Iraq and Iran

[sunnysan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...t-1855910.html

Very interesting article regarding the middle East. For me it made a few pennies drop so would like to test out my theories on a hostile audience.

The gist of the article is that the law of unintended consequence(Or massive miscalculation) will result in Iran effectively controlling Iraq as a vassal state.

In a nutshell, I think the alliance want to leave Iraq but in doing so we will effectively hand control of the region for all intents and purposes to the Iranians. The recent unrest in Iran has most probably, as accused by the Iranians, been agitated by foreign sources, frantic to effect regime change in Iran before they pull out of Iraq.

If my hypothesis is correct even partially, we have effectively fought a war using our countries lives and resources to further the aims of the very people who fund and propogate the ideology we are trying to defeat.

[AtW]

There are serious religious differences between Iran (shias) and Iraq (sunnies), this has been around for centuries and won't go away.

Iran has begun a local super power for sure - just wait for them to do a few nuke tests and that position will be pretty solid.

[gingerjedi]

There are serious religious differences between Iran (shias) and Iraq (sunnies), this has been around for centuries and won't go away.

Iran has begun a local super power for sure - just wait for them to do a few nuke tests and that position will be pretty solid.

Actually both countries have a Shia majority, Iraq with 60% and Iran 90%. Iraq invaded Iran because the Iraqi government feared a copycat Islamic revolution which would have ousted them from power.

HTH.

[threaded]

People of both areas have been killing each other in the name of whatever god not only before monotheism was some bizarre notion of an inbred Egyptian prince, but before we all stopped being hunter gatherers.

I doubt very much we'll ever see them living harmoniously.

[AtW]

Actually both countries have a Shia majority, Iraq with 60% and Iran 90%. Iraq invaded Iran because the Iraqi government feared a copycat Islamic revolution which would have ousted them from power.

Indeed - Iraq has got Shia majority (68%), in Iran Shias are 89% (at least according to CIA Factbook), consequently it seems plausible that Iraq can be broken into pieces some of which would go to Iran, then kurds might have their own state and the rest will be in Baghad.

All in all that would make Iran a major leader in that area - that's why it was smart to support Iraq in fight against Iran, at least that had moderating influence on ayatollahs.

Either way fecking up Iraq the way USA/UK did is a terrible misjudgement or more like criminal negligence.

[Doggy Styles]

I've always said that deposing Saddam was a massive blunder.

[AtW]

I've always said that deposing Saddam was a massive blunder.

He was perfect person to make deal with - cheap oil in exchange for support like in old times (minus WMDs).

Oil would have been at $10 now, and lots of problems in the world would not have happened.

Another bonus - Chelski would not have won any titles in that period.

[Clippy]

As abhorrent as it is to say, Saddam was the man to keep Iraq's warring ethnicities at bay as well as keep Iran in check.

Good work Blair/USA in ousting him - you were indeed correct, the world is better without him.

To the OP, your hypothesis seems plausible.

[MrMark]

I've always said that deposing Saddam was a massive blunder.

All speculation of course, but more than 1 source has said that we're interfering in the Middle East just to keep China out. Not that we're in any way successful, but it could all be part of the "big game"

[AtW]

it could all be part of the "big game"

Like outsourcing of all industry to China would not have been enough