You are hereBlogs / Suzi LeVeaux's blog / Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says

Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says

By Suzi LeVeaux - Posted on 12 April 2008

 This from the Washington Post:

<Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials. >

Is this a move closer to expanding the Iraqi war into a showdown with Iran?  It seems to me that the Bush adminstration has been slowly building a case for such a move, much as they did before going into Iraq.  I feel that we cannot afford such an action, politically, financially, or morally. 

What say you?

As for Iran and Iraq, Iraq has a government in place. They should decided what they want to do about the Iran problem, it's no longer our place to make decisions for the people of Iraq (we messed up enough for them already).

I'm starting to think Bush is on the hunt for the holy grail... and just to think I voted for him... twice!

Don't feel too bad about those votes, J....lots of us did the same thing, myself included.

For some reason, the Bush administration seems hell-bent on controling other nations.  War is a very profitable business for some.  Oil dependency?  We have vast resources of oil waiting to be tapped.  The technology is in place to obtain it without harming the environment.  Yet we continue to ignore the answer to the oil problem that is here for the taking. ( I live in an oil producing state, so I am not expecting others to do what I'm not willing to do at home)

My personal opinion is that there has never been true peace in the middle east, and it is not likely to happen now.  But the problems are not ours to solve, nor can we.  We can say we want to spread democracy, but that is like being determined to spread your religion...someone has to desire it for themselves, otherwise you are just imposing your belief system on them. Democracy is not the way of life for most Arab nations, and if the people truly wanted it, THEY would be willing to fight for it.  I believe we can help through diplomatic efforts, embargos, etc, without sending troops into every nation that we disagree with.  Let's confine the fighting to where it will do OUR nation some good, like Afganistan, which has been pushed to the back burner.

What is wrong with this administration? This is stuff they should have thought about before they invaded Iraq!! Of course Iran would become more influential in the region. over

Saddam was a bastard - but he was relatively secular bastard who craved power and kept them in check. I'm convinced the Iraqi people would have over thrown him if we hadn't weakened them through sanctions that made them dependent on his food distribution system. Biggest foreign policy mistake of Clinton.

Oh yea....the oil for food program.  What a disgrace.  So much of that food was found in palaces and compounds of Saddam that never reached the people. 

I would call it the second biggest foreign policy mistake of Clinton.  The biggest, to me, was not getting Bin Laden when he had the chance.

Do you think the adminstration is banging the war drums as far as Iran is concerned?  And can we keep Bush contained until a new administration takes over?  And do you think that if McCain were to win, he would continue the confrontation with Iran?

A lot of questions, I know, but I am really interested in what the intelligent minds of RFO think.

Politically, the administration would gain a lot by taking military action against Iran. National security is John Mccain's strong suit, so if the nation is sufficiently scared, they might vote for the war hero who is 'tough on terror'. Makes sense for the neoconservatives. Honestly, I think the RNC could be headed to a wipe out of historic proportions this year - a landslide of reagensque magnitude.

They might frame it like these iranians are a threat to our troops or that their nuclear facilities must be taken out. Americans are a very patriotic people (sometimes borderline nationalistic in my mind), so they might be able to gain support that way.


<Americans are a very patriotic people (sometimes borderline nationalistic in my mind), so they might be able to gain support that way.>

Everything you say makes sense, and it frightens me much more than the scare tactics of of the neocons!  As I quoted you above, we ARE a very patriotic people, but this administration has managed to redefine the meaning of the word patriotism.  To me, it means a deep and abiding love of country, and a willingness to defend it and our way of life, no matter what the cost.  It does NOT mean blindly following a sabre rattling president into war after war.  It doesn't mean that we have to invade every nation that could pose a potential threat in the future...we have diplomatic means to diffuse those situation.  It doesn't mean that we have a mandate to control the world.  And it certainly doesn't mean allowing a party to raise the fear factor, involving us in more war, simply to get their pro-war candidate elected!

I can see the rational being framed exactly as you put it, and IMO, that could be a fatal mistake.  Iran is quite different from Iraq, and will not easily be bullied.  They have a power hungry lunatic at the head of their government, who would love to prove that he does not fear the USA.  I don't think he would hesitate to fire off a couple of nukes to prove to the world he is serious. Unwelcome interference in Iran could well set off WWIII, as I see it.  I want to be wrong about this, so if I am, please show me.

The problem in Iraq is the Democrats and the childishness of the American people.

 They always want quick fixes.

 This is a region that is controlled by an evil coterie of thugs and power bosses all of whom use "Islam" as a cover for their activities.

It is going to take a lot of time to uproot them from their dens.

And that doesn't even speak for the other countries that are in the same position that we need to police! 

Jaba, I can agree that the region is contolled by evil thugs, etc. but the reality is that their brand of Islam isn't a cover, it's an extremist reality that dictates their lives and governments.  There is no separation of church and state, and therefore our attempts at democracy will almost certainly fail.

To say the problems in Iraq are the Dems (I'm a Rep) is ludicrous.  The Dems didn't bring us in there, and the Dems aren't responsible for so little progress being made in so long of a time.  What you call the childishness of the American people is an awakening to the fact that we are doing more harm than good there now, and risking a mid-east crisis that could well have global repercussions.

What is childish is the notion that we should be the police of the world, having our troops fight and die for the internal problems of other nations.  That leaves us with very little strength at home should we face an attack from anyone.

Did you see Patreaus' testimony?  There is no clear idea of what victory even means, let alone any indication that we may be nearing that point.  "The champagne has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator."  It's time to bring our weary troops home and focus on the hot spots that really require our Afganistan.

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook




RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for We will never share or sell your email address.