I am wondering if those powers that be ever consider the delicate balance between Iraq and Iran, regarding military development? I think the intellegence of Australia even suggested Iraq was keeping up a front to fool Iran. Now, almost every day, the news reports of more and more nuclear tests and developments in Iran. Did the US just upset a major, delicate symbiotic balance that would have kept Iran at check?
Just wondering what greater minds have to say…
Moving this to Great Debates.
Jinx: *I think the intellegence of Australia even suggested Iraq was keeping up a front to fool Iran. Now, almost every day, the news reports of more and more nuclear tests and developments in Iran. Did the US just upset a major, delicate symbiotic balance that would have kept Iran at check? *
I’m no supporter of the US invasion of Iraq, but I’m not sure that this should be very high on the list of things to worry about. In the first place, a weakened and demilitarized Iraq (although, as has been frequently pointed out, it was in fact largely demilitarized before the recent invasion) would be less of an incentive for Iran to push ahead with a nuclear program, not more. (Although if the Iranians fear a new US-backed, US-funded Iraqi regime more than they feared the old one, that would be an incentive to step up the arms race again.)
In the second place, it seemed to me that UN inspections and negotiations have been pretty successful recently in getting more transparency, and even some concessions, concerning the Iranian nuclear program. What’s all this about new tests and developments? Tell us more, please.
Regional rivalries don’t result in less buildup. They result in more buildup. How would an armed and hostile Iraq result in the Iranians voluntarily checking their own military buildup? It wouldn’t.
Yeah, what’s this about Iranian nukyular tests?
Looked at another way, the Iran mullahs gave GeeDubya a boquet of roses. The Bushiviks are all atwitter with claiming that the utter submission and compliance of Iran and Libya is a direct result of their bold and innovative policy of premptive ass-kicking. Of course, the has been somewhat dampened with the news that the primary source of all this nukyular proliferation is our loyal comrade-in-arms-sales, Pakistan.
Besides, ain’t squat we can do about it, other than sending Colin Powell to glower at them ominously.
I don’t think the Middle East has ever been stable. If the US leaves Iraq, I think you have to consider Turkey moving into Iraq to take care of the “Kurdish problem.” Iran moves into Iraq as well. Now you have Turkey and Iran butting heads. Throw in a bunch of tribal violence and revenge killings, and you have a pretty big mess. You certainly don’t have Iran acting as a puppet master for the whole region.
Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations…makes two good related points.
The US won’t invade a country with a nuclear capability. This leads countries to seek out nuclear weapons. So, does the US give countries with nuclear weapons a free ticket? Outside of economic sanctions, I think you have to say yes.
Iran, China, and Pakistan formed an alliance to develop new weapon technology. I can’t cite the exact date, but I’m guessing this news is around ten years old.
What the US has done is indirectly and obviously inadvertently taken care of Iran’s enemies. On the east, the US has crushed the Taliban. Iran now has a vast amount of influence in Eastern Afghanistan.
As you know Hussein has been a bitter enemy of Iran and now has been removed and replaced with a counsel that is quite sympathetic to Iran’s input and concerns. Also, the majority Shia are being influenced by Iran Mullah loyalists.
As the US is going into deep debt with these military operations, the inefficient/backward Mullahs that rule an otherwise great people/country are making huge strides in both Nuclear power and international deals (including the recent 2 Billion dollar deal with the Japanese).
Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2005-2006 and the US’ aggressive action (both in getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam and in showing that the only nuclear weapons will deter an attack) have speeded the process.
Do you have a cite for this? I’m not challenging the veracity of your statement, but I’m interested in more info.
(Also, it should be pointed out that our intelligence has about as much credibility as the U.S or U.K’s at the moment).