Is the Iraq war in vain if the US does not attack Iran

Assuming that the US achieves all of its goal in Iraq will that be sufficient if it does not attack Iran.

The US and its allies have successfully ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, and are now trying to build a solid democracy in Iraq. Should they, however, leave before attacking Iran the whole war may backfire. Iran will use its influence to back Shiites such as al-Sadr, the anti-US cleric, and put them in power to establish an Iranian style theocracy, which is no democracy even though they elect their president. The supreme leaders are not elected but chosen from the elite to serve at their pleasure. Many ATS'ers are apologetic of Iranians, but Iranians are not friendly toward the US. They would like to wreak as much havoc as possible in the west. That's why the State department calls them the number one sponsors of terror in the world.

Syria is certainly under Iran's influence, and they are both shipping arms and insurgents to Iraq. There is a possibility that if the US leaves the mid east, Iraq and Afghanistan, without attacking Iran, that this formidable country will be the most influential country in the mid east. We will then see anti US policies in all these countries, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The benefits of attacking Iran seem many. First, not only do we prevent Iranian anti US policies from spreading throughout the mid east, we also prevent countries such as Russia or China from intervening to make sure that the mid east is influenced by them.

In the long run, if we are to have democracy and prosperity in Iraq we need it in Iran too.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is at an all time low and its resources are stretched thin. We pose no real threat to Iran, which is why Iran is misbehaving.

We could bomb Iran, and the Iranian leadership would love nothing more than for us to bomb Iran as that would strenghten the Iranian leadership's popularity amongst its own people. If our bombing was so extensive it undermined the Iranian regime's power, we would be unable to occupy Iran and fill in the power vacuum. The last thing our country wants is to have Iraq and Iran in a state of chaos.

Ultimately, Iran has put itself in a great bargaining position. The Iranian menace will go away when we give Iran what it really wants, a great sphere of influence of Iraq.

Very wrong, the Iranian youth actually don't hate the U.S., it's the government who is anti-west, and the older ones. The Iranian youth didn't live for the embassy take over and such so they are much more pro-west then most people would think. People who think that all Iranian are anti-west mearly are fueling the Iran-U.S. tensions.

It would be a complete mistake to do anything to Iran. We messed up Iraq so we need to fix it and thats it. Nothing to do with Iran, that is for the Iraqi government to deal with, and maybe U.S. troops to help defend Iraq, but not an offensive. We have used our one aggresive card for awhile, and a bad time to use it really.

-Reform America

Well the question does have to be asked if the insurgency in Iraq could be defeated using militarily means without expanding the war into Syria and Iran ?
The final answer remains uncertain because the coalition has failed to secure Iraq borders and put measure in place to detect tunnels and to stop smuggling.

My answer leans towards no and that the insurgents supply lines need to come under a lot more pressure. The problem is how to target the insurgents supply lines IEDs can be manufactured in someone's backyard. Special Forces and air strikes would seem to be the best way to go.

At the end of the day the US still doesn't have enough troops to win the war militarily by separating the insurgency from the local population , winning the hearts and minds battle and fighting the enemy on the US terms or forcing them to lay down there arms. So in other words even if the war was expanded into Syria and Iran could contribute to winning the war in Iraq militarily but it wouldn't solve the US military man power shortages.

The Iraq war is in vain regardless of whether we attack Iran or not.
The US will never achieve it's goals in Iraq, period.

Starting another pointless and doomed campaign is not going to change that.

Reform America says that Iran youth is not anti US, but it appears that the whole of Iran is up in arms whenever they can unite against a western power, as TV images of people demanding trial over the British sailors they caught remind us of.

According to Iranian media,

www2.irna.ir...

the Iranians would like nothing more than to see the US leave Iraq after which the Iraqi's will supposedly "feel relaxed in a short while." This supports the claim that Iranians want to become the leading power in the middle east. Once the US would be gone they would be free to provide Iraqi insurgents with all the weapons they need and secure Shiite power in Iraq, possibly by propelling Al-Sadr to power. This would mean that the whole middle east would be subject to Iranian influence. All parties in the middle east, including Saudi Arabia, ally to the US, are aware of this threat. This suggests that the insurgents cannot be beaten unless the war is expanded into Iran and Syria.

What is interesting about the above article is that the Iranian media appears to be stepping up anti US rhetoric, which is yet another proof that the Iranian public is being manipulated and is susceptible to anti US propaganda.

I doubt that it is true that US resources are so stretched that they don't have they capacity to launch an attack on Iran. Should the US and NATO not attack Iran before withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan they risk increased Iranian influence in these countries. Iranian influence would mean governments that are hostile to the US and EU. Such a predicament would in the long run set the stage for Russian and Chinese intervention and influence in the mid east.

China obviously thinks that Iran is strategically significant and would like to have influence there as the following story from todays People's Daily suggests:

Despite many variables and the complicated situation in the Middle East, there is one thing that remains clear. The United States cannot reverse its current downhill trend in the Middle East. Iran's rise and its challenging gestures will further accelerate the decline of the United States presence within the region. In the emerging "new Middle East", Iran will certainly play a role that can not be ignored.

english.people.com.cn...

honestly we cannot go to war with iran and syria because 1 its too expensive 2 we dont have enough troops 3 the rest of the world s not backing us from what i can tell and finally if we did so there would most likely be a draft in place.

Originally posted by razor1000
honestly we cannot go to war with iran and syria because 1 its too expensive 2 we dont have enough troops 3 the rest of the world s not backing us from what i can tell and finally if we did so there would most likely be a draft in place.

But that seems to be what is happening. Just today Bush condemned the detention of Iranian-Americans

edition.cnn.com...

So he is seizing every opportunity to try to start a fight with the Iranians.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Prokurator]

Prokurator,
Its like Xmotex said, the Iraq War is already in vain.

To extend that disasterous failure any further against a formiddable force such as Iran, it would be suicidal. Right now our Army and Marine Corps (who would be tasked with fighting the Persians) are being ground into the dust as we speak.

Air war can't do Iran alone.

Anyone who thinks such is a Wolfowitzian fool.

WHO is going to fill our ranks when Iran becomes operational? It will require a draft and no politician today has the cojones to make that happen. (Well a few do, but nobody listens to them.)

Iraq has taken us into Alice and Wonderland territory.

Our leaders really screwed the pooch when they took Saddam out. He used to be the great counter-balance to Iranian influence in the region.

Its time to disengage from Iraq (through phased redeployments). The War is a lost cause.

(That is not a reflection of the men and women who serve, but those idiots who have led them into the impossible)

Neither Iran nor Syria are so dangerous to us or our interests that we need to go to war. Anyone pushing that crap is just scared and misinformed.

Prokurator, before you can judge what can and will and should happen in the mideast, you should study Mesopotamian and Persian history. The Old Testament of the Bible (like the Jewish captivity in Babylon) is good to read re: that history, too.

Better yet, just go back a little ways and take at "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Four Feathers." Fairly recent British history shows us a littany of errors to avoid in approaching that region.

EastCoastkid do you think any kind of military action against Iran would fail ?
Put another the goal from the outset is a determining factor on the possible level of success. An air war launched against Iran wouldn't effect an regime change but it could be effective against the insurgent supply lines.

What goals in measures do you would think would be effective in terms of military action against Iran and Syria ?

You might find this thread to be of interest.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by xpert11]

invading iran i think was the ultimate goal of invading afghanistan and iraq however it would be expensive we have more than enough of everything to take out the iranian military....while they do have a very advanced military they still wouldnt be a match for airstrike cruise missiles and other things that we have

Prokurator,

What you are stating is what the government wants, not what's actually true. Here is an Article about an Iranian man who wrote book talking about the Iranian youth.

Here is another article.

Here is a quote from an article from Asia Times

Iran is a country in which about 70 percent of the population is below the age of 30. It is within this age group that the unemployment rate is reported to be hovering around 24 percent. It seems that Iran's ruling class and its young population are focused on entirely different agendas. Within the rank and file of the ruling establishment, the issues of contention are liberalization of the government (rather, the denial of it) and strict interpretation of Islam. The youth of Iran, on the contrary, like young people anywhere else in the world, are driven by their collective ambitions of getting quality education so that they can get promising jobs and a good standard of living. Many are also enticed by the consumerism and free lifestyle of the West. But the hardliners' insistence on making their lust for the "good life" a crime, becomes just another reason why the feeling of alienation regarding the Islamic government is reported to be mounting among young Iranians.

There are a bunch more articles talking about this. It's up to you to weed through the propaganda to get the truth. If you feel that ALL Iranian's are anti-American then so be it, but I'll tell you to not believe everything the government tells you, after all, look what happened in Iraq.

-Reform America

Originally posted by xpert11
EastCoastkid do you think any kind of military action against Iran would fail ?

I think it a strike on Iran would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq.

An air war launched against Iran wouldn't effect an regime change but it could be effective against the insurgent supply lines.

yah, if you buy into the adminstration's claims. I wouldn't believe anything they said at this point. That's kind of the scariest thing.

What goals in measures do you would think would be effective in terms of military action against Iran and Syria ?

I think a lot of good old fashioned diplomacy is called for. Not military action.