Does anyone here for see Iran attacking US forces in Iraq?

[icymist]

With all this saber rattling, and the US flying unmanned air re-con planes over Iraq, and the nuclear question about the same, would it not seem reasonable that Iran attack the US forces in Iraq before an perceived invasion of that country? Wouldn't Iran's strategy be that if it could create a military front in Iraq with guerrilla warfare happening at the rear of the American side, that it would have a chance to emerge from this war with a super power?

I think our troops in Iraq are in the most danger they have ever been for a very long time. I hope I'm wrong.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

2. If the US bombs Iran

yes, indeedy the US will be attacked in Iraq by Iranians.

[politicaholic]

3. That would make Iraq a fully unilarteral movement...

Iran attacking the U.S. in Iraq is an interesting proposal, but that would take out the Bush administration's greatest weakness--diplomacy.

If Iran jumps in then the EU will be fully behind the U.S. Iran would lose and in their last ditch desperation probably try to destroy Baghdad or Jerusalem or something.

Very nasty any way it goes.

[icymist]

4. Unilateral.

Sounds like what the US has been doing lately, don't it?

[politicaholic]

5. Woops, sorry, I meant multilateral...duh.

[alfredo]

7. I think Iran would only attack if attacked. They would be dumb to do

otherwise. You would then see a pincer move with Iran attacking the south east and Syria attacking from the west. Iran would attempt to close off the Persian gulf in an attempt to cut supply lines, and Syria would do its best to block overland supply lines from the west.

As much as the youth of Iran dislike the Mullahs, their love of country would compel them to join forces with them to defend their homeland.

On edit. If the US strikes the first blow, I don't think the EU would support the effort. If Iran is the aggressor, then you could see some support, but even then it is iffy. The Europeans hate bush so much, they would not want their soldiers to die for his adventures.

[judgejury]

6. Nope, that would be their BIGGEST mistake YET! NT

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[icymist]

9. I played out every scenario in my head about Iran.

I still think that Iran is going to attack us first.

[Igel]

10. I also think that there'd be a lot of Iraqis none too happy

about it. They might sit out the fight to take on the victor. I'm not at all willing to hazard a guess.

Remember: there was one war, and even many of the clerics disagree with Khomeini's line, even as expounded by Khamenei.

And the peshmerga would be fully mobilized within seconds.

Sadr would sit and wait: if it looks like he'd be appointed Lord High Executioner by the Aryans, he'd fight anybody in his way.

[htuttle]

11. If Iran attacks, it would be through their proxy armies

The Badr Brigades is one of the largest militias in Iraq, and they have been trained and equipped by Iran for a long time. So far, they've been relatively quiet, too. In fact, there's been a limited degree of cooperation between the Badr Brigades and the US military (in the attack on Fallujah, for example).

However, one word from Iran, and the US would have tens of thosands of extra partisans to fight in Iraq -- and these guys know what they are doing. And that's not even looking at what all the other Shia militia would do. I see few reasons for regular Iranian troops to need to cross into Iraq at that point.