Would the Us be better off if Iran controlled the entire Middle East? If they controlled Iraq and Saudi Arabia

Question

Have you "bring the troops home now" people thought this through?

Or does getting some one with s "D" behind their name into the White House more important?

petey, why do you think we funded and equipped saddam for almost 30 years? He held Iran at bay. OUR troops are now the major force keeping Iran from disrupting our oil supply.

I'm glad you Dems have all this faith in Israel. I just don't know how you expect a Nation the size of Rhode Island to muster up this huge military and fight our battles for us

Answer 1

Probably not. Saudi Arabia really doesn't want a war and putting it all on Israel might be to much for them. The Saudis are not saying but what I've read suggests they want a buffer between them and Iran and want the US to deal with Iran. There are serious diplomatic meetings going on between the US and Iran though little is being said about them , which gives hope to something being worked out. I doubt the troops will be coming home for some time even with the Democrats in the White house. Peace

Answer 2

I agree with Petey. Not to mention that the recent Israeli air strike into Syria (an Iranian ally) drew no protests from the other Arab states. That means that they don't support Iran. If that's the case, then if Iran tries to take over, they might be able to take part of Iraq, but they'd be stopped by Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Heck, maybe then Israel would have good relations with neighboring Arab nations, since they both don't like Iran more than they don't like each other.

Thus, if the US gets Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, I doubt there will be much Arab hullaballoo. Israel could take care of Iran... because we all know, if the Israeli military had the budget the US military does, we'd all be Jewish.

Edit:
Israel can take them all. Remember the Six Day War? And that was before they got all the money/tech from us annually.

Answer 3

Jeezus, guy. you need to placed the cart AFTER the pony along with your question and ask what the hell is so particular correct to the U. S. that Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia could choose to attack US. Then, and easily then, will your question be responded. (For those of you in Rio Linda, the literal answer to the question as to why we could choose to attack those countries is to PRE-EMPT, HEAD OFF AND/OR end assaults against US in the previous yet another 9/11 takes place.) EDIT: while you're "denomding" the reality, properly, right here it quite is. Thirty years in the past, in 1978, the Shah of Iran became being overthrown by ability of a few wacky bearded fellow by ability of the call of Khomeini, and Carter became doing no longer something approximately U.S. hostages being held there. If issues had long previous my way, your uncle's e book could have study "The U.S. HAS ALREADY invaded Iran, and collapsed them like a rotten soccer." As for something of those places, the lot who have been drawing paychecks from the CIA understood how risky they have been to the U. S., yet President Carter the two did no longer pay attention to them or could no longer understood a observe they mentioned because of the fact HE HAD PEANUTS IN HIS EARS. There. You "Denomded" the reality and that i gave it to you.

Answer 4

Well I'm not a "BTTHN" person, so, I hope you don't mind if I answer.... Many--Many--Many it the BTTHN folks are terribly missguides. there are a few people of intellegence twisting and downright ommiting the truth to them whi;e feeding them a line of "peace not war" .... Which is central to the American psychi (we don't want war if we can avoid it) but many many USA Citizens have bee missguided.... I think that the falseties as history will represent run side by side with the silent touters of the North American Uniion.....

Americans need to stop listening to the corrupt media and think about it...... We are at war lets stand together against that which is Islamic Fundamentalists and fight tooth and nail to avoid being cught up in the NA Union...... P.S. Don't Vote Dem.... or for Gulliani or Romni if you want a stabalized USA!

Answer 5

Getting a "D" in the White House is far more important to them then winning in Iraq and they made that clear when making fun of General Petreus and not offering him a single amount of aid or assistance. Not one person with a "D" asked the man what he needed to win in Iraq - amazing.

Iran in charge of the middle east would be scary. I think they would slow down if given that charge and gain strength. They'd let Europe fall to Islamic migration and then probably attack America as al queda did a little piece at a time until we were unable to handle them militarily.

Answer 6

We have a 60 year history of using Iraq as a proxy to "fight Iran over there so we don't have to fight them here"

I wonder if you "stay the course" crowd (including Dubya, his dad, and Cheney) considered that before we destroyed Iraq's army (twice).

Answer 7

A, Israel will never allow it
B, Saudi Arabia will never allow it

oh, and C, the West wont allow it because it would destabilize the region even more and OPEC prices would probably skyrocket...even though we may not rely on OPEC oil but Asia does

The majority of our oil comes from Mexico/Canada but I know what you are talking about...I was watching bloomberg and the Saudi army is rising up and securing their border.

Answer 8

No.
That is a silly little question.

We would be better off if we controlled Saudi Arabia.
Especially since that is where the terrorist are.

Answer 9

US will be better off if Freemason neo-con fascists are held accountable by their own people.