Potential war with Iran

[cam427]

?????????????????????????????

Exsqueeze me? I thought we were talking about Iran.


You might want to consult your map again.

What can I say

[cam427]

That's a bit misleading. Iran has a very young population, and the US is actually pretty popular among the younger crowd (who are not super thrilled with the theocracy), but I do think an invasion would galvanize support for the ruling regime at least in the short term.

Actually when the last presedent was elected I thought we were going to start seeing some major changes in Iran as it was becoming obvious that the Iranians (not just the youth) were very supportive of a more open and free society. The problem was that the Imams also noticed and slowed down his reforms so much that everyone lost faith in him.

That said, I wouldn't say the US was popular but that they would like more freedom. Those are two completely different things.

The problem is that the current system dictates that all new laws must be agreed by the "Theocracy" befor they can be passed in government. I now do not believe we will see a free Iran until the next time the government is overthrown .

[jubaji]

That said, I wouldn't say the US was popular but that they would like more freedom. Those are two completely different things.

My comments about the US being popular were not my own conjecture, but what I've been told by Iranians, though I agree it must be more the latter than the former.

The problem is that the current system dictates that all new laws must be agreed by the "Theocracy" befor they can be passed in government. I now do not believe we will see a free Iran until the next time the government is overthrown .

Seems to be so.

[bigred389]

This is one of those cases where I think wait and see is actually the better option.

Iran seems to be a country being poisoned from within. Their youth is growing up Western, and their leadership will slowly be replaced as they age. As that happens, the power of the theocracy will absolutely plummet.

The real concern is that Iran will take preemptive measures by lashing out at us or Israel. Or interfering in Iraq.

Even worse, a ground war doesn't seem to be a credible option in Iran, and while an air campaign would certainly meet nearly no credible resistance, we'd still be hardpressed to locate targets, and even worse, we'd polarize the populace(and Muslim opinion) against us if the nuke program targets are located/relocated to urban centers. Usage of civilian shields is hardly a new idea.

[GQchris]

Wow, I get a Political Science education in here too, thanks Mike.

Does anyone think that the draft being reinstated is imminent in the U.S.? I mean it is obvious we do not have enough troops with all of our commitments across the globe..

[cam427]

I1. Of the approximately 125,000 troops in Iraq right now, what percentage are dedicated to combat operations? Do we need anywhere near that many to conduct operations in Iraq? What else might they be doing?

2. What does the training look like for the rest of the troops not directly involved? Are they training for combat operations or something else? And if this is not essential to the mission in Iraq, why have their commanders and generals not thrown fits about keeping everyone there?

I have not actually been able to find this info. I have seen "estimates" ranging from 10% to about 40%. I guess it is hard to classify as many "non-combatants" are being exposed to combat in Iraq because of the nature of the conflict.

I am going to take a guess without any real research and say that many of the additional troops are training Iraqis in an attempt to create a powerful army in the region that is sympathetic to the US. Iraq and Iran have a nasty history so the Iraqi army could be easily used to control the Iranians. If a war occurred between Iran and Iraq it would be seen by muslims as a muslim problem so would not involve us (US and Australia). Also if Iran were at war with Iraq it would use a huge amount of their available resources that could otherwise be used for the development of WMD or the sponsership of terrorism.

3. Who else in the region would have an interest in Iraq, espeically in its current state of affairs? What might that (or those) interest(s) be? How does that tie in with our troops?

Consider when answering this that Iraq and Iran share a common trait in the Islamic world. They are the only two nations with this certain common trait, and it is a trait that either side might have an interest in exploiting to their own interests. Further, there is a history between Iran and Iraq that literally has impact down to the village level. Look into Arab culture and pride a little more and you may understand the possible implications of this.

Not sure what the common trait is.

Everyone in the region has an interest in the current state of affairs in Iraq for several reasons. The first is that it is now the only democracy in the region. The leaders of the other countries will not be happy for their people to see the country flourishing and the people free and happy under a democratic government. It could give them ideas!

Secondly, Iran will not want Iraq to be a large power with access to external technologies and funding that is unavailable to it because of their history. This would give them a massive military advantage if the war broke out between them again.

Thirdly, it will also have an effect on oil prices if Iraq starts to release large amounts of oil onto the world market. This will have a huge effect on the economy of countries like Iran where almost all of their foreign income is based on oil.

Has anyone else found anything on these questions yet?

[cam427]

Cam, you're on the right track. However, the opinion that it would be seen as a muslim problem may be a little optimistic. Remember last time the two nations went to war? Saddam ended up using chemical weapons because he had to. He was losing, and it was all he could do. Were we able to stay out of it back then? And we weren't in the middle of things with 100,000 + troops, either. I don't think staying out would be an option, but you are right - it would be seen as us helping a friendly country in their own war rather than us starting things on our own - which is good.

As far as the comon trait, both countries have a Shia majority. Shia make up just about 15% of the Muslim faith. So Shi'ites are an overwhelming minority in Islam, but they're a majority in both Iran and Iraq. Do you think maybe that's significant? Why?

It is significant in that it is a possible source of an uprising using local resources. The Shia may feel they would be better represented as a larger shia country that includes Iran and some of Iraq. This is especially true now when Iraq is being split up by the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia (and others).

In looking at some of this stuff, it's very important to take into account Iran's president Ahmadenijad and his desire to make Iran the center of the Islamic solar system. He wants to be seen above all other countries and organizations as the champion of Islam. Who, historically and in contemporary times represents "the competition" to him, then? Saudi, and Al Qaeda. What would influencing the Shia in Iraq (or worse, expanding militarily to try and take over the Shi'ite dominated southern region in Iraq) mean in terms of that goal? Think about what exists in the southern region besides Shi'ites. And geographically, what is the impact of Iran sharing a border with Saudi in the event of an Iranian takeover of southern Iraq?

Next, you have to look back at the Iraq-Iran war. Regardless of the fact that they are Shi'ites, do you think Iraqi Shia would cooperate with Iranian Shia? They share a common faith, but would they be able to share a common vision, or is it more in line with Iraqi culture for the Iraqi Shia to harbr a grudge and refuse to cooperate in any way as a matter of pride? Is that something that could be leveraged into a reason for war?

I would say the southern region of Iraq is important because it contains the only port in the country. The main problem for Iraq is that it would be cut off from all waterborne imports and exports (including oil). It also has alot of oil (1000 of Iraqs 1500 wells are in the south). I dont really see how this could make Iran a centre of Islam but it could certainly make it more powerful, or more likely, make for another war.

There is a lot of bitterness between Iraqis and Persians and I think it would be very difficult to get them together. From another point of view there is some residual bitterness against the US in the south from the uprising after the first gulf war when they believed the US would support them but they didn't and thousands were tortured and murdered. This could be used by Iran.

I dont have time to think about the rest now. I will try and add more tomorrow

[Nutz]

Failing that, Ahmadenijad might just feel threatened enough to launch nukes at Israel, Saudi, and anywhere else he felt that threatened his notions of bringing back the hidden imam. If that happens, be ready for World War III.

Make no mistake, if Iran shows they have nukes and even threatens Israel, Israel will without a doubt make the first strike. Hell, they've already make this part of their policy in dealing with Iran to thwart them from continuing with their threats against Israel.

[Nutz]

This is one of those cases where I think wait and see is actually the better option.

Iran seems to be a country being poisoned from within. Their youth is growing up Western, and their leadership will slowly be replaced as they age. As that happens, the power of the theocracy will absolutely plummet.

The real concern is that Iran will take preemptive measures by lashing out at us or Israel. Or interfering in Iraq.

Even worse, a ground war doesn't seem to be a credible option in Iran, and while an air campaign would certainly meet nearly no credible resistance, we'd still be hardpressed to locate targets, and even worse, we'd polarize the populace(and Muslim opinion) against us if the nuke program targets are located/relocated to urban centers. Usage of civilian shields is hardly a new idea.

For the most part I agree with your post. However, there is virtually no practical means to move nuclear production facilities in a short amount of time. Although if given enough time (read: sanctions and politiking) they may make more secret underground facilities like what was discovered a few weeks ago.

[cam427]

I think that Al-Sistani could be of great assistance. As you already said above, he believes that politics and religion should be completely separate.

He is also considered to be the Grand Ayatollah.

Although assisted the US, his first interest is always with the Shia. He reigned in Al-Sadr (to an extent) because Al-Sadr was always aware that with a single command from Al-Sistani his entire force could be removed. He did this because he believed it best for the Shia.

I believe he supports the new government in Iraq for several reasons. Firstly, he was constantly tormented by the Baath party and secondly, and more importantly, the Shia now have more say and freedom in Iraq.

I dont think he will ever replace Khameni as he does not have the political aspirations that this would require.

That said, he would be a perfect candidate if an "accident" should befall Khameni.

Edit: After further research it appears that he is getting more and more involved in the polictics in Iraq.