Iran good, Iraq bad?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

displacedjim RE:Iran good, Iraq bad? 12/3/2004 10:06:01 AM

Yes, but if the solution is invading Iran, we are/could have been much better positioned for it from Iraqi bases than from...? Basically only offshore. I'm sure the plan has always been to take Iraq first, then use it as one big firebase from which to move (in whatever fashion is chosen) against Iran, Syria, etc. Unfortunately for this plan, Iraq is lingering longer than hoped for. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

Spent Case RE:Iran good, Iraq bad? 12/3/2004 10:27:08 AM

I would argue that Iraq wasn't teetering on the edge of uprising like Iran is. Anything overt could push things the wrong way. What's wrong with this solution? Send a combination of black ops, hitmen, assassins and other unsavory types into Iran. Locate the nuclear scientists and engineers and rub them out -- all of them. I would think someone like Mossad could have been able to do this. Maybe they're all locked away somewhere, but it shouldn't be impossible to ferret them all out. Iranian dissidints have already blown the whistle on the nuclear program. SC-.

Quote Reply

mattw RE:Iran good, Iraq bad? 12/4/2004 1:07:37 AM

To displacejim: We could invade Iran amphibiously. Sure, not as easy as invading from Iraq (if Iraq were stable), but I bet we would whip the hell out of anything they dared throw at us. They would be better off to retreat to the mountains and fight like Saddam's thugs are. To Spent Case: I hope you are right. I have read on SP about how a large number of youths in Iran want to throw off the yoke of IF, so you have a point. I hope like hell the CIA has somebody, or sombodies rather, in Iran making contacts with the potential resistors so that we know who to supply with weapons and encourage. However, it has to get done before the IFs finish the big kahuna!

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:Iran good, Iraq bad? 12/4/2004 9:56:42 AM

Yes, you and I agree, we could invade Iran amphibiously. I would assume any invasion scenario, even a primarily land assault from Iraq, in fact would include amphibious landings at places like Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, etc. I'm pointing out that having pre-established land bases for logistics and airpower in a contiguous country is superior to trying to do it only from the sea. Furthermore, you seemed to be arguing like Iraq and Iran were exclusive and we couldn't invade Iran because we invaded Iraq. I don't agree that's true, if that's what you meant, and I'm sure the plan has always included moving on to Iran and not just stopping with Iraq. I do think they miscalculated a bit and their timetable has been delayed a year at least by the continued resistance in Iraq. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

stratego RE:Iran good, Iraq bad? 12/5/2004 1:28:49 PM

Well, mattw has some points, perhaps. The fact is, Iran kept a low profile on nukes, to an extent, until we conquered Iraq. Then they paniced, realizing how vulnerable they now are. Saddam was higher profile, not essentailly due to the WMDs everyone thought he had (though that was part of it) but because he had already attacked 2 countries, Iran and Kuwait, the second being an oil-rich ally and, apparently, a prelude to an attack on Saudi Arabia. At the time of the Kuwait invasion, hte Soviet Union still existed, and if Iraq, a Soviet client state (armed and directed by the Soviets), had conquered Saudi Arabia and shared their wealth with them (the only way Iraq coudl have survived at that point), the cash could have extended the Soviet Union for another 50 years. That, historically is waht happened. We got involved with guaranteeing the safety of teh Kurds via our air power, and after 8-10 years of this, planes, pilots, and mechanices were wearing out from the strain of endless air war (a lesson in itself). It all added up to invasion, not a bad decision if we hadn't blown the occupation, and even so, probably a good decision. Anyhow, the invasion precipitated panic in Iran, and their flaunting the nuclear card was teh result. Now we have to play from our current position, not from a "might have been." Iraq does indeed, as djim points out, serve as an ideal "jump off point" for any Iranian op. However, I believe we need more infantry in Iraq, both to fulfill the Iraq mission and to support a very quick tactical Iranian strike whenever needed.

Quote Reply