On Jul 23, 8:24 pm, s****hawk <s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:08 pm, "mg" <mgkel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Before the invasion of Iraq, one of the most obvious
> > questions experts undoubtedly asked was will we destroy the
> > balance in the Middle East and what can we do to prevent
> > Iraq from becoming an ally of Iran as a result of the war?
> > Now it's more than 5 years later and the question is more
> > im****tant than ever. What can we do to prevent Iraq from
> > forming an alliance with Iran after we leave?
>
> > No one seems to have an answer to that question. Is that
> > because there is no answer?
>
> How can the U.S. prevent Iraq from forming an alliance with Iran even
> if the U.S. doesn't leave? It's almost a natural partner****p. The
> only reason they didn't join in some mutual alliance before was
> because of Saddam Hussein. The Iranians, including the current
> leaders, hated Saddam, and the feeling was mutual. Saddam saw Iran as
> a threat to his position.
>
> But now, George (the Israeli puppet) Bush has succeeded in removing
> Saddam for good; not only Saddam, but every single one of Saddam aides
> and advisors. The only reason Iraq and Iran haven't already formed an
> alliance now is because the U.S. is keeping a tight leash on the Iraqi
> government.
>
> But Iran is now looking across the border to a ****'ite state, just
> like Iran, a state governed by people with similar views and similar
> ambitions. They've already held formal meetings and have reached
> agreements. Both the Maliki government and the al Sadr militia want
> closer ties to Iran. They need each other to manage the growing Kurd
> threat to the north. Iraq needs money and technology: Iran has both.
> They will make a formidable combination in the Middle East.
I think you're missing a couple of im****tant points. The populations
of both countries speak entirely different languages. So at best, even
if there was some kind of close political alliance, the "natural"
"formidable alliance" would be somewhat like the relations between
French and English Canada: That is, an alliance formed only by
politics and not simply by similarity of culture. You could raise a
common army, but you couldn't stop the people from hating each other.
If you think the common religion unites them, then compare them to
Italy and France. Two Catholic countries that haven't recently fought
a war together on the same side.
Politics too, is an im****tant cultural difference. Iran is a theocracy
pure and simple, they vote, but the clergy determines in advance which
candidates are eligible for election. Iraq, is a free democracy,
currently being boycotted by a 1/5 minority, the non-Kurdish Sunni's.
Only the most radical of the ****a nationalists have a tendency towards
merging with Iranian culture, and these people have been more or less
assimilated into the democratic government, for now, at least.
"Closer ties" means shared cultural, economic and diplomatic ties. It
doesn't have to mean coordinated military exercises, although it
could, but not likely for the reasons I have already given. Short of
an Islamist revolution, which is not likely, Iraq will not become like
Iran.
> That's the reason Bush and his Israeli speech writers keep demonizing
> Iran, keep threatening Iran, keep accusing Iran of building nuclear
> weapons when U.S. intelligence and the international agencies have
> confirmed that Iran is not building nuclear weapons, but is developing
> nuclear power generation all in strict accordance with the Nuclear
> Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty to which the United States is a
> signatory.
That's not the main reason, but it comes into thinking as a factor.
International Relations Theory shows that Iran, by itself, is a
potential threat to Israel, just as, say, the US is considered a
potential threat to Panama. The main idea is that the Iranian army
could eliminate "resistance" from all buffer states, and continue on
to overrun Israel. Israeli fear of Iran has more or less nothing to do
with nukes. Obviously if Iran possessed a deliverable nuclear arsenal,
the advantage Israel enjoys from their "secret" stash of nuclear
weapons would be completely eliminated. This situation would then be
like the US and Russia, if the United States took the place of
Germany.
> But the war dogs are getting desperate. They can't allow Iran to join
> with Iraq in an alliance. Such an alliance would dominate the Middle
> East for a generation, strengthen Syria and Lebanon, weaken U.S.
> hegemony in the region, and stop Israel's expansion plans in it
> tracks.
Interesting concept: Israel's expansion plans. Be careful not to
overestimate "U.S. hegemony in the region". Boats and airplanes do not
Have to guarantee success in war. What's the problem people have with
a strong Syria and Lebanon? Just Israel again, methinks.
> At the same time, neither Israel nor the U.S. can't stop such
> an alliance, not without a major military operation targeting Iran.
Well, as I outlined above, an alliance such as you are imagining might
not be the slam dunk you think it is, as limiting conditions will be
too strong.
> But it looks like Obama will take over the presidency in a few months,
> and Obama opposes a military operation against Iran. Consequently,
> any military operation must be launched while Bush is in office--or
> Obama must be stopped.
I don't think a military operation against Iran by the US is wise, for
many reasons, among them that furthering the intentions of Israel
shouldn't be the all-abiding purpose of shedding American blood. So
the best outcome is if McCain keeps aging, and Obama is elected.
Conservatives should realize that there is a time and place for
aggressive action, and that it needs to follow real American
interests, not what we imagine our interests to be.
|
