Article

2004-07-20 Iraq-Jordan

Iraq Says It Will Hit at Countries Backing Rebels

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-07-20 9:13:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 SUNDAY!SUNDAY!SUNDAY!

Iraq vs. Iran

Round II

The Beatdown in Bhagdad!

Somebody run out and get me some beer and crackerjacks, this better be good.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-07-20 9:31:22 AM|| 2004-07-20 9:31:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This time Iraq has a tag team partner named America though ;)

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-20 9:38:20 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-20 9:38:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "Interviewed by the London-based Asharq Awsat newspaper, Defense Minister Hazem Shalan al-Khuzaei blamed neighboring Iran, but gave no details.
"If they do not stop this we will move it to their own streets," he said in another interview, with the Gulf-based Al-Arabiya television.

Their own streets - hmmm.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-20 10:11:30 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:11:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh, boy.

And to think we were worried that the new Iraqi government would be Tehran West.

Of course, I hope that Allawi's mouth doesn't start writing checks his ass can't cash.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-07-20 10:25:55 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:25:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Where's a WMD when you need one?

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-20 10:36:20 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:36:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Iran to Iraq -"Oh yeah. You and what army?"

Iraq to Iran - :>)

Iran to Iraq - "uh oh"

Posted by mhw 2004-07-20 10:45:54 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:45:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Intersting to think the new Iraqi government could drag us into a war that we might not be prepared for. I'd never truly considered that option before. Of course they could provide help scare the tar out of Iran and Syria if the US is playing good cop bad cop with Iraq.

Posted by yank 2004-07-20 10:56:58 AM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-07-20 10:56:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 the start of posturing for the eventual confrontation with iran - after nov of course...

Posted by Dan 2004-07-20 10:57:54 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:57:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Of course, I hope that Allawi's mouth doesn't start writing checks his ass can't cash.

For now, he has the full faith and credit of the U.S. behind him. That should count for something.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-20 10:59:39 AM|| 2004-07-20 10:59:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Hell with after November. A decent series of punative expeditions through the Syrian and Iranian border towns ought to make the left foam spectacularly, while making the right look fierce and proactive. Win-win.

The Republican re-election motto ought to be "a mullah for every Iranian lamp-post; a Ba'athist for every Syrian door-post, a Hizbullahi for every Lebanese cedar."

Posted by Mitch H. 2004-07-20 11:16:52 AM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-20 11:16:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bomb,

Yeah, it counts if GWB is the banker. Not sure the same can be said for JF(ing)K.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-07-20 11:19:06 AM|| 2004-07-20 11:19:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Iraq could use Kurdish "insurgents" to create havoc inside Kurdish areas of Iran. Iranian oil infrastructure would also be vulnerable to "insurgent" sabotage.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-20 11:28:16 AM|| 2004-07-20 11:28:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Is a repeat of the Afghanistan model - an Iraqi invasion backed by a "hard core" of say 10,000 American troops - possible here? If the new Iraqi army was to actually invade Iran (or Syria for that matter), how would the people there react? Do they still hate Iraq for the 1980 Iraq-Iran war? Do we know if the Iraqi army is really ready for primetime yet? Would they fight "clean" or could we expect atrocities? I know they've got a lot of spiffy new equipment and we've given them some decent re-training, but it is enough?

Posted by Captain_Overkill 2004-07-20 11:34:55 AM|| 2004-07-20 11:34:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Pass the popcorn please. Yeah, the big bowl with extra butter.

Posted by Scott R 2004-07-20 11:38:36 AM|| [http://five24.net] 2004-07-20 11:38:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Syria agreed earlier this month to help seal its long desert border with Iraq and stop foreign insurgents infiltrating into Iraq to fight U.S. forces and the U.S.-backed authorities.

Oh that border!

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-20 11:43:20 AM|| 2004-07-20 11:43:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 1. Unless and until the Iran regime cracks down a lot harder, I dont think most Iranians will welcome a US invasion, and even fewer an Iraqi invasion. Internal revolution is still the best bet, unreliable though that is (of course both US and Iraq can support that in various ways)
2. But of course we cant necessarily wait to deal with the Iranian nukes.
3. Iraq is important not only as base against Iran, but to influence the rest of the arab world - id be very nervous to see Allawi staking Iraq on this, though he may be forced to (byt he Iranians, that is)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-20 11:45:55 AM|| 2004-07-20 11:45:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Iraqi soldiers will not be involved in invading Iran. They will just protect the border.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-20 12:29:57 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-20 12:29:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 liberalhawk, that's why you bomb their gov't sites, their military sites, their wmd sites and provide air cover to the iranians that you arm to overthrow the mullahs.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-20 12:31:02 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-20 12:31:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 i dont think most iranians would take to well to an air campaign, either. Im not convinced that a military campaign of any kind against Iran is compatible with regime change by revolution. This isnt Afghanistan, where people are more loyal to their local tribe than to the "nation", or Iraq where 80% of the population belongs to religious/ethnic minorities that had been subject to genocide by the previous govt. This is a nationalist population, that doesnt like the Mullahs, and may even be sympathetic to the US, but I dont think that will survive "shock and awe".

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-20 12:55:28 PM|| 2004-07-20 12:55:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 any kind of invasion would be done with american troops(maybe iraqi's playing support, guarding the rear or somthing with maybe one force with their best lads getting combad experience while under the watchful gaze of our forces).. the iraqis are learning, but they are not ready and I don't think they will be before Iran gets nukes

I think an attack on iran would prolly be run in a manner similar to the attack on saddam's regime

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-20 1:02:17 PM|| 2004-07-20 1:02:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Lib, I agree that the iranians won't like us being there (even if some of them did say "Us next!"), 'course the iraqis don't like use being where we are either..
how do you think the iranian distaste for our presence would effect the goal of regime change ?

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-20 1:06:38 PM|| 2004-07-20 1:06:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 LH: and may even be sympathetic to the US

More or less so than Iraq? There's a tendency here for people to believe that because the US and the people of Iran share a common interest in getting rid of the Mullahs, that they should become natural allies. Anywhere else in the world that might actually hold, but not in the middle east, and definitely not in Iran.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-20 1:08:19 PM|| 2004-07-20 1:08:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Im not sure, raf. Ive seen things on the net indicating that the Iranian population is at least more pro-secularist than the Iraqi population - theyve been oppressed for 25 years by a fundie regime, not by a secular dictator. I have a friend, an Iranian Jew who maintains business contacts in Iran who confirms this - the most pro-American people in the world, he says, and you get similar things from the Student commitee. OTOH that could be a biased slice of Iranian society - the relatively secular elite in Teheran - not the folks in the smaller cities and country. I suspect it would at a minimum cut differently than Iraq in terms of demographics - in Iraq a segment of the Baghdad elite was hostile - I think in Iran the educated classed would be more pro-US.

As for alliance, it depends what you mean by alliance. Would i expect a post-revolutionary Iran regime to rush to recognize Israel, or reestablish the relations we had under the Shah? No, I do not. But I would expect them to drop support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, and to be at more open to a reasonable discussion on Iraq, on nukes, etc.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-20 1:31:59 PM|| 2004-07-20 1:31:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 DC - a US military strike on Iran MIGHT lead to rallying around the regime, and to undercutting the political position of the reformers. IF the US strike was not a full blown Iraq style invasion, that would mean lengthening rather than shortening the life of the regime.

Which is not to say it might not be required anyway. Which is better, to have a 100% chance of the mullahs staying for 10 years, but with no nukes cause weve taken them out, or to have a 50% chance of an Iranian revolution, but a 90% chance that they will have nukes if they dont have a revolution?

IF we do an Iraqi style invasion, and IF the majority of the population rallies around the regime, than we've got Iraq on a larger scale. If we are contemplating something like that we'd better expand the US Army right now, cause 10 divisions absolutely wont cut it, and im not sure 12 divisions will either.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-20 1:37:20 PM|| 2004-07-20 1:37:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Unfortunately so, Rafael, unfortunately ...

"take it to their streets," eh? Intriguing >:D

By the way, the New York Daily News endorsed Allawi's actions in its official op-ed ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-20 1:39:13 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-20 1:39:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 What Liberalhawk said.
Let's arm up the Iranian student movement, provide them with intelligence information, and wage a propoganda war on the Mad Mullah's via shortwave radio from Iraq and Afghanistan. When they rise we knock down anything the Iranians put in the air.
A good hard shove & thew hole stinking thing will go over in a few weeks.

Posted by Secret Master 2004-07-20 2:26:37 PM|| 2004-07-20 2:26:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 1) Iraqis still hate the Iranians. It goes back CENTURIES to Darius and the Persians.

2) A US attack on Iran would only hurt us in Iraq (its against a fellow muslim), and would likely hand the keys over to the Mullahs for decades to come as they rally against "outsiders". As for the mullas in that situation "Hey're bastards, but they're OUR bastards". Look at Iraq for a good example.

The revolution in Iran MUST come from within. THe *best* way to do that is to clamp down HARD on their borders.

Keep the IRG bottled up and busy on the borders, smuggle weapons in and help groups outside the country grow internal organizations (just like France did with Ayatollah Khomeni - another thing to thank France for).

Use strikes, protests, work slowdowns, etc - stager them, and make sure they are spread, but well supported by the locals and the middle class.

Force the Government to be even more opressive (and they will - they actually beleive that crap they preach)- and be sure that the Mullahs bear the ire of that repression.

Once its ripe, Iran starts burning from the inside, starting in Tehran. All we need to do is increase the heat - and they will oblige us by keeping the lid on too tight: the pressure will evenutally blow them up.

I'm quite sure the Iraqis would love to get some payback.

Here is the part nobody is talking about: the religious side.

Imagine a revolution in Iraq in which the Mullahs get chased out of government, and many of them are killed, and a secular government gets put in place.

Now look at the aftermath for Shia Muslims.

The most powerful Ayatollahs in the Shia sects are Iranian.

Guess who used to be top dog Shias? The Iraqis.

Guess who has been stuck in line behind them since Ayatollah Khomeni took over? The Iraqis.

Guess who owns the 2 most holy Shia sites but isnt allowed to run them? The Iraqis.

Guess who becomes top dog again if the Iranian Ayatollahs get iced? The Iraqis.

Now do you see why there is no love lost?

Now do you see why Moqtada Sadr ran out of Iraqi friends so quickly when it became known the Iranians were backing him?

Now do you see why we had to have Iran cordoned off geographically (Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey)?

Now do you see why Bush hitting Afghanistan and Iraq wer simply the first and most important steps in winning the war on Terrorism?

Iran has always been the objective. It had to be. Take out Iran and Syria completely collapses.

And without those, then the only major overt safe harbor for Terrorists are Sudan and North Korea, and they dont have any oil money to finance things.

Then the only thing left is Saudi. And the Saudis are not stupid - they'll learn the lessons.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-20 11:11:43 PM|| 2004-07-20 11:11:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 OS - a regime change in Iran to a less-hostile gov't would be supported by all in Iraq but the assholes we encounter daily in ambushes and IEDs, who are most likely native Farsi-speaking insurgents. Screw them and kill them. As long as US troops and Iraqis don't invade, the Iranian people will welcome liberation

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-20 11:43:06 PM|| 2004-07-20 11:43:06 PM|| Front Page Top

18:09 Memesis
17:58 lex
03:12 paracletes
06:22 Gentle
06:05 Bulldog
05:52 Gentle
05:27 Bulldog
05:21 Gentle
05:19 Bulldog
05:16 Another Dan
05:08 Gentle
04:31 Another Dan
04:29 Another Dan
04:29 Moqty
04:19 Anonymous6059
07:47 Anonymous5992
00:02 anymouse
23:58 Zenster
23:57 ed
23:54 gromky
23:48 Frank G
23:44 Frank G
23:43 Zenster
23:43 Frank G