"Iran is an aggressor state motivated by a fanatical religious ideology"
Iran is is a bunch of people, many of whom are getting sick and tired of having theocrats push them around.
Indeed. But it is far from certain that the people who are sick of being pushed around will act on this rapidly enough to prevent the state called the Islamic Republic of Iran from committing them to a major war, possibly an atomic one.
I could say the same thing about Germany c. 1935, substituting "Nazis" for "theocrats," and be absolutely correct. This true statement won't make any of the 50 million people who died in the European Theater of World War II spring back to life.
An invasion by the US, even if it were a military disaster for the present government, would be a political gift, because people would naturally back the home team against the invaders.
Perhaps, but the invasion could also physically topple the Islamic Republic, and enable us to de-fang their armed forces. Also, the threat (or promise) of an invasion might induce said Iranian people to get off their butts and actually overthrow the Ayatollahs -- they've been talking about doing it for over a decade now, without actually doing anything to accomplish it!
If they can't do it under threat of war with America, then they can't do it at all, and we should stop waiting for it. Let the war happen, let Iran be devastated as much as necessary, and let it be on the heads of the Iranian people, who neglected to stop their leaders.
We don't have the resources for a full-scale invasion of Iran while we're occupying Iraq and also trying (and failing, it seems) to hold down the lid on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Since the "Iraqi insurgency" is now an almost wholly Iranian-owned operation, taking out the Iranian regime would do a lot to defeat said "insurgency" (in quotes because it's really a disguised international invasion, now that the Ba'athists have given up the fight).
It's worth repeating: that's where the real enemy is: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
There is more than one "real enemy," and Iran is at least as important as Al Qaeda, being an actual nation.
If the government or governments that arise after US withdrawal give us cause to do so, we can fight again. And we'll win again.
First of all, we may be less eager to enter the second time. (Look up "Muayaguez Incident"). Secondly, the "government" after US withdrawal is going to be either an Iranian occupation or an Iranian puppet regime. So we'll have to fight Iran anyway, if we return.
It seems likely that the Kurds would welcome a US military presence, and an independent Kurdistan seems quite likely to succeed as a prosperous democratic state with our support. (And, as an old Xenophon fan, I'd like to see the Kardouchoi get a homeland after millennia of being stepped on by empires, but that's neither here nor there.)
How exactly are the Kurds going to maintain their independence with the Iranian and Syrian Armed Forces marching into their territory?
Is it so unlikely that, after a period of sectarian strife and civil war, the Shiite south and the Sunni west should look northward to a peaceful, prosperous, free Kurdistan and say, "I'll have what they're having"?
They can "say" what they like. Of course, so saying may land them in an Iranian prison if the Iranian occupation forces hear about it.
Anyway, what the Kurds will most likely be "having" in this scenario is genocide, at the hands of the Iranians and Syrians.
We could still win the peace if we stand down, in a strategically shrewd way, from our present untenable position in the no man's land of a nascent civil war.
Wars are not won by retreats, and you're not explaining what keeps the Iranians out once we are there no longer.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-25 07:14 pm (UTC)Iran is is a bunch of people, many of whom are getting sick and tired of having theocrats push them around.
Indeed. But it is far from certain that the people who are sick of being pushed around will act on this rapidly enough to prevent the state called the Islamic Republic of Iran from committing them to a major war, possibly an atomic one.
I could say the same thing about Germany c. 1935, substituting "Nazis" for "theocrats," and be absolutely correct. This true statement won't make any of the 50 million people who died in the European Theater of World War II spring back to life.
An invasion by the US, even if it were a military disaster for the present government, would be a political gift, because people would naturally back the home team against the invaders.
Perhaps, but the invasion could also physically topple the Islamic Republic, and enable us to de-fang their armed forces. Also, the threat (or promise) of an invasion might induce said Iranian people to get off their butts and actually overthrow the Ayatollahs -- they've been talking about doing it for over a decade now, without actually doing anything to accomplish it!
If they can't do it under threat of war with America, then they can't do it at all, and we should stop waiting for it. Let the war happen, let Iran be devastated as much as necessary, and let it be on the heads of the Iranian people, who neglected to stop their leaders.
We don't have the resources for a full-scale invasion of Iran while we're occupying Iraq and also trying (and failing, it seems) to hold down the lid on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Since the "Iraqi insurgency" is now an almost wholly Iranian-owned operation, taking out the Iranian regime would do a lot to defeat said "insurgency" (in quotes because it's really a disguised international invasion, now that the Ba'athists have given up the fight).
It's worth repeating: that's where the real enemy is: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
There is more than one "real enemy," and Iran is at least as important as Al Qaeda, being an actual nation.
If the government or governments that arise after US withdrawal give us cause to do so, we can fight again. And we'll win again.
First of all, we may be less eager to enter the second time. (Look up "Muayaguez Incident"). Secondly, the "government" after US withdrawal is going to be either an Iranian occupation or an Iranian puppet regime. So we'll have to fight Iran anyway, if we return.
It seems likely that the Kurds would welcome a US military presence, and an independent Kurdistan seems quite likely to succeed as a prosperous democratic state with our support. (And, as an old Xenophon fan, I'd like to see the Kardouchoi get a homeland after millennia of being stepped on by empires, but that's neither here nor there.)
How exactly are the Kurds going to maintain their independence with the Iranian and Syrian Armed Forces marching into their territory?
Is it so unlikely that, after a period of sectarian strife and civil war, the Shiite south and the Sunni west should look northward to a peaceful, prosperous, free Kurdistan and say, "I'll have what they're having"?
They can "say" what they like. Of course, so saying may land them in an Iranian prison if the Iranian occupation forces hear about it.
Anyway, what the Kurds will most likely be "having" in this scenario is genocide, at the hands of the Iranians and Syrians.
We could still win the peace if we stand down, in a strategically shrewd way, from our present untenable position in the no man's land of a nascent civil war.
Wars are not won by retreats, and you're not explaining what keeps the Iranians out once we are there no longer.