Iran will emerge as clear victor in U.S. war in Iraq

[bemildred]

This is obvious by now, but it's interesting to see it being said at AJC, and this well.

---

I was recently in South Korea, where I was making a presentation at the triennial Women's World's Congress. Some 90 nations were represented, but in talking there with people from many of those countries, I found only one where conference attendees said that Bush is popular: Iran.

---

By eliminating Saddam Hussein, Bush has removed the biggest counterweight to Iranian dominance of the region and accomplished for Iran — at no cost whatsoever to that country — what it was unable to do for itself in a long and horrible war in the 1980s.

On top of that, while fighting the Iranians' war for them, Bush has exhausted American military resources in the effort and has no credible military threat to use to pressure Iran.

When American troops leave Iraq, which eventually must happen, the result of the Bush war in Iraq will become apparent to all: Iran will emerge as the dominant power in the region.

AJC (Annoying Registration Site)

[WCGreen]

1. Iran will take the South

The Kurds will take the north and Syria will merge with what is left of the middle.....

[opihimoimoi]

2. Why Bush refuses to see the consequences of his actions in the ME is

beyond comprehension.

Is he that much of a dufus?

I suppose so cause the man doesn't read as an American President should. Instead he goes for the Pet Goat..... Pathetic indeed.

[bemildred]

5. Starting to look that way.

That would only be the beginning though, and there might be a nice little civil war to sort that out and/or muck it up. What will Turkey say? Where does this leave Israel? You can bet that "Greater Iran" will try to throw it's weight around, but where? It has allies scattered about. And how? Will any of the other large powers be tempted (foolishly) to try fill the vacuum left by the shrinkage of US hegemony in the area? I mean there is still all that oil to covet. Hmmm.

[justinsb]

3. My nostradomis impersonation

Now that Iran and Iraq have signed a military deal

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3B7E6C5-B473-47...

and Iraq has begun to be more critical of the US role in the country

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050710/w071070.html

I suspect that the Iraqi government will not, for long, be friendly with the US and that once the US ultimately leaves the Iran/Iraq alliance will help support the fundamentalist rebels in Saudi Arabia.

The three which will then control a huge percentage of the worlds oil supply will then rely on China for protection from further US attacks

Saudi Arabia cuts oil sales to U.S., ups China
http://www.energybulletin.net/2348.html

Iran's New Alliance With China Could Cost U.S. Leverage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55414-20...

(not to mention Venezuela's oil going to China

http://www.10thnpc.org.cn/english/2004/Dec/115814.htm
)

With the profits generated by the Chinese economy and Middle Eastern oil, and with the US economy weakened by ever increasing fuel prices China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq will buy whatever is left of US infrastructure (companies, real estate etc).

By then though, everyone will likely blame whoever is in office at the time and forget about the legacy of GWB.

[WCGreen]

6. The Kurds will get in the Way...

Because they want there own country and they will not be so keen on the idea of a greater Iran since their ethnic presence will be further diminished and they will be under the thumb of their enemy, the Shi'ite....

So, more than likely the Mulahs in Iran will want to use the south to get at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

If this goes down, look for an alliance between Jordan, Syria and what's left of Iraq...

Meanshile, Turkey, A NATO member, will be under pressure from the large Kurdish minority in thier country, the real reason they didn't offer any help to the US when "we" were running to war....

So, I think you could see a Chinese Iran axis but don't count on it...

The Chinese haven't been too kind to the Muslim Minority in their country....

Don't discount the Russians. They have gotten rid of much of their Muslim minority when the USSR disolved....

[Maple]

4. And voila, a Shi'ite Crescent

Courtesy of Bush.

Not that that was his intention mind you, but 'the best laid plans of men and mice....'

[warsager]

7. Add this tidbit

Iran to take part in Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Kazakhstan

TEHRAN, July 4 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref was traveling to Kazakhstan Monday for a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) slated to open in Astana on Tuesday.

"The SCO was established to promote regional cooperation, ensure stability and security, while Iran's membership in the organization meets our interests and the organization's interests," Aref told reporters before boarding his flight. "The issue has been put on the Iranian foreign ministry and government's agenda."

Aref was pleased that the organization's members had decided to honor the Iranian president's earlier request to grant the Islamic Republic observer status in the SCO. He said such an important regional organization could work efficiently to tackle various international issues and ensure greater stability and security in the region.

The leaders of the SCO, which includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, will gather for a meeting on Tuesday. They are expected to adopt a decision to grant observer status to Iran, India, and Pakistan.


http://en.rian.ru/world/20050704/40841867.html

AND

Shanghai Cooperation Organization – Cooperation or Challenge?

<snip>

One of the most important resolutions adopted in Astana at the summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organization was about request to the U.S. leadership to outline the schedule of dismantling U.S. military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.  That was a clear challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy and its military presence in Central Asian region.  That is also an explicit answer to the question why Iran is an observer within SCO.  Washington-Tehran stand-off has been lasting for more than quarter century now.  It is clear that for Iran it is more convenient to be at odds with U.S. in the company of Russia and China rather than to do that alone.

<snip>

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/07/08/3928.shtml

[SweetLeftFoot]

8. Don't forget

the Yanks also got rid of the Talibs ... who the Iranians almost went to war with on a number of occasions.

[HamdenRice]

9. The shrubistas have a trick up their sleeve: A different Iran

You are correct that Iran will dominate Iraq. Iran will also dominate the so-called Shiite crescent throughout Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well.

This cannot be avoided now that the Shiite majority has been given power.

But what you have not accounted for is that the administration is hell bent on creating a different Iran. In fact, from the administration's perspective, it is now more imperative than ever to carry out regime change in Iran.

Their lunatic goal is an Iran dominated region, but dominated by an Iran that is friendly to the US.

They have never gotten over the deposing of their Iranian puppet, the Shah and want something similar to that to be restored.

[bemildred]

10. Then, you disagree with the writer of this piece?

"Bush has exhausted American military resources in the effort and has no credible military threat to use to pressure Iran."

[HamdenRice]

11. Yes, I disagree to this extent ...

Bush has exhausted the ground forces of the US. But the neocons have often insisted that the Irania government could be toppled through air strikes alone, by demonstrating to the Iranian people that their government is not as strong as it claims it is. While I don't think this is true or realistic, I do believe the US still has sufficient air power to launch a "shock and awe" bombing campaign.

As for the overall strategy outlined in my post, I am not talking about what is reality, but what I think the Bush administration believes.

[Larkspur]

12. I somewhat agree with you. I too think that the Bush Admin will

eventually strike Iran by air and they won't care if the Iraqi government says "No!" to US use of their airspace. Of course, that could incur a large scale Shiite protest against Americans and drive us from Iraq.

Air strikes alone won't topple Iran. Bush's policy against Iran has helped keep the mullahs in power, and air strikes will only deepen their power for a while longer. The problems for Iraq come after the US withdraws from the region and ethnic and religious groups fight amongst themselves.

[bemildred]

13. OK, thanks.

I understand the argument, and I do agree they would like to, but heck they want to rule the World. I don't think the Shrubites have the credibility or political power to unilaterally bomb Iran at this point, and I'm not convinced that if they tried anyone would obey. So I am skeptical that that will actually occur. But it's not like I have a crystal ball.