NationStates Jolt Archive


Iran emerges as the real winner from the Iraq invasion

Drabikstan
14-09-2004, 08:17
Iran seeing opportunities to capitalize on turmoil in Iraq

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

Seventeen months after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein, instability in Iraq is creating opportunities for its mainly Shiite Muslim neighbor, Iran.
"The real long-term geopolitical winner of the 'War on Terror' could be Iran," concludes a new report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Britain's most respected foreign-policy research organization.

The report suggests that Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear program — despite U.S. and European pressure to do so — reflects the Iranian leadership's judgment that the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq, is in no position to "launch a serious military operation against Iran."

Nervous that it might be the next U.S. target after the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, Iran agreed last year to suspend enrichment of uranium, a fuel that can be used for power plants or bombs. But an Iranian official, Hossein Mousavian, said Monday that Iran could resume enrichment "within a few months" and has a "legitimate right" to do so to provide fuel for power plants. Mousavian spoke at a meeting in Vienna of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. (Related item: U.S. presses for tough line on Iranian nuclear program)

Despite U.S. lobbying and the discovery by U.N. inspectors that Iran hid crucial elements of its nuclear program, the board is expected to put off any consideration of punishing Iran until after the U.S. presidential election in November.

Some opponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq argued before the war that Iran would benefit because it would no longer face a hostile, Sunni Muslim-dominated regime that suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority and waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the main regional counterweight to Iran's ambitions to spread Islamic government to other countries with large Shiite populations. In 2001, the Bush administration eliminated Iran's other regional foe: the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Since the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has increased funding for Shiite groups and social services in western Afghanistan and southern Iraq. Iran experts say Iran has strengthened ties with Iraqi Shiite religious and political leaders, including rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr loyalists battled U.S. forces in Najaf last month and are still fighting Americans in Baghdad's Shiite slums.

"The Iranians have so much control over what happens in Iraq," says Gareth Stansfield, a research fellow at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the British report. "The United States is only beginning to realize this."

Supporters of the Iraq war say that creation of a democratic government in Iraq will undermine Iran's authoritarian regime by encouraging Iran's democratic opposition. "If a democratic Iraq develops, protected by the Shiite clergy, that is not good for Iran," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, a conservative think tank. "The ideal situation for the Iranians was a weak Saddam Hussein" who was unable to wage another war on his neighbors.

But movement toward democracy in Iraq has been hindered by violence, which could delay or limit elections set for January. Even if voting takes place on schedule, the victors are likely to be the majority Shiites, who would be expected to seek good relations with Iran.

Iran wins in every Iraqi political scenario except a new secular dictatorship, the most unlikely outcome of U.S. intervention, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service, a think tank that prepares reports for Congress. "The losers are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia," which face new challenges from Sunni Muslim fundamentalists and restive Shiite minorities, Katzman says.

Emboldened by U.S. difficulties in Iraq, the Iranian government has been increasingly assertive about its right to build a nuclear infrastructure and to support radicals in countries stretching from Israel to Afghanistan.

"I say the presence of Americans (in Iraq) is not a sign of strength," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the Al-Jazeera television network last month. Bragging about Iranian influence, he said: "We are present from Quds (Jerusalem) to Kandahar (in Afghanistan). We are present in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq."


Another interesting article on Iran:

Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=205&language_id=1)
The Class A Cows
14-09-2004, 08:23
Silly blunder. We should have increased pressure on Iran and Syria during our attack on the Iraqi military, not after things turned to geurilla warfare.

Ah well, its recoverable and not severe.

Ba'ath was not nearly as secular as they claimed.
Ankher
14-09-2004, 08:52
Silly blunder. We should have increased pressure on Iran and Syria during our attack on the Iraqi military, not after things turned to geurilla warfare.
Ah well, its recoverable and not severe.
Ba'ath was not nearly as secular as they claimed.Behind which moon do you live?
The US has no means of putting any pressure on Iran. And after the two desastrous adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq the US would be stupid to go against another country, and Iran is not such a small and defenseless country as the named two were.
Scrumpox
14-09-2004, 09:16
Disasterous? Only in a propaganda sense. Every small setback in either country is played up as a failure of U.S. policy by those who opposed us in the first place. We have done more in Afghanistan and Iraq than we achieved in Japan and Germany in the same time frame. Keep in mind that many reporters in Europe and the U.S. were saying our rebuilding policies in those countries were failures at the time as well.

Despite the election-year handwringing, we still bring a heavy military threat against Iran. A good part of our military is sitting on their border. Most of the military we have in Europe is really unnecessary in a post cold war world except for support reasons. Most of the National Guard is still in the United States. We could use more troops, but we have a volunteer military that has actually set high standards for those who volunteer.

The other factor is that the people of Iran have almost had it with there government and might just topple it regardless of what we do. Despite the fact that many support living by Islamic law, any government has to deal with the question of food on the table, dealing with water shortages and keeping a nation relatively employed so there are not a lot of people with idle time to devote to turning bitter thoughts about the government into action. The government of Iran has failed to do this just as the Shah failed previously - and look what happened to him.
Roccan
14-09-2004, 11:49
Iran seeing opportunities to capitalize on turmoil in Iraq

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

Seventeen months after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein, instability in Iraq is creating opportunities for its mainly Shiite Muslim neighbor, Iran.
"The real long-term geopolitical winner of the 'War on Terror' could be Iran," concludes a new report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Britain's most respected foreign-policy research organization.

The report suggests that Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear program — despite U.S. and European pressure to do so — reflects the Iranian leadership's judgment that the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq, is in no position to "launch a serious military operation against Iran."

Nervous that it might be the next U.S. target after the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, Iran agreed last year to suspend enrichment of uranium, a fuel that can be used for power plants or bombs. But an Iranian official, Hossein Mousavian, said Monday that Iran could resume enrichment "within a few months" and has a "legitimate right" to do so to provide fuel for power plants. Mousavian spoke at a meeting in Vienna of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. (Related item: U.S. presses for tough line on Iranian nuclear program)

Despite U.S. lobbying and the discovery by U.N. inspectors that Iran hid crucial elements of its nuclear program, the board is expected to put off any consideration of punishing Iran until after the U.S. presidential election in November.

Some opponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq argued before the war that Iran would benefit because it would no longer face a hostile, Sunni Muslim-dominated regime that suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority and waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the main regional counterweight to Iran's ambitions to spread Islamic government to other countries with large Shiite populations. In 2001, the Bush administration eliminated Iran's other regional foe: the Sunni fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Since the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has increased funding for Shiite groups and social services in western Afghanistan and southern Iraq. Iran experts say Iran has strengthened ties with Iraqi Shiite religious and political leaders, including rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr loyalists battled U.S. forces in Najaf last month and are still fighting Americans in Baghdad's Shiite slums.

"The Iranians have so much control over what happens in Iraq," says Gareth Stansfield, a research fellow at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the British report. "The United States is only beginning to realize this."

Supporters of the Iraq war say that creation of a democratic government in Iraq will undermine Iran's authoritarian regime by encouraging Iran's democratic opposition. "If a democratic Iraq develops, protected by the Shiite clergy, that is not good for Iran," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, a conservative think tank. "The ideal situation for the Iranians was a weak Saddam Hussein" who was unable to wage another war on his neighbors.

But movement toward democracy in Iraq has been hindered by violence, which could delay or limit elections set for January. Even if voting takes place on schedule, the victors are likely to be the majority Shiites, who would be expected to seek good relations with Iran.

Iran wins in every Iraqi political scenario except a new secular dictatorship, the most unlikely outcome of U.S. intervention, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service, a think tank that prepares reports for Congress. "The losers are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia," which face new challenges from Sunni Muslim fundamentalists and restive Shiite minorities, Katzman says.

Emboldened by U.S. difficulties in Iraq, the Iranian government has been increasingly assertive about its right to build a nuclear infrastructure and to support radicals in countries stretching from Israel to Afghanistan.

"I say the presence of Americans (in Iraq) is not a sign of strength," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the Al-Jazeera television network last month. Bragging about Iranian influence, he said: "We are present from Quds (Jerusalem) to Kandahar (in Afghanistan). We are present in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq."


Another interesting article on Iran:

Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=205&language_id=1)

So they had proof that Iran had a nuclear program and didn't have proof that Iraq had one or had WMD... and still they attacked Iraq, but not Iran. Not that they should attack Iran of course. I'm against attacking a foreign nation, especially as a precaution against a possible attack in the very distant future. Its like taking asperin before you go drinking.
Kybernetia
14-09-2004, 12:30
So they had proof that Iran had a nuclear program and didn't have proof that Iraq had one or had WMD... and still they attacked Iraq, but not Iran. Not that they should attack Iran of course. I'm against attacking a foreign nation, especially as a precaution against a possible attack in the very distant future. Its like taking asperin before you go drinking.
Probably the mixed up the intelligence. I mean Iran and Iraq: There is just one letter different.
Probably it would have been better to go for an preventive strike on Iran.
Though on the other hand. Iraq is such a good base for such an assault. So, the Iraq war was necessary first. Not because of WMD but in order to have a starting base to go if the development in other countries turns dangerous.
One reason I saw the war as justified by the way. And I think that France and Geramany have done a big mistake here.
I hope and see that they are already adopting a different position towards Iran warning it to do a "miscalculation".
Since there are WMD in Iran it may be possible to take a joint action, so that NATO unanimously stands behind an action against the regime in Iran and would move forward in the reorder and reconstruction process afterwards.
Salamae
14-09-2004, 12:39
This one is easy. Do we fight against people who can fight back? Of course not! Why take on Iran or North Korea when you can just beat the crap out of Iraq instead (which you've been pummeling for the past 12 years). Any bully knows that you steal lunch money from the shrimpy kid, not the one who could take you out.
Chess Squares
14-09-2004, 12:41
Disasterous? Only in a propaganda sense. Every small setback in either country is played up as a failure of U.S. policy by those who opposed us in the first place. We have done more in Afghanistan and Iraq than we achieved in Japan and Germany in the same time frame. Keep in mind that many reporters in Europe and the U.S. were saying our rebuilding policies in those countries were failures at the time as well.

Despite the election-year handwringing, we still bring a heavy military threat against Iran. A good part of our military is sitting on their border. Most of the military we have in Europe is really unnecessary in a post cold war world except for support reasons. Most of the National Guard is still in the United States. We could use more troops, but we have a volunteer military that has actually set high standards for those who volunteer.

The other factor is that the people of Iran have almost had it with there government and might just topple it regardless of what we do. Despite the fact that many support living by Islamic law, any government has to deal with the question of food on the table, dealing with water shortages and keeping a nation relatively employed so there are not a lot of people with idle time to devote to turning bitter thoughts about the government into action. The government of Iran has failed to do this just as the Shah failed previously - and look what happened to him.
so we are calling up national guard and ready reserves because we have plenty enough military to fight wars in 2 different countries? oh yeah theres some excellent logic, lets invade iran

oh yeah, and last i checked the people of iraq ere damn fed up with saddam hussein and ready to topple him. and who is it fighting us now? oh yeah iraqi insurgents, not terrorists
Kybernetia
14-09-2004, 12:42
This one is easy. Do we fight against people who can fight back? Of course not! Why take on Iran or North Korea when you can just beat the crap out of Iraq instead (which you've been pummeling for the past 12 years). Any bully knows that you steal lunch money from the shrimpy kid, not the one who could take you out.
If Iran really has got nukes it would be too late. Otherwise it would be a real threat. Not just for Israel but for Europe, since it has medium-range missiles. Some of them - the future generation - may even reach Central Europe.
One reason the axis of the unwilling is reacting differently to Iran than to Iraq.
Irans intrasigence could lead to war or a new arms race in the Middle East and Southern Europe.
Drabikstan
15-09-2004, 18:27
Why would Iran attack Europe?
Anjamin
15-09-2004, 18:36
i feel like i read something somewhere that iran was/is considering a pre-emptive attack on american forces in iraq so they don't pre-emptively attack iran for their nuclear capabilities. i might have to pre-emptively build a fallout suit.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:03
Iran should still feel worried. It's government may score some points now, but most Iranians are dissatisfied with the ruling aylotollahs. We've seen how the invasion of Iraq has sparked protests, and large protests like these happened a few years before the fall of the Shah. In a few years, it's beyond question that Iraq will stabilize, and the effect will seep across the border. The Iranians want, and to a degree, even have a republic, and free markets, and even better relations with the US. The only thing standing in their way is the aylotollahs. The best course of action for the US would not be invasion, but rather, air and naval support for any massive revolt that forms.
Of course, this may yet be a few years off, still. It may even be after the 2008 elections. However, Iran needs to feel worried right now. After all, the running joke in Tehran is that Iran has something in common with Canada: both are bordered only by the US.
Camdean
16-09-2004, 01:08
Iran will be next on USA's list to bomb take over and do whatever it is they do..

I am against anymore countrys having nukes but what can you do ?
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:10
Iran will be next on USA's list to bomb take over and do whatever it is they do..

I am against anymore countrys having nukes but what can you do ?
This notiion is silly, that any ppower with a nuke is guranteed not to be attacked by the US. The Iranians may have nukes, but do they have missiles? Do they have a lot of nukes? Even if they used one, Tehran, Tabriz, Shiraz, and Esfahan would all be giant craters. But really, if we really want to attack a nuclear armed bad boy, it should be Kim Jong-Il. Asia has had to put up with this nutcase for long enough.