# Does strategic position vis-a-vis Iran play a role in the Admin's Iraq policy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592 "2006-02-08T21:05:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/1 "2006-02-08T21:05:09Z")
Things between Iran and the U.S. keep heating up and dying down and heating up . . . It occurs to me that if war came, the U.S. would have an advantage, already having all those troops in Iraq, on Iran’s western border, ready to invade if need be. (Of course, that would mean leaving an insurgent, under-occupied Iraq at their backs . . .) Does this play any role in the Admin’s reluctance to end the occupation? ---
**Author:** ![Pope\_Bob\_The\_Pious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@Pope\_Bob\_The\_Pious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pope_Bob_The_Pious)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/2 "2006-02-08T21:31:46Z")
We also have troops to the east of Iran, in Afghanistan. And to the north of Iran, in Turkmenistan, don’t we have an airbase or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/3 "2006-02-08T21:54:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Does this play any role in the Admin’s reluctance to end the occupation? From what I’ve read (and sorry, I’ve only got the same [lame-o non-cite](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7027091&postcount=62) that I had the last time we discussed this), that’s what Iran is betting on: > [@Kimstu in the other thread](#): > > […] some policy analysts consider the current hardline Iranian rhetoric largely a tactical maneuver to increase US support for keeping troops in Iraq. […] The reasoning goes that Iran has a lot to gain from solidifying a Shi’ite-dominated, Iran-friendly government in Iraq, and that this is more likely to happen if the occupying forces continue to help in putting down the mostly-Sunni insurgency. If the US were to “declare victory and leave” in the near future, on the other hand, Iran’s task would be more difficult and problematic, and Iraq might be seriously destabilized by full-scale civil war. > > So if Iran sounds like a scary new threat, the US will be less open to short-term withdrawal plans from Iraq, and Iran will have more time to consolidate its gains. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Iran threat is indeed a major factor for the Administration in deciding whether or when to withdraw from Iraq, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Iran’s got that taped. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Things between Iran and the U.S. keep heating up and dying down and heating up . . . > [@Kimstu in the other thread](#): > > [If this is so, Ahmedinejad’s] object would be to maintain a delicate balancing act: i.e., to keep the West, particularly the US, nervous enough about Iran that they remain committed to suppressing the Iraqi insurgency, but not so nervous that they decide to actually launch an attack on Iran. I am reluctantly impressed—appalled and outraged, but impressed—at how skilfully the Iranian regime’s hardliners have managed to exploit the Iraq situation for their own advantage. If they really are deliberately yanking our chain with explosive rhetoric in order to make sure we stick around swatting Sunnis in the future West Iran (okay, now I exaggerate), it would be quite of a piece with what they’ve pulled off so far. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/4 "2006-02-08T21:59:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If they really are deliberately yanking our chain with explosive rhetoric in order to make sure we stick around swatting Sunnis in the future West Iran (okay, now I exaggerate) . . . Actually, they would have a “historical claim.” Mesopotamia/Iraq has been Persian territory during several periods, most recently in the 17th Century. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Iraq#The\_Arab\_conquest\_and\_the\_early\_Islamic\_period](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#The_Arab_conquest_and_the_early_Islamic_period) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/5 "2006-02-08T21:59:58Z")
IIRC having military forces in Iraq to deal with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth was always part of the PNAC doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/6 "2006-02-08T22:03:51Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > IIRC having military forces in Iraq to deal with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth was always part of the PNAC doctrine. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/7 "2006-02-08T22:19:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Cite? I don’t have the time to read a 90 page report right now, so here’s a quote from the wikipedia article ( and I _did_ specify “IIRC” ) : [Wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) > [@](#): > > The 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses report recommends improved planning and deployment in order to reduce the strain caused by enforcing the No Fly Zones and to free up an aircraft carrier. It uses the U.S.'s Gulf War success as an example of why the world requires American military might. Looking ahead, the report states “while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” and “Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/8 "2006-02-09T01:54:18Z")
I’ve always thought it was part of the strategic plan. Or ask yourself this - without being abale to stage from Iraq, how would the U.S. invade Iran if it absolutely had to? Coming in from Afghanistan alone may have been logistically impossible, and other bordering countries would have had to give permission. If it had to now, the U.S. military could engage Iran on two fronts. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/9 "2006-02-09T03:50:31Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Or ask yourself this - without being abale to stage from Iraq, how would the U.S. invade Iran if it absolutely had to? From the sea. The U.S. Navy is the only navy that matters any more – it can easily, at any time, control all maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, and position troop carriers all along the south coast of Iran, and land ground troops at every point. Much, much easier than invading Normandy in 1944. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/10 "2006-02-09T04:43:45Z")
You have no idea how difficult it would be to land 300,000 men and heavy equipment by sea into a hostile country. I don’t believe it’s feasible, unless you flattened the country first and then took a long, long time. ---
**Author:** ![Joools](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6de8d8/32.png) [@Joools](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joools)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/11 "2006-02-09T04:47:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > (Of course, that would mean leaving an insurgent, under-occupied Iraq at their backs . . .) Not only would they be leaving an insurgent Iraq at their backs – an attack against Iran would almost certainly set the Shi’ite majority in Iraq (who identify strongly with Iran) against them too! As far as the option of military engagement with Iran goes, the American occupation of Iraq is far from an asset. It gives Iran a great deal of power in the negotiations. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/12 "2006-02-09T05:47:08Z")
> [@Joools](#): > > Not only would they be leaving an insurgent Iraq at their backs – an attack against Iran would almost certainly set the Shi’ite majority in Iraq (who identify strongly with Iran) against them too! > > As far as the option of military engagement with Iran goes, the American occupation of Iraq is far from an asset. It gives Iran a great deal of power in the negotiations. Well, yes, but the Administration appears to have really believed the Iraqis would greet us with kisses and flowers, instead of bullets and bombs. A stable Iraq that just \* loved \* America would have made a good starting point for general conquest; an Iraq that hates us doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/13 "2006-02-09T19:27:23Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You have no idea how difficult it would be to land 300,000 men and heavy equipment by sea into a hostile country. I don’t believe it’s feasible, unless you flattened the country first and then took a long, long time. Well, remember, we invaded Iraq successfully across the very narrow Iraq-Kuwait border. You don’t strictly need control of a long land border for an invasion, especially if you have sea power. Of course, when I said invading Iran by sea would be “much easier” than Operation Overlord, I meant only the invasion itself. Actually governing the “liberated” territory would be a very different proposition. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/14 "2006-02-09T21:00:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Things between Iran and the U.S. keep heating up and dying down and heating up . . . It occurs to me that if war came, the U.S. would have an advantage, already having all those troops in Iraq, on Iran’s western border, ready to invade if need be. (Of course, that would mean leaving an insurgent, under-occupied Iraq at their backs . . .) Does this play any role in the Admin’s reluctance to end the occupation? I’m not sure that having troops in Iraq is any real advantage in invading Iran. Relief maps show that the Iraq-Iran border area consists of a bunch of mountain ranges parallel to the border with few roads through them Easy to defend, hard to attack. Being in Iraq is a liability. Our logistical base for Iran would be Saudi Arabia and that would create quite a stir among the populace I think. If you want to make terrorists hand over fist build up a large logistics force in Saudi Arabia in order to attack Iran. I think talk of our sending a ground invasion force to Iran is lunacy of the first order. It would require pulling virtually all ground forces out of the rest of the world and might require putting the US on a war footing with a draft, tax increases (probably the real killer) and possibly some governmental wage and price controls and allocation of resources. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/15 "2006-02-09T22:17:22Z")
I don’t think Iran figures very much into the Iraq equation. Iraq has turned into so much of a quagmire that we can’t even \*think \* about Iran, which is a much tougher nut than Iraq anyway, just because it’s so much larger, more populous, and more homogeneous. Unless Iran did something particularly, exceptionally flagrant, I can’t see the American people standing for American involvement there. The public’s pretty sick of the whole thing as it is. And **Kimstu** , I think you’re giving Iran too much credit. Ahmadinejad seems to be good at one thing and one thing only, and that’s yanking other people’s chains. I don’t see him lasting, personally. No cite, just an impression. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-strategic-position-vis-a-vis-iran-play-a-role-in-the-admins-iraq-policy/343592/16 "2006-02-09T22:44:28Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > Iraq has turned into so much of a quagmire that we can’t even \*think \* about Iran, which is a much tougher nut than Iraq anyway, just because it’s so much larger, more populous, and more homogeneous. Not so homogeneous, actually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran\_ethnoreligious\_distribution\_2004.jpg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg) In fact, Hussein’s pretext for invading Iran was to “liberate” the Arabs of the southwestern region (variously known as Khuzestan, Arabistan, or al-Ahwaz – and it just happens to be a major oil-producing region) from Persian rule. There is an active secessionist movement there. See this site (in Arabic, but there’s a map of the territory in question): [http://www.al-ahwaz.com/](http://www.al-ahwaz.com/) And just because it didn’t work for Hussein doesn’t mean the same idea might not occur to some dumbass in the Admin and/or PNAC . . .