Was the real goal of the Iraq Occupation to contain Iran?

[jcrew2001]

We have been at 'war' with Iran since the Cold War. Iran is the source of Muslim Extremism and was a Soviet Ally, both of which made it a necessary target of the US. In fact, we used Saddam as a puppet in his war against Iran. Unfortunately, Saddam failed against Iran which bankrupted his economy and forced him to invade Kuwait.

Since our puppet Saddam was of no more use to us against Iran, could no longer be controlled, and directly opposed the US and Israel, the US govt felt it was time for a regime change. Saddam was never a severe or immediate threat. The Real reason was the containment of Iran and its threat of nuclear capabilities.

The Iraq War WMD was a red herring for invasion and occupation. Step 2 is containment of Iran.

Since the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has and will be a perpetual war to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and attacks against the US. The Cold War was a power struggle over land and influence. I feel that there will always be enemies to the US, and it will likely never end and the development of weapons technology will increase that risk.

The next president will have to deal with Iran and contain it. The use of diplomacy is preferable to military intervention. But the pressure for regime change in Iran is very real.

Do you guys think Iran's nuclear capability and Islamic Fundamentalism is a serious long-term threat? is this an issue the next President should address?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. hardly.

which country feared wahabi movements more than the house of Saud? The Sauds bribed them, while the Iranians sought contact and cooperation with the US to fight them.

we have so fucked up that region that picking up the pieces will take time. a revolution is necessary here.

[leftofthedial]

2. the real goal is EXACTLY what they got

the maximum possible chaos

the maximum possible off-the-charts war profiteering

keeping Iran's oil off the market to help create the maximum possible profits for the oil industry

the maximum possible political division within the US, especially among Democrats (pitting the anti-war real Democrats versus the who-cares-about-the-IWR, might-as-well-be-repuke "Democrats")

the maximum possible reduction of civil liberties

the maximum possible assertion of presidential power

[jcrew2001]

9. anti-war Democrats

I agree about the oil and the growing Presidential power, particularly for re-election.

Unfortunately, I feel that anti-war candidates are weaker than anti-Iraq war candidates. I think swing voters care about having a president who is not afraid to use the military anywhere and everywhere, even when there isn't evidence. Its part of America to be aggressive and unafraid of action. Americans in general don't care very much about foreign countries or the consequences.

The military is all volunteer and they get paid to fight, its a necessary evil. Americans are now anti-Iraq war because they feel that we have accomplished our goals in getting rid of Saddam and have spent enough time in occupation, not to mention the growing list of casualties.

But I feel that an anti-war candidate who won't use the military will never ever win a General Election. The male swing voters will never let that happen.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. No, no, and no. n/t

[kineneb]

4. yes and no

Was the real goal of the Iraq Occupation to contain Iran?

Yes, and as is obvious, it has been a dismal failure. This is what happens to people who fail to study the history of the Middle East, and try to invent their own "reality". Since the Shah was ousted, the US gov. has been trying overthrow the theocracy and get another puppet government installed there. However, just as they did with Saddam/Iraq, if their puppet gets out of line, he (and possibly his country) gets destroyed.

Do you guys think Iran's nuclear capability and Islamic Fundamentalism is a serious long-term threat? is this an issue the next President should address?

No. What they are trying to protect is national sovereignty. They are surrounded by peoples that oppose their version of Islam, and they are also tired of larger countries (the US & UK) trying to determine their future. The reason for the US interest in Iran is, of course, the oil, and that is all. Note that although North Korea has a horribly repressive government, because it has (or is thought to have) nukes (and no oil), the US gov. is not rattling sabers in that region. Iranians are not stupid and they figured this out quickly. They have been busy behind the scenes making trade alliances with their neighbors, Russia, India and China.

Iran would have never turned to the fundamentalists if we had not meddled in their affairs for 30+ years. The Shah was a US puppet, and the people were tired of his oppression. Unfortunately, people make mistakes, sometimes big ones. The folks who wanted the Shah out really did not want a repressive theocracy, but that is what they wound up with. (A case of "be careful what you ask for...").


As for the sources for my information... I have lived in Iran and still have relatives there. It is a proud and ancient country, something Americans are unable to understand.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Thank you for the great reply. Other countries are forming

alliances while the US is relying on force. Most in the US have not taken the time to read more of their history.

Some great pictures here, it looks like a beautiful country.

http://iranchamber.com/

[Honeycombe8]

5. No way. These bozos don't think in complicated terms like that.

It was a holdover from the Gulf War. Rummy, Wolfie, and Cheney had always thought Papa Bush was a weenie for not "completing the job." Cheney was determined to do this from Day One.

So said Richard Clarke and O'Neale, both in the White House and who have both written books.

When 9/11 happened....voila...their opportunity came to have a reason. Bush was not all that gung ho about the idea before, but once 9/11 happened, he was on board.

It's clear now that they knew very little about the politics of the Middle East, esp. Iraq and Iran.

[jcrew2001]

10. It was also to help Bush win re-election during a time of war

nt

[dave_p]

6. No

Iran is not "the source of Muslim extremism". Iranian Islamism's political roots are entirely independent of jihadism's beyond the shared underdevelopment of secular political life. Far from being extreme, the Iranian form has tended to be moderate and little interested in foreign adventures.

Iran was never a Soviet ally. The USSR was always more sympathetic to Iraq, especially after Khomeini crushed the local communists in 1983. And the US and Israel weren't above arming Iran (and indirectly Hezbollah) in 1986 when its international posture was more confrontational than now.

The US was quite capable of controlling Saddam after 1991, but it was intent on his destruction. His regime was clearly still of use as a bulwark against Iranian influence in Iraq, as events since his overthrow have shown. If containing Iran was the goal, shoring up a disarmed Saddam would have been the safer bet.

It's difficult to see containment of Iran as an objective of the 2003 invasion: the US Administration was well aware of the cost in terms of increased pro-Iranian Shia power. Removing the Taliban from Kabul had already eliminated one Iranian enemy regime. The Iraq war went ahead in full knowledge that Iran would gain from it too: concern at that prospect seems not to have been a priority.

Iranian Islamism threatens nobody. The regime clearly wants to build links across the Arab world. Its growing influence beyond Iraq goes only a little way toward levelling the playing-field between israel and its neghbors.

The best way for the US to control growing Iranian power would be to press Israel to initiate a just Palestine peace process that would limit the appeal of both Iran and the unrelated Sunni jihadi groups.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thanks, the American people are told we have enemies yet

they fail to acknowledge any of our past actions.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. It's possible - judging by the result, which is the same as everything else with W

The exact opposite result from what they intended.