Was the war in Iraq instigated by Iran?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

I am, for the first time, hearing that Iran may ultimately have shnookered us into war via Chalabi. Is this why Chalabi is suddenly being outed as a spy? Does this have anything to do with the new Iraqi "government" which was formed at the drop of a hat?

WTF is going on people!?!?!?

[ewagner]

1. My suspicions

are that we are seeing an unprecedented mixture of evil, incompetence and treachery here.

There are so many players involved with so many different motives, it's hard to tell who's on first.........

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

2. Aren't a whole mess of the players folks from Iran/Contra?

I wouldn't suspect any shadiness in regards to Iran with those fellas.

[vicman]

3. Ideology trumps reality

It would seem as though Chalabi promised the neocons that, once he was proclaimed king of Iraq, he would open diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel. In the offing, that has been revealed to have been a complete lie. Another thread here posts the news that Iran is "happy" with the new government of Iraq. How ironic that the neocons starry-eyed idealism has caused them to do the bidding of Iran, and not the bidding of their bright flower of freedom in the Middle East, Israel. Neocon thinking is directly analogous to the dialectical reasoning that destroyed Soviet agriculture and society in the old USSR.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi vicman!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bigfire]

4. It's Just Another Conspiracy Theory

The Bushoisie were already determined to go to war to complete the "unfinished business" of Bush-41, so at the moment I consider the Iran connection to be a red herring, at least as far as why the administration went to war. My favorite theory along these lines so far is that France, Germany, and Russia, through their opposition to the war, were actually goading Dubya into the Iraq attack and using Iraq as a tar baby, so that the United States would be stuck fast and held down there, making less trouble elsewhere in the world.

My theory? The neocons know about the coming petroleum peak and want to be in control of the last of it. The fact they could use the war as a political stick with which to beat the Dems in 2002 (and you know they did; why else only attack liberal opponents of the war?) was just a bonus.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

7. It doesn't seem unplausable to me Welcome to DU, by the way

I think that France, Germany, and Russia tar baby thing is the biggest joke I've ever heard. It would seem like an excellent kick in the teeth to the US by Iran for its being put in the Axis of Evil.

[kentuck]

12. I tend to agree with you....

and welcome! I think the Iran connection is a red herring to take attention away from the neo-cons, like Wolfowitz, Perle, and the usual list of suspects, connections with Mossad and the Israeli government. If there was a country working behind the scenes, my money would be on Israel.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

15. Y'know, the more I here that the more it makes sense - seems suspicious

that its Iran who would be to blame. I smell a shift of attention - taking our eyes off the ball.

[kentuck]

18. It's possible.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

5. No

they are just taking advantage of the situation.

[RafterMan]

6. It would be even more interesting

if they instigated our war with Afghanistan as well. It really is bizzare that Iran's distant arch-enemy has eliminated hostile states on each of its longest borders.

If they really did do it, I can't help but be impressed.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

8. That's what I'm saying. Iran HATED the Taliban and Saddam

convenient for this Axis of Evil state to have its enemies routed while they just sat back and repressed their elections some more.

[vicman]

10. Say what one will...

at the end of the day, that is the reality on the ground. Iran has benefited enormously from US actions since September 11, 2001. In fact, they could be said to be the only universal winners at this point.

[Hornito]

9. I don't think so. The evidence shows it was the pro-Israel PNAC

neoNAZIcons in the Bush regime, and Bush's oil business cronies, led by Cheney, who engineered the invasion (and 9/11?). Iran may have played a very secondary role, but there is far too much hard evidence that the neoNAZIcons played the major role.

Let's also not forget Chalabi's ties to Israel, and his promise to them that he would establish full relations, should a war occur, and he ended up heading a new government. Based on that, Israel put its full weight behind Chalabi and his cronies, vis a vis their operatives in the Bush regime (ie: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Libby, Abrams, et al).

Somehow, I think the neocons are trying to setup Chalabi to take the brunt for *their* evil deeds. While Chalabi may be guilty of a number of things, we would be very foolish to take our "eye off the ball", .......and the neocons.

[vicman]

11. The evidence...

is that the neocons are rabidly trying to defend Chalabi. Other factions in the Pentagon and military establishment seem just as determined to "out" him as little more than a spy working for his own self-interest. Our government now seems to be at war with itself. What we are seeing is the detritus of blind ideology with no accountability.

[BeFree]

17. Blind ideology...yep...welcome to DU

The rot starts at the head. The stink is becoming quite evident, eh?

As others have stated, Iran has benefited from our involvement in these two wars. When one also considers the Iran/Contra affairs of old, it seems as if Iran has been a player in Puke administrations going all the way back to Reagan.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

13. It would be very convenient for mistakes to be blamed on the Evil Iran

Like - "see, we told you Iran was evil - they duped us into this war!"

See I jujst don't know what to believe!

[kentuck]

14. Bingo !

I think you've got it Hornito. I agree.

[graham67]

16. Why would Iran want a war?

Iran and Syria are scared sh*tless that they're next on the list if the US is successful in Iraq. :shrug:

[vicman]

21. Iran has been

on the US hitlist since they kicked out the Shah. They have very little to lose by resorting to subterfuge if the end result is that the US is duped into restructuring the ME more to their liking. As for invasion, remember that Iran, in disarray as it was after the Islamic takeover, KICKED IRAQ's ASS after Iraq invaded them, and that was despite Iraq's US backing and our supply of weapons (okay, so Reagan was selling the same weapons to Iran - and that leads to a whole 'nother discussion about who the hell's in charge here). Bottom line, even the neocons won't claim that invading Iran would be the same "cakewalk" Iraq has proven to be. Good God, doesn't all this just make everyone here sick? I mean, hell, how far do Republicans have to have their heads shoved up their a**e* to swallow even one tenth of this crap?

[Jack Rabbit]

19. No

Whether the Iranians put Chalabi up to anything or not is irrelevant. The junta hawks listened to Chalabi and passed on what he told them as facts because it fit their agenda. They had decided long ago to invade Iraq; the September 11 attacks gave them a pretext that could be spun into a rationale.

If Chalabi did not exist, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would have invented him. Chalabi is no more responsible for Iraq than Lynndie England.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

24. Well said. Thanks everybody. I don't think I'll take this shot of Kool-Aid

:toast:

[AlCzervik]

20. The neo-con cabal

didn't have to try real hard to get * to go to war, he was a more than will participant. If they didn't have Chalabi there were a number of Iraqi exiles that they would have used to make the case. This war was going to happen before 911 anyway.

[buddhamama]

22. they didn't- don't believe the hype

it is a crap story.

The Admin picked and chose their intel. They knew most of what Chalabi had fed them through the yrs was useless, baseless crap.
they didn't care- they wanted war,remember?

Think about Iran too. given the choice between Saddam in Iraq or the U.S. as occupyers, whom do you think they'd choose?
Saddam was not a viable threat to Iran.
The U.S.-PNACers, however, were!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

25. And Are!!!

I am pretty convinced this is a load of crap!

[central scrutinizer]

26. I am reserving judgment

One good source of information is http://www.warandpiece.com

Even if the main charge is baseless, there is still a lot of shit here - it is becoming clearer that Chalabi passed on classified US information to the Iranians. Who gave him this classified information? Did US soldiers die as a result of this information being passed along to Shiite fighters in Iraq? Bush is distancing himself as quickly as possible from Chalabi, yet Chalabi was a personal guest of Laura at the SOTU. The language is much like when he was distancing himself from Kenny Boy Lay. I think he "doth protesteth too much" - like Hamlet's mother he is admitting more than he realizes.

[htuttle]

27. BREAKING: Bush gave the order to invade Iraq

And REPEATEDLY lied, and had his minions lie, to make it happen. I know this is not exactly 'breaking', but it seems that the Neocons are desperately trying to change history to suit their beliefs again.

Any FOOL would have known that Iran would love to see Saddam Hussein deposed. If the White House accepted information from Iranian sources (even 2nd or 3rd hand) without taking this factor and possibility into consideration, then I'd have to say they are responsible for FOOLING THEMSELVES.

If the Neocons got conned, then it's their own damn fault. You know we have a saying in Texas. It goes, "Fool me once, shame on...you. Fool me...don't get fooled again!"