Then we would have had 2 armed hostile regimes on our flanks! As it is The Iranians are the 'monkeys in the middle'! Go back to sleep Sanman! Let's Roll

If the US had invaded Iran instead of Iraq: Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers would still be in operation. It would have stopped a country with a real nuclear program, rather than going after a non-existent nuclear program. It would have stopped a country with a real long-distance missile capability rather than going after a non-existent missile capability. No reason why we still can't. 3 US carriers in the area, hmmm...? The US would have found real weapons of mass destruction, rather than pretending to find them. I don't recall the US pretending to find anything. I think we've been pretty candid in admitting to what we have and have not found so far. The US would have encountered a much more friendly pro-American population, Really? So all that "Great Satan" and "Death to America" stuff is behind us? chafing under a regime ripe for removal, rather than encountering a jaded and cynical population unsure of which new liberator will be the next oppressor. Like the jaded and cynical Kurds. The US could have generated economic renewal for the Gulf and surrounding region by helping to build an oil pipeline between Iran and a readily available customer like India (large emerging economy and consumer market, potential ally against China, longstanding democracy) I'm sure Pakistan would really love to see that, seeing as they are on the most direct route between Iran and India. Iranian-funded client regimes in Damascus and Beirut would have been dealt serious setbacks. (Did Saddam's Iraq even have any client regimes??) More serious a setback than having the US military right on their border? The US would have gotten a foothold in the region that would have given it immediate/convenient/unconditional access to strategically important Central Asia. We're working on that, but I don't think it's our most pressing priority. There would be no need to strike these devil's bargains with problematic countries like Pakistan (serial nuclear/WMD proliferator, military dictatorship, involved in regional conflict with dangerous escalation potential, nuclear rogue, ally/client of Beijing, hotbed for AlQaeda/Islamist militancy, refuge for BinLaden) Except for that oil pipeline to India. The US would have a foothold in a country that shares the same religious ethnicity with two-thirds of neighboring Iraq's population, providing a vital leverage over that nation of lesser concern. And what leverage, exactly, would Persian Shi'ites have over Arab Sunnis?

Really simple question for ya. How exactly were we supposed to have invaded Iran with no physical or logistical beachead or launchoff point?

"Really simple question for ya. How exactly were we supposed to have invaded Iran with no physical or logistical beachead or launchoff point?" Well... the U.S. has troops in Afghanistan and several Central Asian countries and that would facilitate the invasion. The U.S. could also likely invade from Turkey, since Iran and Turkey are long-term rivals. Azerbaidjan would also almost certainly permit a U.S. invasion from its soil. On top of that, Iran has a much longer coastline than Iraq, which permits much greater choice of where to conduct landings and would keep the Iranians guessing.

"Well... the U.S. has troops in Afghanistan and several Central Asian countries and that would facilitate the invasion. The U.S. could also likely invade from Turkey, since Iran and Turkey are long-term rivals. Azerbaidjan would also almost certainly permit a U.S. invasion from its soil. On top of that, Iran has a much longer coastline than Iraq, which permits much greater choice of where to conduct landings and would keep the Iranians guessing." Roman, while in theory it may seem sound, logisitics would kill it. You can see for yourself there arent any major armor divisions in Afghanistan, moving them across country would be difficult at best. Then theres Turkey, if we were talking same timeframe as Iraq 2003 then you run into the same problem the 4th ID did, namely Turkey refusing access to US military units, we can't guarantee that they WOULD grant us military access in the first place. Azerbaidjan would most likely be able work in this regard but you can bet the Russians would be extremely alarmed if there was a build up of 100,000 US troops in that region.

Turkey has already had enough problems with many European countries that are against its entrance into the EU (the public opinion is even worse in some countries like Germany and France) because Turkey has a big population, most of them Muslims who will give the Muslim community a powerful muscle in the European institutions and will directly influence the constitution, laws, etc. What the Turkish government has done – and will do – is to avoid any ethnic clashes at any costs inside the country, especially now that they are so close to their old dream of becoming a fully European country. So a BIG NO to any military assistance against a Muslim country wherever in the world. (For Turks, becoming a member of EU is important than neighbouring a dictator.)

Sorry, a word is missing in the last line: For Turks, becoming a member of EU is MORE important than neighbouring a dictator.

SORRY SANMAN, Don’t take it personally, but this topic is useless since it won’t help us getting out of the mess we are in at the moment.

this is a strange world ... look like Osama Bin Laden is totally forgotten, and probably going to die of old age ...

The idea is not complete nonsense, but consider some points. First, Saddam is the guy who had invaded 2 countries. We were engaged in a costly "flyover" campaign ($10 billion a month cost estimate from A. Kaffir, I believe, not sure of source.) The flyover campaign was wearing out our aircraft and aviators. We thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Actually, significant evidence indicates that he did, and moved them to Syria in the months before the election. This cannot be proved, however, so it is not cited by the gov'ment. At the time, Iraq was the more pressing, immediate problem. The problems with Iran: (nuclear reactors, extensive buildup of technical capabilities in all aspects of nuclear technology (such as centrifuges), and missile development were all well known (to the US gov, 1997 CIA report) before the attack on Iraq. However, it is only after we occupied Iraq that Iran publicized its nuclear threat and it became known to the general public. As well, the Iranian problem became more acute. In part, this was a result of unrest inside Iran, and speculation of a US attempt at regime change in Iran. In short, it is only in hindsight combined with partial forgetfulness of the Iraq problems---now gone--that an Iranian-first invasion seems obvious.