Depends on what you mean by “success.” I think back to the Iran-Iraq war and remember that the Iranians sent unarmed troops who were basically children in human wave assaults in which thousands were killed – well, if they’re so willing to waste the lives of their OWN kids, I kinda suspect that Iran might be kinda … unconcerned about the lives of … anyone else at all. So, I’m thinking if the Iranians get the idea they can take Iraq by mililtary force now that we’ve so conveniently destroyed the Iraqi army (and should we just bugger out) … that when they get around to occupying the country, genocide might be just around the corner.
So much the better! The more they kill each other now, the fewer we’ll have to kill later! 
What? That doesn’t meet your definition of “success”? After all, the oil will still be there! 
True. But the consensus of this thread is that they have a much stronger sense of “Iranian” national identity than you might expect.
I take it that you aren’t best described as a student of history.
Sure; it was stable from the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. but after 1918 (when the whole welter of arificial nation-states was created by the French and British at Versailles), the whole place began to unravel. How stable was Iraq?Lessee;
-founded 1918 by British, Hashemite Monarchy installed
-1920’s : uprisings by Kurds, Arabs, put down by British Army
-1930’s Baathist Party starts fomenting revoltion-put down by British
-1957: Monarchy deposed (king Ghazi killed), Baathist government installed
-1958-1974 : various military rulers, constant internal unrest (Kurds, Arabs, etc.)
-1975: Saddam Hussein comes into power, suppresses Kurds, marsh arabs
-1979-83? (Correct me if I’m wrong": Hussein launches war against iran, possibly 1.1 million killed
–1991-93: constant conflict with West, invasion of Kuwait, Desrt Storm
-2002-present: US invasion, constant internal conflict
Does that qualify as “stable”? 
So by “always has been” you meant “always has been since 1918”? Pardon me for thinking you meant what you said.
Sure. But that’s what they said about Yoguslavia before the breakup. Remember how Sarajevo was this international city where everyone got along famously? You never know what might happen when things get dicey.
Now, I don’t think there’s much of a possiblity that an unchecked Iraqi civil war will precipitate an Iranian civil war, but it could spill over the border where allegiances are mixed-- Kurds in the north and Arabs in the South. And if Iran sets itself up as a major presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia is going have a serious problem with that. Those two countries do not get along, but at least they don’t share a border right now.
Who said that? Sarajevo was where a fanatical serb nationalist triggered WW1, and was the capital of a made-up country used as a dustbin to stop the post-war map being too cluttered with funny little nations. And that’s not even mentioning the brief interlude when one side fought for mainly for the Nazis and the other for the Soviets. People with a clue knew Bosnia was a powderkeg and started prohesying its doom as soon as the Slovenes started their secession.
What Gorsnak means is that the Middle East was highly civilized long before America was ‘discovered’ and while the Europeans were … well somewhat primitive.
Actually the Roman Empire merged into the Greek Empire of Constantinople, abandoned Europe and was going strong until 1400.
We in Europe, and I think you in the USA, are not taught much about the history of areas outside our ancestry.
I have a strong suspicion that the European Renaissance was actually down to the pillaging of Constantinople.
Possibly part of the problem in the region is that due to oil, some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant. Also, Western technology made us take a different path, so we tend to ignore or discount some pretty impressive cultures.
What is interesting is that quite a lot of cultures regard us (the West) as jumped up oiks with little history.
To be honest, much of the history of those other cultures isn’t overwhelmingly impressive.
How can you use a blanket statement like “some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant”?
Maybe that’s true for Saudi Arabia, but Iraq is the cradle of civilization!! There has supposedly been urban life there longer than anywhere else in the world. And the region hasn’t been a backwater; it’s been part of important empires for most of its history.
Let’s remember how Western politics and civilization played a role in this disaster, and I’m not just talking about the Fumbler in Chief. I’m talking about the way lines on a map were drawn after the Ottomans collapsed in 1918. If the lines had been drawn differently, the 20th century might have gone very differently for the Middle East. There might, for example, be a Kurdistan.
But the British and the French drew lines how it suited them to (according to short term political issues and local alliances), and we have the Middle East of today.
Are we looking, then, at something similar to the Thirty Years War that took place mostly in Germany in the 17th century? Where there was a religiously divided, politically fragmented country (northern Germany) and lots of empires surrounding it (Hapsburg Austria, France, Sweden, etc.) that were more than happy to choose sides and take their share of territory?
Can such a conflict be avoided at this time?
Here’s another interesting question: could anything happen in such an all-out war between Shia and Sunni powers (and maybe Kurds, etc.) that might draw in larger world powers? Who would the United States side with, or would they just try to get their forces out of the way? What will Israel and Turkey do?
More importantly, could Russia and China be drawn in to take a more active role? Their informal alliance (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or something like that) has formed to challenge the US’s primacy in the world. So far, they seem to have backed Iran. Will they begin to provide more active assistance? Could this war herald the beginning of another bipolar standoff of superpowers?
I realize some of this might sound alarmist and fantastical, but in a war as big as this, a lot of constants might become variables.
I don’t think that there is anything to worry about from China and Russia, they are both nervous of Moslem fundamentalism - which was, from my view, the reason for the break up of the USSR.
They are not taking the official USA line with Iran, but that does not mean that they are trying to use Iran to get one over the USA.
To be honest I reckon that the best solution now is for the USA (and our enlightened UK government) to simply announce ‘we were wrong’ - and to carry out a lightning evacuation.
Currently the Iraqis are worrying about how they’ll survive when the ‘alliance’ pulls out, bringing that event forward would concentrate their minds - they’ll probably initially gang up to wipe out the criminal elements.
You have a good point with Turkey, they would spit blood if they lost their bit of Kurdistan, which is tricky as they are allies with the USA.
I reckon Israel will simply sit on its hands, they only tend to attack when attacked first or an attack is imminent (eg: 1967 - well 1956 was a special case).
Frankly I reckon that if the UK and the USA eat a bit of crow, it will give the neighbouring states quite an incentive to demonstrate that they can sort out the situation.
Incidentally, Saddam is a Bedouin. There is probably more tribalism than religious conflict at work in Iraq.
Hang on - the various previously independent countries conquered by Stalin deciding to bail from the Soviet Union, followed by couple of countries conquered by the Tsars giving russia the kiss-off at the same time Russia decided to tell the layer of useless Soviet apparatchiks to STFU, was all due to Moslem fundamentalism?
I never realised the Lithuanians were such hard-core muslims, and I wonder how Yeltsin managed to reconcile his prodigious vodka consumption with the Koran.