I read reports that many nations, especially Turkey, implored the US not to expand the War on Terrorism to Iraq, and in fact, if they do, the Turkish nation will get militarily involved, but not necessarily as allies. I begin to think: do the Turks really hate the Kurds and the Iranians so much that they rather have Hussein rule a neighboring country if only to repress the Kurds and hold back Iran? Or is there is more to it? Anybody who is an expert in this aspect of foreign relations is welcome here.
I’m not an ‘expert’, but I think you hit one a major issue: What happens when a power vacuum is created in Iraq? Iran and Iraq have historically balanced each other off fairly well - Iraq as a secular state, and Iran as a fundamentalist religious state. I don’t think either country has a lot of friends in the Middle East, but if the balance of power shifted drastically, it could make for a dangerously unstable environment.
Think about what happened when the Ayatollah took over in Iran - they screwed up their own military so badly (mainly by killing just about every officer in it) that their airplanes rusted on the ground and became unusable. So Iraq gained the balance of power, and the result was the invasion of Kuwait. So the coalition bombed Iraq and decimiated its military, which restored the balance of power again.
I’d love to see Hussein gone, but who do you replace him with? An American presence in that area would never be tolerated. And depending on who comes into power there, the balance of power could become dangerous again, triggering a whole chain of border skirmishes or outright wars.
In addition to Sam Stone’s comments about the power vacuum in Iraq, following an intervention in that country, there are at least a couple of more points to consider.
If the US decides to expand the war on terrorism to Iraq, they can count on less support and more opposition than is the case for Afghanistan.
Mr. Tony Blair has already hinted that such a move would not be a good idea, and he is unlikely to commit UK forces to such a venture.
Perhaps more importantly, an attack against Saddam Hussein would not be viewed with great favour by other Middle Eastern nations, especially Syria and Iran.
The removal of Saddam Hussein followed by US eyes turning upon Syria would have a number of other countries asking who is next, a question which would doubtless cause Arab and Iranian opinion to harden in an expression of solidarity.
Should his happen, the (relatively) small number of militant followers of Islam who currently oppose current US military actions would be joined by all the moderates.
That’s a lot of potential enemies which the US could well do without.
Which brings up an interesting point about current government strategy - they seem to be dropping hints that other countries are in the gunsights, without committing to anything in particular. They’ve even gone so far as to warn the U.N. that the war will likely ‘broaden’ outside of Afghanistan.
So why not name names now? Easy. Because he has a coalition now. Why screw that up by announcing future plans? Use the coalition while you have it. Once you’ve achieved everything you can that the coalition will agree with and support, and have nothing to lose, THEN go ahead with ‘Phase II’. In the meantime, drop enough hints about it to prepare people at home and abroad, and to prevent people from claiming that they wouldn’t have supported the U.S. had they only known that they might go elsewhere, but don’t say enough in particular to alienate anyone.
Just another example of what we’re seeing as a very nuanced, sophisticated strategy coming out of the Bush Administration. I’m amazed at how good they are at this (well, not *amazed - these are largely the same people who engineered one of the most lopsided military defeats in history - but certainly very impressed).
One enemy at a time, please. 
I think Iran would remain relatively quiet should we take further action against Iraq. Iran and Iraq are very different countries with very different mindsets, embodying centuries of Sunni against Shi’ite and Arab against Persian religious and ethnic disputes. They also had a nasty and bloody war throughout the 1980’s (see http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm ). They would probably publically condemn any action, while privately celebrating it. Action against Iraq would more likely anger Egypt, Pakistan, Bangledesh, and perhaps the southeast asian muslims, as it would further increase the perception that America is engaged in war against Islam in general.
It doesn’t seem wise to me to limit our options at this point. I’m not all that keen on strikes against Syria or Iraq but I can’t eliminate the possiblity of doing so in the future. If a nation chooses to assist terrorist then we need to make it clear that we will break their backs. We will destroy your military and we will destroy your government.
Not that I’m advocating attacking nations at the drop of a hat. But unlike Afghanistan nations like Iraq do have something to lose should we take an active interest in destroying their military.
Marc