It's no secret that Iran is fueling a lot of the sectarian violence in Iraq. If we pull out, won't it make it easier for Iran to expand its influence in the oil-rich Shiite section? Iran doesn't need to formally invade to gain control of Iraqi oil...they just need to dominate the Shia sect.
Can we risk giving Iran a blank check by our pulling out of Iraq?
2006-08-16 09:34:40 · 9 answers · asked by Brand X 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You nailed it!
Whatever your view is on the war, that is the prevailing issue, and how we answere it will define our future.
2006-08-16 09:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by johncgaiser 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question implies that Iran does not already have a very signifcant amount of influnce in Iraq. The majority of that country is Shia and under Saddam they where persocuted. Most of the Iraqis, especially their current leadership have been living Iran for the last quarter century. Also, the clergy that have most of the influence in both countries have studied in the seminary schools togethar. The two most important happent to be Najaf, Iraq and Qom, Iran. So, U.S. being there or not has no impact on the influence Iran will have over Iraq. Does this mean they will dictate policy: no. Iraqis do have some indpendence as seen by the fact that no faction has called for a theocracy based on Shia Islam. By the way Iran has influence on many of the Shia populations around the middle east. That is why Sunni arab countries hate Iran. They fear that if their oppressed Shia population get to courageous that will rise against them.
2006-08-16 16:47:21 · answer #2 · answered by NaNuk_911 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war is over, and the winner is... Iran
Hamstrung by the Iraq debacle, all Bush can do is gnash his teeth as the hated mullahs in Iran cozy up to their co-religionists in Iraq.
Iraq's new government has been trumpeted by the Bush administration as a close friend and a model for democracy in the region. In contrast, Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil and dismisses its elections and government as illegitimate.
Iraq has a Shiite Muslim majority of some 62 percent. Iran's Shiite majority is thought to be closer to 90 percent. The Shiites of the two countries have had a special relationship for over a millennium. Saddam had sealed the border for more than two decades, but throughout centuries, tens of thousands of Iranians have come on pilgrimage to the holy Shiite shrines of Najaf and Karbala every year. Iraqis likewise go to Iran for pilgrimage, study and trade. Although neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz maintained before the Iraq war that Iraqis are more secular and less interested in an Islamic state than Iranians, in fact the ideas of Khomeini had had a deep impact among Iraqi Shiites. When they could vote in January earlier this year, they put the Khomeini-influenced Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq in control of seven of the nine southern provinces, along with Baghdad itself.
2006-08-16 16:46:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You make me laugh --
We upset the balance in the region by overthrowing Sadaam and made it possible for the very scenario that you describe. Sadaam kept things in check in the region by fighting Iran to a draw. But our selfish interests made our govt choose to invade Iraq and create the hell that we are in now. They will come to wish that Sadaam was still in power. I just cant understand how this could happen (our invasion) because Bill Clinton was there to advise these idiots about the politics of the region. But I suspect that damn Cheney must have thought he knew better.
To anser your question the American people will demand before long (as in Viet Nam) that we pull out.
2006-08-16 16:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by worriedaboutyou 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No - the US will stay until the Iraqi people make up their mind whether or not to accept Iran. Otherwise, Civil War will continue.
Saddam was a buffer zone against Iran. Not anymore.
2006-08-16 16:38:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given the fact that Iran has been at war with Iraq for nearly two decades, I'd guess that is exactly what they are planning on doing. By our actions, we have destabilized the country and , by proxy, have opened the gate for Iran to dominate the politics of Iraq (thus control of its oil).
Great observation.
2006-08-16 16:42:55 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hind sight is 20/20 Saddam as mean and "evil" dictator as he was kept a lid on this garbage.
Also keep in mind that his people "killing off" his citizens is at a rate that was 4 times lower than the rate that the Iraqi citizens are being killed off now. This is how Bush defines stability?
2006-08-16 16:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
But how are we stopping them now? We aren't; in addition to which, our presence strokes the hatred they want for recruitment.
Really, we seem to have stepped aside from any effort to stop sectarian violence.
From here, it looks as though our main mission is to take no casualties.
2006-08-16 16:43:57 · answer #8 · answered by ElOsoBravo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are they less entitled then America in trying to corrupt the government to their favor? Your question assumes that it would be wrong.Wrong for who? We created this mess in our lust for their oil. It would serve us right when this whole mess backfires in America,s Corporate Face!
2006-08-16 16:43:57 · answer #9 · answered by tough as hell 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋