Thinking out loud on Iraq and Iran

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.

  1. Actually, I agree with you and I think White House intentions fall into (b) and (c) from your post above. I have long felt (cynically) that one plausible way out of Iraq for this Administration is through Iran. I posted about this thesis this weekend on my blog.
    It may not be the smartest strategy, but it does appear to be the logical place that our policy in Iraq has gotten us to.
    One more note, in the neo-con dream world, the dominoes go from Iraq to Iran to Syria. So, this thing isn’t over by any means. At worse, they have only one year to create this conflagration, so they are definitely in a hurry now.

  2. Iinteresting hypothesis Polimom. My bet would be on a mixture of a) and c). I think the Administration believes that Iran has the ability to cause trouble in Iraq, but not the ability to cause/promote tranquility and calm. As such, if Iran can be intimidated into doing “nothing” then the US will have received the maximum benefits available. No ‘carrots’ will be needed.
    As to whether the “bullying” of Iran is likely to engender a pan-Shiite wave of sympathy, let alone a pan-Shiite determination to take actions in support of Iran, I doubt it. It reminds me of the old “all Catholics owe their first allegiance to the Pope” canard. Shiites and Catholics are not the same, but I suspect the Arab/Persian ethnic difference and the secular/theocratic government preference will prove more influential on the actions of non-Iraqi Shiites.
    Mubarak is an old man, scared, and wrong.

  3. Polimom, I note you used the word “if” 5 times in your piece. If we had bread we could have bread and butter if we had butter.

  4. Yes, I was very “iffy”. The entire train of thought was so dependent on suppositions, I had trouble making concrete statements.
    I’m glad I took the time to italicize some of them, to help with the count. :>

Read Next

Sliding Sidebar