That’s a hell of an “if”.
If somehow, a slew of other NATO nations decided to commit arms, troops, and cash to such a cause, maybe it could be pulled off – if bloodily.
But the U.S. militarily committed as it is now? No way. Militarily destabilizing Iran is one thing – that would be a cakewalk for the U.S. even now. But to actually “take over” and secure any useful amount of territory … I can’t see that.
So far, we’ve pretty much let the Europeans lead the charge on this issue. We’ll see how far they (the Euros) are willing to go. Will they even approve their own economic sanctions if the UNSC does not? I’m not too optimistic about that.
There is a school of thought out there that if Iran is left to it’s own devices, over the next generation or two the nation will essentially secularize and “Westernize” itself.
The sad thing is that, in hindsight, the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1950s and the installation of the Shah probably delayed true Iranian secularization by a good 50 years. But support of the Shah, at the time, must have seemed like a good idea short term. <shrug>
Assuming you mean that we would invade Iran while Bush is still president my question to you would be…what exactly would we invade Iran WITH? Where would we get the force to invade Iran, a much larger (population and area) and more militarily capable nation, who also has a higher level of religious ferver than the supposedly more secular Iraq?
As with many conspiricy theories it sounds great on paper…but it doesn’t really hold up when you actually start thinking about the reality. If Afganistan and Iraq tomorrow became havens of peace and light it would STILL take us years to rebuild our military for another foreign adventure…especially into another hornets nest that Iran will surely be. As stupid as the Administration may be in reality or perception, no one is THAT stupid.
I’m skeptical as well. They don’t seem to be making much progress with their approach (IIRC Iran just threw their aid package bribe back in their face last week), but maybe it will work out. I sure hope so…would be nice if the Iranians could be convinced not to play with nuclear fire, and to do so in a peaceful way.
-XT
That it would, but with American bases on two borders, and an anti-Iran ideologue in place as America’s ambassador to the UN, that outcome seems increasingly unlikely.
Well, if they cut a deal with the Euro’s and stop pussyfooting around the edge of developing nukes I’d say they won’t have much to fear from the US (I doubt they have much to fear anyway to be honest with the mess we are in in Iraq). However, if they are still nervous about the US the obvious thing for them to do is have the Euro’s sweeten the pot with some assurances that they will bring economic sanctions against the US (or something like that) if the US attacks Iran after they dismantle their nuke program. Personally I think Iran is playing a whole other game, but if they are REALLY worried about the US (and not using that as an excuse) then I’m sure they could figure something out…and I’m sure the Europeans would be more than happy to do some things to assure the Iranians that they won’t be attacked by the evil US.
-XT
Look, the US is not going to invade Iran. We’ve been over this a dozen times in this forum. You cannot compare Iran with Iraq or Afghanistan. We might as well accept the fact the Iran will have nukes. Jeez, if NK can develop nuclear capability, any country can. Frankly, I think we would be better served by developing a strategy of dealing with a nuclear Iran rather than preventing Iran from going nuclear. The more we isolate them, the more dangerous they become. Will the US and Europe impose sanctions? Is that an effective way of dealing with Iran? I said I wasn’t “optimistic” about that in my post above, but that was a poor choice of wording. What I’m not optimistic about is whether or not sanctions will make any difference. They might very well make things worse.
Post #10 was ha ha only serious. The pressure to vacate Iraq does seem to be mounting.
I’m not in need of convincing John. However, when the president says shit like this:
You can hardly argue that Iran has no cause to feel threatened. Surely not an invasion, but “preventative” strikes to take out their nuclear industry? That’s on the table, and it rather poisons any anti-proliferation talks the euros engage in.
The pressure to vacate Iraq is certainly mounting…but its mounting from the Left/Anti-War crowd. I haven’t heard a huge hue and cry from either the Administraion or from the military (or the pro-war crowd) to cut and run (presumably to give us the forces magically to enable an invasion of Iran).
But even if you are right and the Administration secretly is manipulating the left/anti-war crowd to agitate for a withdrawl in the expectation they would then use that force to invade Iran…well, ok, I can’t think of anything plausable to go with that. Its simply too much of a fantasy as it falls apart in the reality of the situation. You simply can’t pull our military out of Iraq (reguardless of the excuse you use) and turn them around to invade Iran. Its just not going to happen in this reality.
I think we are going to have to resign ourselves to Iran having nukes too as I don’t hold out much hope the Europeans will get them to toe the line. I think we need to just resign ourselves to that reality and take appropriate steps to deal with it. I disagree with you though that if Iran DOES develop the things they should not be put under sanction and made an international red headed step child. They have been asked nicely not to develop them, they have been told forcefully not to develop them…there should be SOME consequences to ignoring all that and going ahead anyway. I can’t see how sanctions could make the situation worse…except for Iran itself. That said though I have doubts that Europe would follow through with harsh sanctions anyway so its probably a moot point.
-XT
Why does it poison the talks? Have the Europeans taken that option off the table?
Let’s step back to early 2003.
"What would invade Iraq with? Wait a minute–we needed 500,000 troops to push back Iraq’s expedition into Kuwait, and you want to use one-third as many troops to invade, pacify, occupy, and rebuild the whole country? Are you nuts? And where the hell are we going to get the money to pay for all this? The economy has ground to a halt and you’ve cut income taxes for the wealthiest, so the government is now taking in even less money than it was before.
Oh, wait. We didn’t have enough troops or enough money to invade Iraq. But we did it anyway.
All we need is one attack on us (either a “terror” attack on US soil or an attack on US troops in the Gulf) to justify our own strike, and escalation (throwing good money after bad) will ensure that we come up with enough money (through more massive debt) and troops (through renewed patriotism or a draft enabled by the emergency) to go on this moronic adventure.
Ummm, “all we need” is approval from Congress. That ain’t gonna happen.
Yes, lets. What was our military doing in 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq? Was it fully committed to an occupation in the midst of an insurgency? Had it been hammered constantly for several years prior to 2003? Had its logistics been stretched, had its moral been punctured, had its recruitment been dampened so that there were shortfalls?
I’m sorry but I’m not seeing it. Where is this other force we would use to invade…well anyone? Where is it going to come from? You can’t simply turn our forces in Iraq left and unleash them on Iran…its…not…realistic. Its a fantasy spun in the fevered brains of those who see GW and the US having a plot to TAKE OVER THE MIDDLE EAST™. If GW and his merry men start right now, disengage in Iraq right now, start building up the logistics supplies right now and getting assets into place right now…they STILL won’t be able to get an invasion of Iran going before its time for us to shake the dust of GW’s grand presidency from our boots. And guess what? If they start doing those things we’ll kind of notice…its not like we are going to do a stealth invasion or something. Did you check out the preparations from either of the other two gulf wars? Even Afghanistan, where we didn’t fully commit ground forces but mostly just supported with air and special forces, even that was pretty friggin obvious we were positioning to do something.
Oh, we could certainly do air strikes and toss cruise missiles (gods, how many times have I said this already? lots) but we simply don’t have the force prepared to invade anyone…let alone what would be the hornets nest that Iran would become. Christ if Iraq was bad you can factor in a multiplier of 10 for what Iran would be. Had we never invaded Iraq we MIGHT be able to invade Iran and succeed (oh, we could beat their military sure enough…but after?). However, we kind of did invade Iraq so we are kind of fucked for a decade or so as far as invasions and foriegn adventure go…unless we are willing to go to the wall with drafts and emergency military appropriations and such. I see no indications we are going that route either.
-XT
Good point. Even if we could find this magical phantom military force we could use for an invasion its pretty much a moot point anyway as Congress isn’t likely to approve another invasion. Certainly not unless we are directly and without doubt attacked by another soveriegn power. Something equally not likely to happen.
-XT
What about in a bit medium to long term picture ? Iran will take a decade to have a working bomb ? The US won’t be mired in Iraq that long. In about 2-4 years they could be “free” to threaten invasions elsewhere.
Still once started the nuke program can take a long time if certain sanctions are carried effectively. I think well chosen sanctions could do the job of holding back Iranian enthusiasm… but long term its hard to stop 'em.
That’s what I’ve heard-- that they’re 10 years away from having nukes.
I hope so.
I’d certainly agree that a technology embargo might be in order. Overall trade sanctions not directly tied to “nukyular” technology, no.
Newsweek’s Zakaria did a great piece on how sanctions only help regime’s hold on power… so big sanctions I think are counter productive in helping civil society get rid of regimes and open up.
Still the case for stopping Iran is pretty weak… after all the US itself and renounced a few treaties. Can’t Iran do the same ?
As for US troops… I actually hope they stay too busy to do any damage elsewhere… or at least garrisoned only in the US mainland… oppsss sorry Homeland… 
OK, here’s a question: What does the US do if Iran attacks our troops in the Gulf (say, as retaliation for US or Israel bombing their nuclear facilities)? Will we cry and go home? Will we sit back and do nothing? No, we’ll lob cruise missiles (as you said), which will lead to more Iranian retaliation, which will lead to more US retaliation, which will lead to growing US (and Congressional) support for any further escalation, and eventually, somewhere (like along that nice border Iraq shares with Iran), US and Iranian ground forces are going to clash. So, no, maybe we’re not going to have a full-scale invasion this fall, but escalation from air/missile strikes could easily lead to a ground war within a few very short years.
And my point was that, as our miserable failure to successfully occupy Iraq has proved, we invaded Iraq in 2003 even though we didn’t have the necessary troops for the job. And we’re continuing the war even though we can’t afford it now. We invaded with a too-small force to control the country, and the damn thing has been a disaster. I never said we would successfully wage a war against Iran. We haven’t been successful in Iraq, so why should things work out better the next time? I don’t know why people think our leaders have suddenly learned from their mistakes, and wouldn’t start trouble with another country even though we have too few troops and no money in the bank. Same old same old.
When I said “I hope so”, I was only referring to them coming home, not that I hoped we’d invade another country.