Would real nation building have worked in Iraq in 2003?

[Ryan_Liam]

@Steken

Of course Iran dislikes the idea of Iraq being “under US domination.”

That’s not the same as Iran being “determined” to see “real nation building” in Iraq fail.

I imagine the Americans and the Iranians want much the same thing from Iraq: A stable, friendly, thriving and above all loyal ally / client state / trading partner. At this point, neither country seems likely to get their wish anytime soon. Long-term, though, my money is on the Iranians.

How can you separate the notion that any nation building performed under the Americans is not going to be perceived as detrimental to Iranian interest? There was absolutely no way they were going to allow the Americans to succeed.

Iran is already Iraqs biggest trading partner and political backer. They’ve already won.

[Ravenman]

nm

[Latro]

@Ramira

it is I think easy to see the iranian analysis as that the american project of those years was not a simple ‘nation building’ but the creation of a client state hostile to the iranians. of course no nation would be happy about such a kind of project by a hostile power, and I can just look at the way that the USA had lashed out at governments in its close neighborhood that it saw as getting clsoe to its enemy, the soviet union.

it is irrational to expect that a rational iranian government would oppose and seek to reinforce its fellow shiite allies. the idea among posters here that this was some kind of iranian aggressiveness is blind hypocrisy.

I agree, except that I don’t think the Iranians are needlessly paranoid.
There has been quite the rhetoric against them, they are under sanctions and the country has been surrounded by American client-states.
Could be they are paranoid, could be someone is really after them.

[Ramira]

@Ryan_Liam

… There was absolutely no way they were going to allow the Americans to succeed.

If you mean allow the badly concieved Bush project to make an American anti-Iran client state succeed, yes.

That does not mean the Iran could not have made peace with a different, more neutral and less stupidly conceived project.

Iran is already Iraqs biggest trading partner and political backer. They’ve already won.

In no reasonable analysis could much different have been expected.

@Latro

I agree, except that I don’t think the Iranians are needlessly paranoid.
There has been quite the rhetoric against them, they are under sanctions and the country has been surrounded by American client-states.
Could be they are paranoid, could be someone is really after them.

I did not express an opinion about needless or not, I only made the point that the behavior was and is rational. the americans would have reacted no differently and I think more strongly if they faced such a projet say in the Mexico…

[Ryan_Liam]

Ramira
That does not mean the Iran could not have made peace with a different, more neutral and less stupidly conceived project.

I doubt it, Khatami had approached the US forces just after they toppled Saddam with a letter or rapprochement, and the Bush Admin flatly rejected it out of a sense of arrogance.

Iran has now opted for an Iranian peace, not a peace dictated by an American presence.

[Steken]

@Ryan_Liam

How can you separate the notion that any nation building performed under the Americans is not going to be perceived as detrimental to Iranian interest? There was absolutely no way they were going to allow the Americans to succeed.

We seem to be talking past each other.

I agree that the Iranians did not want an US-run, anti-Iranian Iraqi state.

I do not agree that the Iranians were against “real nation building,” which is what you wrote in post #100:

Real nation building wouldn’t of worked in Iraq, because Iran was determined to see it fail.

[Ryan_Liam]

Steken
We seem to be talking past each other.

I agree that the Iranians did not want an US-run, anti-Iranian Iraqi state.

I do not agree that the Iranians were against “real nation building,” which is what you wrote in post #100:

But that’s a utopian scenario.