseless war - as they were over Vietnam - and its time to bring the troops home: for their sakes, our sakes and for the innocents overseas who've suffered.


It's amusing to see the schism that exists in the minds of anti-Bush types who will on one hand, obsess and weep about the tragedy that is Darfur, with celebrities urging anybody and everybody to do whatever it takes to stop the genocide - yet when it comes to Iraq their voices are strangely silent.

Would that it were so simple. Fisrtly Darfur was an active Genocide at the time of the Iraq invasion; Saddam's pogroms were over a decade past. We sould have done something in Darfur then instead.

Secondly even if there were a shift to Africa now - which seems to be totally out of the question - Darfur might actually be winnable, Iraq is not. The simple reason, that in Iraq it is no longer 'us' against 'them'. How do you 'win' a war between two other parties?

[MCWARPIG]

All this talk of a US-Iran conflict smacks of a bloated Superpower struggling to remain relevant.

There is already a war within Islam - between moderates and fundamentalists and more violently, between Shiites and Sunnis. If there is a proxy war going on in Iraq now it is the struggle between Saudi Arabia (supporters of the Sunnis and the main funders of AQ and the 9/11 attackers) and Iran (the backers of Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shiite factions).

Americans are caught in the middle by simply being there but it is laughable to hear the Bushies go on abou 'victory' because they fail to realize this is no longer their war.
Wow.. big surprise. Budgie finds some way to relate this topic to anti-Bush trolling.. again.

I guess this is as good a thread as any to get into that sort of minutia. I mean if the US has a contingency plan then why wouldn't Iran?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Like Iran?

No, like everyday life. Kids going to college, people going to work, autoerotic asphyxiation, the space shuttle, nuclear agreements with north korea, buying new cars, making crappy movies about undead flaming motorcycle riders, - that's what defines America and it's place in the world, not the opinions held by stone age religous zealots 7000 miles away or Bush-obsessed media outlets.



Y'know, good for you. But wealth, or power for that matter, isn't everything - it's important what you do with it. Fair enough. But I'm fairly content with what's being done with it.



My point: "Bush hasn't yet had the balls to move against the Shiite-dominated Al Maliki government over their tacit support of Shiite death squads and Mahdi Militias." was that Bush may like to trumpet the Mailiki government as a shining example of progressive democracy in the Gulf but let's face it, many of the sectarian problems originate from the new Shia dominance. He harps on about Iran and its agents to make excuses for sanctioning/bombing/invading another state but let's face it, the real enemy the US continues to fight are Sunni Wahabbis.

I can only guess that he is attempting to back what he believes is the best/quickest route to restoring order. Nobody wants us to be over there, and he has to walk a fine line between getting the Iraqis to take over the security job (which requires the current government), scrapping the whole plan to address the problems with the government (which will in effect be pressing the reset button), or throwing up his hands, pulling us out and letting the carnage really begin. What's the best option? We have to do one of them. He's never advocated invading Iran - it's independent media that continues to report on their involvement.



I'd like to know exaclty which congress members have used those words. It is time to accept that the people and their representatives are sick of this senseless war - as they were over Vietnam - and its time to bring the troops home: for their sakes, our sakes and for the innocents overseas who've suffered.

Seriously. This can't be news to you? Start with Durbin, Kerry, move on to Murtha, sprinkle some Jasckson-Lee on top. I'll leave Obama out, he just said they were wasted, not evil. Innocents overseas who've suffered? You ain't seen nothin' yet - wait till we leave.



Would that it were so simple. Fisrtly Darfur was an active Genocide at the time of the Iraq invasion; Saddam's pogroms were over a decade past. We sould have done something in Darfur then instead.

Secondly even if there were a shift to Africa now - which seems to be totally out of the question - Darfur might actually be winnable, Iraq is not. The simple reason, that in Iraq it is no longer 'us' against 'them'. How do you 'win' a war between two other parties?

Well temporal context that small doesn't matter when comparing the actionable basis for either helping or not helping. Either it's the right thing to do, or it's not, no matter which happened first.

It's just not as easy as saying "it's not our fight, let's leave" - even if there is truth in that statement. Because the world won't stand for what happens next. We leave, the place explodes in an orgy of violence and carnage - we'd just be right back in there, with blue helmets, under even worse security circumstances, trying to stop the destruction. We're not at the end of history, we're stuck in the middle, and the ME is just continuing to reshape itself from the group of pretend nations drawn on a map by others with a straight-edge. The situation exists and has to be dealt with - as to how to do it best, well that part I'm open to suggestion. :|

[ElHombre]

Sounds not very logical, the only chance Iran has to "win" against the US is by guerillia warfare in their own country.

It makes perfect sense. There isn't much chance for any other county to beat the US in conventional warfare (and I'm saying that conservatively). So the next logical option is to fight a type of war that your enemy has already proven that they're not very good at.

[budgie]

We're not at the end of history, we're stuck in the middle, and the ME is just continuing to reshape itself from the group of pretend nations drawn on a map by others with a straight-edge. The situation exists and has to be dealt with - as to how to do it best, well that part I'm open to suggestion :|

Good, because no matter what he says, Bush is not. If it's not time to leave then it is high time for someone else to have a stab at it.

[GazB]

The best way for Iran to prevent a US attack on Iran is to keep the US forces too busy to do so. The best option for that would be to start supply of weapons and training and equipment to Taliban and the various factions in Iraq. The Iranians don't need to be careful who they supply in Iraq... arming both sides would be just as effective as arming one.

In fact a US attack on Iran would be about the best thing that could happen to the current Iranian government if it survived intact. The US attack would likely focus on nuclear facilities so chances of survival for the Iranian government would be pretty good. Such an attack would unite all of Iran against the US and any possibility of an internal regime change or liberalisation within Iran would be destroyed. Nothing unites a country like and external threat, whether that threat claims it is there to help or not.

[M4ko]

An attack on Iran would not be in the U.S.' best interest because you would essentially turn an entire population against us. Any invasion would ignite nationalist emotions in the population and turn into an insurgency on an even great scale than Iraq The seeds for change are already planted in Iran. We just need to tend to them, and eventually the persian people themselves will take care of Islamic facism in Iran.

With hard evidence its possible, thats what Bush is trying and thats why he keeps talking about Iranian links to Iraq.
There is no way you can make fanatical nation all of sudden believe that they are wrong about their leaders.

[M4ko]

Sounds not very logical, the only chance Iran has to "win" against the US is by guerillia warfare in their own country.

why would they fight by guerilla warfare in Iran when they can do same in Iraq?

[M4ko]

Again,the myth that Iran gives a damn about US forces in Iraq. They'll build their nuke no matter what. And the people most responsible for 'bleeding' US forces in Iraq are Iran's enemies the Sunnis.

budgie, US choppers are getting shot down by Misaghs, Abrams are being blown up by Iranian shape charge IEDs.

[budgie]

There's no question that Iran has been supplying weapons and knowhow, and may even enjoy being a nuisance to US forces. But any weapons Iran gives to Shiite militias are primarily intended for use against Sunnis. Iran's backing the Shiites with an eye to the future, they've already picked siddes in the bloodbath that would follow a potential American withdrawal.

Everyone knows Iran is at least meddling in Iraq, but is it a proxy war between the US and Iran? I don't think so. America is not the main atrget - the Sunnis are.

The US stubbornly tries to please all sides, including the Shiite-dominated government also being courted by Iran. Again it's not Iran vs. the US: it's Sunnis vs. Shia with Iran and Saudi on the fringes and the Coalition in the middle. If new leadership can't solve the problem (it has been proven the old leadership cannot) then it will be time to leave.

But the Road to Jerusalem, my friends, doesn't lead through Teheran any more than it did through Baghdad. Perhaps America should try to work withp Iran over this.

[M4ko]

Everyone knows Iran is at least meddling in Iraq, but is it a proxy war between the US and Iran? I don't think so. America is not the main atrget - the Sunnis are.



I disagree, becuase Iran's main threat right now is coming from US not Sunnis, i dont even know why youd think otherwise.
US is right behind the border, ready to attack, while sunnis are only an ideological opposition with no immenent threat.

[budgie]

The Sunnis in Iraq are hardly a threat to Iran, only a threat to regional stability. This is why I believe Iran is interfering: they want the Shia Arabs in Iraq to dominate - they may not be the same people as Persians but at least they are also Shiites and Teheran is hedging its bets for the inevitable future when Amnerica may not be just over the border.

Now they don't need to fear an invasion from the US (airstrikes are more plausible) but in the future they'd like to have a friendly Shiite buffer between themselves and Saudi Arabia.

BTW do you know the UAE just bought eighty new F16s? I live there nat the moment - it's a tiny country with only 4 million people, close to 80% of whom are foreign workers (mostly from the Indian subcontinent). What do they need so many new planes for? Who are they protecting their oil fields from? They're Sunnis, like the Saudis. My guess is the region is bracing for possible confrontation with a more robust Iran.

Once again, it's not all about America anymore.

[ZeroZen]

There's no question that Iran has been supplying weapons and knowhow, and may even enjoy being a nuisance to US forces. But any weapons Iran gives to Shiite militias are primarily intended for use against Sunnis. Iran's backing the Shiites with an eye to the future, they've already picked siddes in the bloodbath that would follow a potential American withdrawal.

Everyone knows Iran is at least meddling in Iraq, but is it a proxy war between the US and Iran? I don't think so. America is not the main atrget - the Sunnis are.

The US stubbornly tries to please all sides, including the Shiite-dominated government also being courted by Iran. Again it's not Iran vs. the US: it's Sunnis vs. Shia with Iran and Saudi on the fringes and the Coalition in the middle. If new leadership can't solve the problem (it has been proven the old leadership cannot) then it will be time to leave.

But the Road to Jerusalem, my friends, doesn't lead through Teheran any more than it did through Baghdad. Perhaps America should try to work withp Iran over this.

Are you kidding, we already working with IRAN, all we got is BS...
they are just buying time to strengthen there put hold on Nuclear Tech.