Source: Financial Times - London
I don’t think the Bush Administration anticipated this, even this early in the game.
So what happens now?
What exactly is meant by “securing the frontier”? Are they making a land grab from Iraq?
Probably…that’s where a lot of the biggest reserves are, or are anticipated to be. Very interesting.
“Securing” anything in military terms means to seize and control. It is not necesarily a land grab but more of a strategy of denying you enemy of vital resources and territory. This seems to be a legitimate defensive posture but since whn has something like legitimacy ever stopped Saddam from twisting it for his own devices.
What I really want to see is a firm commitment from Iran that they will not allow any defectors from Saddams regime to cross their borders; that includes those with or without WMD.
I distinctly recall an overture made by Iran not long after September Eleven. It was prior to the US deployment of forces within Afghanistan, and she stated that US pilots would be offered “safe haven” in the event of being shot down.
Given the inexorable march towards stable democracy within Iran, and such an overture, I still maintain that President Bush’s inclusion of “Iran” within the so-called “axis of evil” was an unwise decision.
Of all the allies in the Middle East that the USA could have profited from, singularly, head and shoulders above all others would have been Iran. It so totally would have made a mockery of so many of Militant Islam’s power bases.
I rather think the same situation still stands.
Further, it seems to me that some very “unfinished business” remains regarding Iran and Iraq - far more so than the assertions that President Bush is invading Iraq to vindicate his father.
I can’t help but salivate over a situation where Iran would control Iraq after a war there - and would do so as a proxy state on behalf of the Western World. Certainly, they could do so far more effectively than any of our Western forces could do so.
For some reason, my gut instincts say that I would infinitely trust Iran more than any other country in the region.
An interesting point is that Iran, alongside Kuwait, and perhaps Israel is the one State that can really claim to have the right to invade Iraq for security reasons and be credible about it.
Maybe they are out to get the National Liberation Army of Iran which naturally is based in Iraq.
What a fine kettle of fish this is. We’re(the US) to far in to get out and to far out to get in. And our troops are sitting around getting sand in their boots.
The Brit and the Australian government have stuck their neck out, way out for us, the Kurds want a piece of the action and the Turks are trying to blackmail us for more money. Then Osama, North Korea, “old” Europe and add in a few troops from Iran.
I’m about ready to turn in my duct to bring back Big Bill. Remember when our biggest concern was Monica’s dress?
do you see a new cold war developing, if Iran assists the UN with the removal of Saddam?
A new Cold War? How so? And between who? Maybe another thread is in order?
Maybe something like, “Iran helps the UN get rid of Saddam, and then decides to keep Iraq for themselves, so it would be Iran and its Iran-Bloc Nation vs. the U.S.”
Just like old times, eh? 
Why can’t I find this story on the BBC website?
Iran is ranked 18th in land size and Iraq is not even on the charts for the 25 largets nations by land size or population, the addtion of Iraq to it’s territory might make it as big as Libya. Makes for a formidable Iran-Bloc.
Actually, what you’ve all overlooked is that there is a siginificant Shia minority in Iraq. The report looks more like posturing - to the effect of stating that in the formation of a new government in Iraq, the Shia should have important representation.
As for Iran being an axis of evil - that was just Little George being very dumb as usual.
Sorry - should also have said that the Iranian government is very unlikely to make a grab for Iraq. If they were, you would find significantly more than the pittance of 5,000 troops on the border.