If Iran takes over southern Iraq after we leave...

[jewbanker]

How do you guys think the USA/NATO respond? Some say Southern Iraq is already controlled by Iran via proxies. I was also watching a video on Robert B. Ex CIA Agent who said some of his friends in Iraq are buying Oil and they are essentially buying it from Iranian agents (he said 200k-300k smuggled to dubai everyday to be refined then shipped to iran). Southern Iraq is where most of the natural resources are (more oil then 99% of countries). If it indeed was taken over by Iran how would the USA/Nato respond? Iran taking over Southern Iraq would also put them closer to the Saudis and Kuwaitis

[Laworkerbee]

How do I sign up for your newsletter?

[socom6]

The Iraqis wont tolerate Persians controlling them at all.

[willytee]

HAHAHA.. jew banker as the name...

[jewbanker]

How do I sign up for your newsletter?

pm me

The Iraqis wont tolerate Persians controlling them at all.

Iran already controls Southern Iraq

[Alpheus]

Iran already controls Southern Iraq

Ok, but your OP asks the question "If Iran takes over southern Iraq after we leave...". How can they take over something they already control?

[willytee]

pm me


Iran already controls Southern Iraq

Thats just an assumption based on what evidence? I dont think you have any hard evidence on that. Iran may INFLUENCE but they dont CONTROL.

[CG51]

I blame it on those damn Juice.

[JCR]

If Iran takes over southern Iraq after we leave...

Then Iran will enjoy the benefits of being in posession of another patch of swamp bordering directly into desert populated by a bunch of religious fanatics that rise up against pretty much everyone who governs them since Muhammad's days
:roll:

[Virus]

pm me


Iran already controls Southern Iraq



And does Mr.Cookoo bird have proof? Or what?

[GiladS]

I don't believe Iran will take over Iraq per se but there's certainly a very good chance of seeing a full blown civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis once the U.S leaves with Iran backing the Shiites and the Arab world backing the Sunnis.

This war would probably bring about the creation of two separate Sunni and Shia states (maybe even a Kurdistan in the north?).

With the Shia state clearly being a proxy state of Iran.

[Red_Fern]

Lots hanging on "if" here... I don't think they'll be that dumb, but that's just my opinion.

[4X4Driver]

I don't believe Iran will take over Iraq per se but there's certainly a very good chance of seeing a full blown civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis once the U.S leaves with Iran backing the Shiites and the Arab world backing the Sunnis.

So far, it looks more like they two will take care of their common enemy to the north first.

[GiladS]

So far, it looks more like they two will take care of their common enemy to the north first.

An Iraqi Civil War will look like the Lebanese Civil War...

Everyone will fight everyone.

You are Turkish, right? :)

[4X4Driver]

An Iraqi Civil War will look like the Lebanese Civil War...

Everyone will fight everyone.

In the ME, taking care of the collaborators always comes first on the "things to do" lists.


You are Turkish, right? :)

Correct.

[Red_Fern]

Okay-- here's what I think would happen:

Despite radical support for Iran from various regions/groups of the Middle East, were Iran to attempt anything, it'd probably end in disaster for Iran.

Israel's support for the US (and dislike of Iran) would also provide a large advantage to the Coalition effort. Its location would be a tactical advantage to NATO if necessary. Israel's coastal access would also allow for naval (logistical and possibly aerial) support for the coalition through the Mediterranean. Although small, Israel is highly capable of wielding its military might, and would not hesitate to do so if Iran were to attempt a move guaranteed to cause further instability in the region.

Therefore, (in my opinion) with NATO response and Israeli retaliation from the Southwest, Iran could very likely be crushed in the early stages of their attempt.

</Red_Fern's $.02>

[GiladS]

In the ME, taking care of the collaborators always comes first on the "things to do" lists.


In the Lebanese Civil War I doubt there was any sort of "things to do list", only utter chaos... the same would happen in Iraq.



Correct.


Then I believe this is wishfull thinking on your part that the Shiites and Sunnis will take care of the Kurds, perhaps certain factions would do so with a bit of help and support from you guys.

I certainly hope Turkey wouldn't get itself tangled in such a mess as we did.

[4X4Driver]

In the Lebanese Civil War I doubt there was any sort of "things to do list", only utter chaos... the same would happen in Iraq.

Situation here is totally different here from all angles.




Then I believe this is wishfull thinking on your part that the Shiites and Sunnis will take care of the Kurds, perhaps certain factions would do so with a bit of help and support from you guys.

That would be very simplistic prejudgement from your side because of I'm a Turk. It's bit more complicated. I'm basing my assumptions on the concerns of US authorities and kurds' statements that's being expressed to the Turkish gov't lately.


I certainly hope Turkey wouldn't get itself tangled in such a mess as we did.

I certainly hope the same..I hope we won't be talked into being protectors for them.

[GiladS]

Situation here is totally different here from all angles.


How so?


That would be very simplistic prejudgement from your side because of I'm a Turk.

Then please accept my apology.




I'm basing my assumptions on the concerns of US authorities and kurds' statements that's being expressed to the Turkish gov't lately.


After the Americans leave they'll have plenty of Sunni and Shiites to take to the gallows, nevermind the Kurds.

So again I highly doubt there would be any alliances forged between Shia and Sunnis and cohesive action against the Kurds.

[4X4Driver]

How so?

For starters, the control of Kerkuk and its oil can even easly put the barzani and talabani kurds against eachother..it happened several times before.




Then please accept my apology.

No problem.




After the Americans leave they'll have plenty of Sunni and Shiites to take to the gallows, nevermind the Kurds.

So again I highly doubt there would be any alliances forged between Shia and Sunnis and cohesive action against the Kurds.

Well..I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.



Iraq and the Kurds: Trouble Along the Trigger Line

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6207&l=1

[deathil93]

Well, that depends, I can't recall the location of the Iraqi oil fields, if their in the north than the US would say "fu, do it yourselfs" (i.e. to remove Iran from southern Iraq), if the oil fields are in the south than the US would invade Iran, cause the US' ajenda is 50% oil, 40% kill the terrorists and 10% freedom (sorry if I offended anyone).

But in any case I doubt that Iran would take over southern Iraq directly, I think they'll continue with the Al-Quaeda proxies in that region cause getting involved publicaly would probably lead to a moblization of US troops to liberate the area.

[Grahamr117]

I kind of agree with 4X4Driver Pasha......What with all the past U.S support of the Kurds and "Second Israel" theories I think they will be on the top of the hit list.

But those mountains could be murder for the Arab forces...They will get into a quagmire and get forced out by Peshmerga, especially with covert backer from the U.S or Israelis...

[Irbis]

Okay-- here's what I think would happen:

Despite radical support for Iran from various regions/groups of the Middle East, were Iran to attempt anything, it'd probably end in disaster for Iran.

Israel's support for the US (and dislike of Iran) would also provide a large advantage to the Coalition effort. Its location would be a tactical advantage to NATO if necessary. Israel's coastal access would also allow for naval (logistical and possibly aerial) support for the coalition through the Mediterranean. Although small, Israel is highly capable of wielding its military might, and would not hesitate to do so if Iran were to attempt a move guaranteed to cause further instability in the region.

Therefore, (in my opinion) with NATO response and Israeli retaliation from the Southwest, Iran could very likely be crushed in the early stages of their attempt.

</Red_Fern's $.02>

If you haven't noticed, Israel doesn't have a border with Iran.

Nor with Iraq, for that matter. :roll:

So unless Israel has developed some teleportation devices all they could do would be a limited bombing campaign violating the airspace of at least two countries. Logistical and ground support they can provide is meaningless and possibly harmful.

[Red_Fern]

If you haven't noticed, Israel doesn't have a border with Iran.

Nor with Iraq, for that matter. :roll:

So unless Israel has developed some teleportation devices all they could do would be a limited bombing campaign violating the airspace of at least two countries. Logistical and ground support they can provide is meaningless and possibly harmful.

I'm aware of both of those factors. You don't have to border a nation to worry about hostilities breaking out... England has never bordered Germany, but look at WW2.

However, with Iran being the troll that it is, it'd probably try to fcuk up things in Iraq after the US leaves. Plus with Iran and Israel already hating each other, if Iran made a move on Iraq, Israel would surely put themselves on (higher) alert.

I wouldn't put it past Iran to attempt something on Israel anyway, regardless of borders or boundaries.

[dracon49]

The Americans made a big mistake when they installed a Shia government in Iraq-it gives Iran a lot of influence because they are Shia.

[GiladS]

In today's eddition of Yediot Aharonot (Israel's biggest daily newspaper) it was reported that there are new assessments regarding the strategic cooperation between Turkey, Syria and Iran.

It seems these three countries are already forging future policies regarding an Iraq with no U.S military presence.

We know that the Iranians wish to capitalize on the Shia majority while the Turks want to curb the Kurds and all three seem to be interested in the oil.

[Grahamr117]

So, what are they?

The Troublesome Trio?

I would be worried about Turkey going radical because they have an effective NATO army. ASSUMING the army goes along with it and doesn't launch a coup against Erdogan to preserve secularism.

More importantly, who could we use to balance against the three? Greece, Armenia, Iraq...Egypt?

[Jacknola]

This is my only post in this line... because most of this line contains assumptions that were proven incorrect 25 years ago, and are certainly incorrect now.

In the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussain never had a problem with the Shia soldiers...no terrorism, guerrilla actions in support of Iran, etc. The Arab Shia soldiers stood to their guns throughout the war. Arabs first, Shia second, against the Persians.

Again, it was the so called US installed (actually elected) "Shia led" government that took out the Iranian Qod sponsored terrorists in the south (admittedly using the 2nd Division, mostly Sunni), and ridded the country of little fat Ayatollah junior. There is no real support for Iranians... as a matter of fact the Shia Iraqis hate them almost as much as they do Saddams' Sunni tribe.

The propaganda that the US should have left Saddams Iraqi Sunni-led Army intact is ridiculous. That force was completely corrupt, unprofessional as a military force, and directly associated top to bottom with poison gas, brutality beyond belief. It was essentially a totalitarian praetorian guard, committed to military dictatorship. You people who buy that line about "keeping the Sunni-led Army" are dupes for Saddams media apologists.

The Kurds are not seeking a separate country... but if push and shove started, the Shia Iraqis have little quarrel with the Kurds. The losers would be the remaining Sunnis-Arabs (and possibly the Turkmen minority) who were given a lot of Kurdish homes and lands by Saddam.

I suggest being at least conversant with the multitude of religious "sects" associated with Shia (and Sunni for that matter). Twelver Isam and the hidden Iman are not necessarily dominant forms of the Shia beliefs outside of Iran.

This whole line is make-believe. The Arabs, Shia or Sunni, and the Kurds would likely oppose any attempt by Persians to "take over" part of Iraq. And Iran is hardly in a position to start another Iran-Iraq war. So far as I know, no one in Iran wants another go at that grinding WWI stalemate.

And look at the list of countries that despise Iran... It includes just about every country in the region, and even in the world. Talk about isolated! And they cannot even hope to supply themselves with the basics.. such as gasoline. The Persians have isolated themselves diplomatically, and made themselves international pariahs because of their nuke ambitions.

Furthermore, the loonies such as iAmajackass would prefer a complete immolation of Iran by nukes, ending the history of Persia, brought about by a suicidal show-boat attack with a primitive weapon on the great Satan or little Satan.... and both countries would be happy to oblige...

http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/45324/2160425330103673033S600x600Q85.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2160425330103673033AkBbDa)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Well, that depends, I can't recall the location of the Iraqi oil fields, if their in the north than the US would say "fu, do it yourselfs" (i.e. to remove Iran from southern Iraq), if the oil fields are in the south than the US would invade Iran, cause the US' ajenda is 50% oil, 40% kill the terrorists and 10% freedom (sorry if I offended anyone).

But in any case I doubt that Iran would take over southern Iraq directly, I think they'll continue with the Al-Quaeda proxies in that region cause getting involved publicaly would probably lead to a moblization of US troops to liberate the area.I very much doubt Iran would back Al-Q in Iraq over their usual shi'a allies and even the ISCI are more autonomous than ever before taking funds and advice from Iran but at the same time growing more reluctant to take orders from them.

[Grahamr117]

I understand the nature of Saddam's army, but couldn't we at least have disbanded it...slowly? Or would that just cause the Old and New Iraqi Armies to fight?

You know I think that when the time comes America, Israel, and others will act decisively against Iran and foil it's ambitions. There will be a time where people will realize what's at stake.