"As for Iran's domination of the Gulf, fear of that was a major argument made against going to war. If you smash the only Arab nation in the Gulf able to stand up to Persian Iran, overthrow its Sunni regime and introduce majority, i.e., Shia rule, how can Iran not be the beneficiary?
This war was not thought through. It was not only mismanaged, it was an historic strategic blunder to begin with.
Any U.S. war to overthrow Iran's enemies — the Taliban in Kabul, Saddam and his Sunni Baathists in Baghdad — cannot but result in making Iran more dominant in the Gulf when the Americans depart. By eliminating the counterweight to Iranian domination, we guaranteed that either we become that counterweight, or there is none."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070629/cm_uc_crpbux/op_333163;_ylt=Al.hLKOYiU7J3ykqVpq5Gdz9wxIF
2nd question: Will the Bushbot neocons (eg: 28%'ers) ever figure it out?
2007-07-02 04:17:34 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Buttbar: So in effect, handing the state of Iraq over to the govt. of Iran is a better solution than the standoff between Saddam and the Ayatolla? For which you presume that there would have been another war which was fought with WMDs?
Funny, how Pakistan and India have stopped fighting since they both became nuclear capable.
BTW: Rest assured, it doesn't matter if we pull out of Iraq in 10 minutes or 10 years, Iran will control that country.
And simplistic or not, Pat is right.
2007-07-02 05:00:30 · update #1
I do not know why the administration seems so surprised and outraged at Iran for getting involved in Iraq. Why wouldn't they? Why didn't GWs military experts see that as almost a given once we overthrew the Iraq government?
2007-07-02 05:10:58 · answer #1 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Overly simplistic argument that does NOT account for the fact that Iran and Iraq were sure to re-engage in conflict. And the next time, it would be with increased usage of WMD.
Saddam's Iraq and Iran were no just holding each other in check, they had fought a long war, followed by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait which precipitated the 1st Gulf War, etc, etc.
Is there any doubt that, in time, with Iran pursuing nukes, and Iraq maintaining WMD production capabilities, that there would, once again, be war between the two? Would an Iraq-Iran War redux, but with WMD-tipped missiles, have been a stabilizing event?
Remember, when Iran started pursuit of nukes, Saddam was their #1 enemy. The US and Israel were evil pig-dogs, sure, but not their primary target. Do not dismiss this fact.
Perhaps, if we look at it the other way, by eliminating Saddam, we've eliminated support in Iran for their current government, because they no longer have an implacable enemy on their border, and can hope for something better.
There are many ways of looking at this beyond just what Patsy Buchanan sees.
2007-07-02 11:38:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were some downsides to the Iraq war (including increasing Iran's power), just like there are some downsides to everything (like how eliminating slavery hurt white farmers). But the positives outweight the negatives.
2007-07-02 11:53:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's right on. This is what I have been saying since the 2003 invasion! A debacle from the beginning because there was no planning!
2007-07-02 11:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by Sangria 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
simple common sense will tell you that pat is correct. why bush did not plan for this by securing iran is beyond a lot of us...
2007-07-02 11:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pat is usually wrong, but not always.
2007-07-02 12:09:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋