Why didn't Iran invade Iraq when the US did in 2003?

[GeZe]

As it seems to me that people here enjoy discussing hypothetical scenarios, I have decided to post a question of mine.

Why didn't Iran invade Iraq when the US did in 2003?

First, why would Iran want to invade Iraq?
Well, to gain substantial new oilfields, integrate portions of Iraq's Shia population, and maybe settle the score regarding the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties.

To invade Iraq when the US did would have been perfect timing.
- Immunity from international backlash - how could the US purpose sanctions or military action against Iran for invading Iraq, when they themselves are doing the same thing?
- Weak Iraqi Army - the Iraqi Army have not been able to defend against Iran - the US Armed Forces were already decimating it


The most diplomatically best action I think would have for Iran to declare themselves, without consulting with the US beforehand, that they were part of the "Coalition of the Willing", and they were invading for the same reasons - to disarm "Saddam Hussein" and "Liberate the Iraqi people". The US would not have been able to say anything.

The advantage of Iranian forces is that they would be able to advance much more quickly, as they would not have been as concerned as the US about maintaining a low amount of casualties. Also, in some places, such as Baghdad, they have a much more direct route then the Coalition.

They could advance on three fronts - in the north toward the Kurds to obtain access of the oil fields there - toward Baghdad - and in the south toward the oil fields there, and also to integrate the Shia populations there. The south would be the hardest - it would be race to capture the most territory before meeting up with coalition forces. Though the could maybe garner some local support.

Some maps to facilitate discussion:

Iraqi oil facilities in 2003:
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2774/iraqoil2003ah6.jpg

Transportation - Iraq and Iran
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/5421/roadsrailcc0.jpg

US route of invasion:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6236/usrouteil2.jpg

In the south:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6171/southyz4.png

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Several good reasons why not:

1) The Iranians would become the targets of guerrilla warfare instead of the backers of such a war.
2) The USA was committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, and if Iran were trying to virtually annex parts of Iraq that would inevitably lead to conflict with the USA.
3) Iraqis would fight an Iranian invasion just as hard as they would fight a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq (which was proposed) simply because Iranians and Turks are a lot close to home than Americans and are therefore a lot harder to get rid of and their domination is even more resented. As Ho Chi Minh once said at the end of WWII when faced between French re-occupation and Chinese occupation, "I'd rather smell French s--t for five years than eat Chinese s--t the rest of my life."

[GeZe]

Well, what interests me is how would various Shia groups react to such action? Would they fight the Iranians, or would they ally with them to fight Sunni groups, or ally with them to fight US troops, or something else?

[Ezekiel25:17]

How far would they go into Iraq?
Are they willing to fight the US and UK?
Are they gonna try to blockade Iraq's port? and there are many other things to consider.

[GeZe]

How far would they go into Iraq?
Are they willing to fight the US and UK?

I would imagine the smart thing to have done would be advance as far as possible - until there is a predetermined distance between them and Coalition forces (to act as a buffer zone) - and then stop, smile and wave at the Coalition forces, being careful not to fire at, or point any weapons at them.

--

The Iranian foreign minister would, that day troops start to move, announce to the world that Iran has joined the Coalition of the Willing, and wants to help rid Saddam of his WMDs, which is very important to them because of the suffering they endured from Saddam's WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War. (que emotional pictures of Iranian victims of Iraqi gas attacks)


The idea is to create a situation where the Coalition could not do anything against Iran.

[Ezekiel25:17]

I would imagine the smart thing to have done would be advance as far as possible - until there is a predetermined distance between them and Coalition forces (to act as a buffer zone) - and then stop, smile and wave at the Coalition forces, being careful not to fire at, or point any weapons at them.

--

The Iranian foreign minister would, that day troops start to move, announce to the world that Iran has joined the Coalition of the Willing, and wants to help rid Saddam of his WMDs, which is very important to them because of the suffering they endured from Saddam's WMDs during the Iran-Iraq War. (que pictures of Iranian victims of Iraqi gas attacks)


The idea is to create a situation where the Coalition could not do anything against Iran.

And why didn't Iran come on board before the invasion? Why didn't they say they will be part of the Coalition.

How would they know where this predetermine is? This is chaos of war and they are not in sync with the coalition. What would happen when Caolition troops see warsaw pact vehicles near them? They would more then likely destroy them? The Caolition planes would probably do the same.

[SnakeBiteLeader]

-Why would Iran want to risk another slogfest in Iraq, with the possibility of facing the US and UK, etc.?
-Why would Iran expend blood and treasure on something that they could potentially gain by more surreptitious, cost-effective means? (i.e. stirring the pot against Coalition)
-Why would Iran want to jeopardize its relations with other Arab nations by siding with the corrupt, Jew-loving west? Isn't it's Iran's ambition to become the regional Powerhouse? More flies with honey, etc.

In short:-Why on earth would they want to expend their defensive capability and political capital on such a risky adventure when Uncle Sam & Co. is threatening to come in the front door? What would they gain, but to become a junior partner in an unamicable relationship? Do you really think they had the proper amount of time and information to successfully predict and analyze the results of such an adventure? How on earth would the Mullahs know if American tank formations wouldn't just keep bulldozing all the way through to Tehran?

All-in-all there are just too many unknowns to make such a strategy worth the risk.

[Hellfish6]

Most obvious explanation is that it would have risked war with the US. Even if we didn't invade Iraq, the moment Iran crossed the border, we'd begin bombing Iran - if only to prevent Iran from becoming THE regional hyperpower. Plus, the Kuwaitis, Saudis and the Turks probably would have fought with us too. Nobody - NOBODY - wants to see a hyperpower Iran.

[GeZe]

Note, they would only invade right after the Coalition started to invade. The US could not start bombing Iran after that. How could they explain themselves to the international community? They started to bomb a country for doing what they themselves were doing and a country which just expressed that it was going to help them.


Note, they would not actually join the Coalition. The US would never allow that, not after naming Iran part of the "Axis of Evil".

It would go something like (Iranian President or whatever):
"Sometimes enemies have to put aside their differences when confronted by an even greater enemy, such as when the Great Satan and the Soviets both fought Germany during the Second World War. That is why we have joined together with the Great Satan to fight our common enemy, Iraq, to eliminate it's WMDs once and for all."

And why didn't Iran come on board before the invasion? Why didn't they say they will be part of the Coalition.

The idea is to catch the US off guard, after they have already committed themselves to combat operations.

If they announced it before that, the US would have time to reconsider it's strategy.

Now, the US would only have one option, to keep pressing forward, as if they don't, the Iranians would capture even more territory.


How would they know where this predetermine is? This is chaos of war and they are not in sync with the coalition. What would happen when Caolition troops see warsaw pact vehicles near them? They would more then likely destroy them? The Caolition planes would probably do the same.

The zone would have to be large, many kilometres, to avoid such incidents. Also, the Iranians could paint some sort of unique symbol on their vehicles, to help Coalition forces to identify them.

If a US plane or alike bombed an Iranian position, they would just have to stomach it and move on.

edit:
And they could maybe even work up some sort of an agreement with the Turks, based on their mutual desire to deal with the Kurds.

[Ezekiel25:17]

Note, they would only invade right after the Coalition started to invade. The US could not start bombing Iran after that. How could they explain themselves to the international community? They started to bomb a country for doing what they themselves were doing and a country which just expressed that it was going to help them.


Note, they would not actually join the Coalition. The US would never allow that, not after naming Iran part of the "Axis of Evil".

It would go something like (Iranian President or whatever):
"Sometimes enemies have to put aside their differences when confronted by an even greater enemy, such as when the Great Satan and the Soviets both fought Germany during the Second World War. That is why we have joined together with the Great Satan to fight our common enemy, Iraq, to eliminate it's WMDs once and for all."



The idea is to catch the US off guard, after they have already committed themselves to combat operations.

If they announced it before that, the US would have time to reconsider it's strategy.

Now, the US would only have one option, to keep pressing forward, as if they don't, the Iranians would capture even more territory.



The zone would have to be large, many kilometres, to avoid such incidents. Also, the Iranians could paint some sort of unique symbol on their vehicles, to help Coalition forces to identify them.

If a US plane or alike bombed an Iranian position, they would just have to stomach it and move on.

Way too many 'ifs'. Persian attacking Arab and gaining a foothold in them would be too much for Arabs to handle.

[GeZe]

True. I guess this is a case a of hindsight.

For instance:
How could the Iranians know that Iraq did not actually have WMDs?

Maybe that is what stopped them.

[SnakeBiteLeader]

True. I guess this is a case a of hindsight.

For instance:
How could the Iranians know that Iraq did not actually have WMDs?

Maybe that is what stopped them.

I'm sure it was any number of things.

[GeZe]

I'm sure it was any number of things.

Yes, but it still interesting to ponder what/how it would have looked it everything had aligned and all those "ifs" had been satisfied and they had done it.

What do you guys think would have happened? As I asked before, how would have the various Shia militias reacted?

[Waterman]

The Iranians didn't want to get into a possible direct/stand up fight with US troops. That is why they did not rush across the border into Iraq (besides, the defenses on THAT border probably were set up and ready to fight-pointed east).

Having the Iranians invade Iraq would have been all the US needed to let the "regime change" engine run into two neighboring nations (and partners in "the axis of evil") at the same time.

It would have been little George's dream come true !!!

Would we have won (if we then fought our way into Iran and did regime change there too) ?
Probably not.

(We would have a situation like we have in Iraq in Iran as well, with the possiblity that the Russians and/or Chinese get antsy since the US would then own a BIG chunk of the golbal oil supply-this could be the trigger of WW3 as the Russians and Chinese funnel arms and supplies into Iran and Iraq to support insurgents who are fighting the US).

Would the Iranian armed forces and their leadership have lost (their lives and power) ?
You betcha.

(See the fate of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen and the elite Republican Guard for a preview of how the Iranian higher ups would have fared after the US rolled into Tehran.)

The US Military is VERY good doing at least one thing: violently laying waste to whatever they are pointed at. Fighting a guerilla war doesn't really allow you to do that very effectively (without killing ALL of the civillians in an area).....fighting against a large uniformed enemy armored force does.

Had the Iranians come storming across the Iraqi border as US forces streamed in from Kuwait, they would have all too quickly found themselves being engaged by US airpower, cruise missles and long range artillery....and before too long US Armor and Mech Infantry units.

I am sure the US was keeping their eyes on the Iran/Iraq border, and there was a contingency plan of how to handle an Iranian incursion into the battlespace.

In 1991 they got a preview of what it looks like for conventional armed forces to be engaged by the full force and fury of US military might.

Despite all the rehtoric that comes out of their government, the last thing the Iranian armed forces want to see is US planes over head, and US armor/mech troops entering the battlefield. They realize that in a stand up fight, their lives would be short.

Not to say that the US military wouldn't have payed a price in the fight. But on the tally sheet of an Iran-US conflict on Iraqi soil in 2003....the Iranian military would have come up as the big loosers (actually second behind the Iraqi civillian popluation in the areas adjacent to the fighting-those casualties would have been staggering).

And then add to the equation that the hit & run tactics that the Iraqi resitance used against the Americans would have also possibly been turned loose on the Iranians as well (they have as much or more reason to hate the Iranians as they do the US).

The Iranians knew that world opinion would be against the US for the invasion of Iraq. If the Iranians crossed the border as well, world opinion would have certainly looked on them even more poorly, as it would have been obvious that they were trying to increase their own resources and essentially commit armed robbery on a major scale.

This may have caused France and Germany (among others) to enter the fray in Iraq and give the US a better moral cause for it's invasion.

They knew they were better off letting the US do it's thing, then work behind the scenes to make our task in Iraq even more difficult and fight a proxy war by arming insurgents.

Taking the US on in a stand up fight would have been suicide, and a disaster for the Iranian rulers, as they would have lost the two things they hold most dear: their power, and then their lives.

[Minardiau]

As bad as the Iraqi army had become compared to Western standards no bastard likes seeing it's neighbors invading it's territory. Iraq still had a highly professional officer corps.

Make no mistake, irrespective of the casualty numbers the Invasion of Iraq was no walk in the park. Take away modern medical science and there would have been Coalition casualties in the thousands.

Unlike the Russians or Germans the Iraqi's had little to defend. Russians retreated for thousands and thousands of miles. Iraq didn't have that luxury.

IE one big battle and it's basically all over. The Iraqis fought hard with there backs against a wall.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The bottom line is that Iran doesn't want to annex parts of Iraq, they just want to have a compliant Shia government in Baghdad.

[Solomin]

I don't why this wasn't covered more. It was on 60 mns I believe...

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/saddam-pretended-to-have-wmd-fbi/57542-2.html

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Why didn't they invade? I think the simple answer is that the risks far outweighed the benefits.

If Iran invaded at exactly the same time as the coalition, it would have been ideal for the coalition. Draw Iran in, then back away, and allow the two of them to slug it out (again) thereby eliminating both threats.

If Iran invaded after the US had completed most combat ops- they would have been attacked by the coalition.

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

remember that US and Iran aren't friend anymore after the fall of the Shah

[Telmar]

I would add to what was said above that Ahmadinejad was not president back then, it was Khatami, who was a moderate (within the boundaries of a theological regime).

Countries evolve with their leadership, and so does Iran, even if the powers of the president must be approved by the supreme leader.

[SnakeBiteLeader]

remember that US and Iran aren't friend anymore after the fall of the Shah

Thank you. That was very informative.

[3rdMillhouse]

Deterrence, Sadam Hussein kept everyone guessing whether he had or not chemical weapons. And no one, except the US, was willing to take chances. Perhaps it was so because the US knew there no WMDs.

But that's just my opinion.

[Loke-Gao-Zhu]

Thank you. That was very informative.

you're welcome, don't know why people don't get this simple answer....