# Iran 'will help US to leave Iraq' (BBC News)



## Yrys (9 Dec 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6164505.stm

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said Tehran is willing to help the US withdraw from Iraq.

But he added that Iran would only assist if the Americans changed their attitude towards Tehran. 

...


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2006)

IMHO the only way the US should withdraw from Iraq is thru Iran...

I've seen way to much Iranian made kit in Afghanistan and Iraq to believe they are so noble as willing to help anything.  They are the ENEMY pure and simple.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2006)

Iran is the prime mover of instability and chaos in Iraq; if the Americans reject defeatest formulations like the Iraq Study Group and take vigorous steps to ensure a victory in Iraq (and it is possible), then Iran will be disadvantaged. With a brittle social and political structure relying on a decaying petroleum infrastructure (Iran imports gasoline!) this may be enough to cause that regime to collapse as well; a vindication of the Bush Doctrine and a huge slap for the MSM, Democrats and other defeatists.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2006)

+1 Art -- which leads me to beleive that the focus on the ISG - was not to look for a winnable solution -- but to humiliate Bush Jr.


----------



## FastEddy (16 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> IMHO the only way the US should withdraw from Iraq is thru Iran...
> 
> I've seen way to much Iranian made kit in Afghanistan and Iraq to believe they are so noble as willing to help anything.  They are the ENEMY pure and simple.




Is it too late to put that on our Christmas Wish List ?. Damn it, I knew I forgot something.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... the focus ... was not to look for a winnable solution -- but to humiliate Bush Jr.



A _focus_ which is shared by the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jacques Chirac, Stépane Dion and tens, probably hundreds of millions of _ordinary_ Iranian, French and Canadian citizens and, at least, a substantial minority of the citizens of 190 other countries.

I’m afraid, despite the best efforts and acknowledged popularity, even _star power_ of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, the Bush administration’s _public diplomacy_ has been nothing short of an abysmal failure – maybe the worst in US history.  I have said before, and I repeat, President Bush is a hugely _divisive_ leader; nothing terribly wrong with that – just so long as _everything_ you do is *right*.  But, while the _masses_ don’t much like _winners_, they despise failure.


----------



## Red 6 (16 Dec 2006)

You're absolutely right Edward, the administration has done a lousy job of selling the war to the American people. and to the wider world. At this point, it's basically too late to change the perceptions that people hold. It's a shame, because the Iranian government IS the enemy, but for the life of me, I don't understand why more people don't see that. It's a good example of how so many Americans are stuck in the old paradigm.


----------



## Desert Fox (21 Dec 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right Edward, the administration has done a lousy job of selling the war to the American people. and to the wider world. At this point, it's basically too late to change the perceptions that people hold. It's a shame, because the Iranian government IS the enemy, but for the life of me, I don't understand why more people don't see that. It's a good example of how so many Americans are stuck in the old paradigm.



Selling the war? The US administration messed this one up before it even started. Failure to secure a useless UN resolution which would bring about support from Canadian Liberals and the French is the first problem. The US wasn't able to sell the idea to NATO, let alone the world as whole. Like you said Red, its too late now, they underestimated the long term in Iraq. As a result George won't be able to get his hat-trick (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran). Had the US rolled into Tehran (I realise the implacations of this) at the same time as Afghanistan *instead of touching Iraq in 2003*, while global opion favoured the US in the wake of 9/11 it may have worked.  None the less, Bush impressed Daddy by getting Saddam...


----------



## Red 6 (21 Dec 2006)

Now we're left with Hobson's choice. No matter what we do in Iraq, the end state of the mission will not be what the administration wanted when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Now the president is stating that we're going to ramp up the number of troops in Iraq. He's not giving a specific number, but there's no way it'll be a large enough force structure to seal Iraq's borders. At this point, the military solution will not fix what's broken in Iraq. 

To me, the fundamental questions we need to ask are:

1) What is the end state we are trying to achieve?
2) What are we willing and able to commit to make it happen?
3) How far are we willing to go to achieve victory?
4) How important is it that we get what we want?
5) What clearly defined phase lines will we use to judge how well we're doing?
6) What redundancy is built into our planning to ensure we can flex for unexpected contingencies?
7) What will the situation look like if we do not achieve our strategic and operational objectives?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2006)

I will go out on a very long limb here, but the USN is scheduled to deploy into the Persian Gulf early in the New Year as a demonstration to Iran and a warning to cease and desist in exporting their revolution, working on the bomb etc. A concurrent deployment of US forces in the same geographical area both reinfoces the message and also provides insurance shoudl the Iranians try something stupid in response to the Naval deployment.


----------



## Red 6 (21 Dec 2006)

There isn't a way in the world we can invade Iran with the current force structure. It would definitely be a "go it alone" war and it would take a full scale mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. In any event, with the size of the US Army and the need for contingency forces to remain uncommitted, we couldn't do it. Invading Iran would cause major, major shock waves through the region and the world. I, for one,  hope we don't exercise this option.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> There isn't a way in the world we can invade Iran with the current force structure. It would definitely be a "go it alone" war and it would take a full scale mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. In any event, with the size of the US Army and the need for contingency forces to remain uncommitted, we couldn't do it. Invading Iran would cause major, major shock waves through the region and the world. I, for one,  hope we don't exercise this option.



Perhaps a call to FTD and they could say it with flowers?  

And by "flowers" I of course mean "cruise missiles".  Back to the _decapitation_ suggestion from one of our learned friends....


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I will go out on a very long limb here, but the USN is scheduled to deploy into the Persian Gulf early in the New Year as a demonstration to Iran and a warning to cease and desist in exporting their revolution, working on the bomb etc. A concurrent deployment of US forces in the same geographical area both reinfoces the message and also provides insurance shoudl the Iranians try something stupid in response to the Naval deployment.



On the other hand Art, perhaps the deployment is a holding measure designed to remind Ahmadinejad that there are still more tools in the toolbox: just in case he decides that now is the time to act.  From his standpoint GWB looks to be weak as folks try to answer R6's questions and his own power base is seriously threatened by losses in recent elections, the resurgence of Hafsanjani and the moderates among the religious leaders, and the recent vote to shorten his term (for watching dancing girls at a foreign public event).

With Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan,  there is a lot in play just now.  And it is not all going Ahmadinejad's way.  That makes things even more dangerous.

By the way R6 - I am inclined to believe that the problem in Iraq is a surfeit of planning and setting measurable targets and timelines.  Timelines etc set up expectations.

Somethings just require a commitment and an ongoing effort, like a clean house.

When will I know my house is clean?  When I know that it is clean.  Will it be clean tomorrow? Only if I keep working at it.

Perhaps that type of commitment isn't possible in a democracy.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> UN resolutions, screwed up the war, divisive leaders, enough of the old re-hash B.S.....maybe it is time for another nation to step up to the plate to expend their money and treasure.  Any takers?



Only the Western powers have the ability to project military power around the world, so any takers will be taking a ride courtesy of the USN and USAF.

The other thing we need to think about is what are the "interests" of these presumptive other powers. If the Chinese were to move in and smack down the Iranian theocracy would this end up as a positive development for the West? I don't think so.


----------



## Desert Fox (21 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Only the Western powers have the ability to project military power around the world, so any takers will be taking a ride courtesy of the USN and USAF.
> 
> The other thing we need to think about is what are the "interests" of these presumptive other powers. If the Chinese were to move in and smack down the Iranian theocracy would this end up as a positive development for the West? I don't think so.



I think its much more restrictive then you make seem., Western powers such France, the UK, Germany, Spain, and even Canada, have significant military power, However they all lack the abiity to project there power around th world. Yes, France and the  UK have the great ability among this second tier of nations, to project limited power in various places around the world, but individually they can not sustain themselves. The only state that has the ability to do so is the US. China is regarded by many as a superpower, and this holds truth in terms of economics, however they are a non actor outside of thier regional location due to the lack of the ability to throw thier weight around. They are bound to marching troops to where ever it is they want to  go. Hence why China is still consided an emerging super power, while the western great powers mentioned above are considered to be in slow decline.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2006)

Here's the sad fact - there are never enough policemen because nobody wants to pay for them.

That was true of American Colonists not wanting to pay taxes to support the British Army covering their borders and maintaining order (and the Royal Navy keeping their trade routes open).  It is true of every nation today.

Everybody wants order. Nobody wants to pay for it. Nobody trusts the guy willing to supply it for free.

Successful empires have all been based on the profit motive.  They go into decline when revenues fall and security costs rise.

The Chinese, not being complete fools, are following the examples of the East India Companies, both Dutch and British.  Make a deal with whoever to financial advantage. Put your own people in places of power.  Hire locally.  Take on such private security as is necessary.  Leave the army at home to keep the peasantry in line.  You want a Canadian example of a Chinese Company look at the Hudson's Bay Company.

The solution is to outbid the Chinese on the market - but that demands getting rid of all of this sophistry about only doing business with "nice" people.  

Make the deal.  Once you have the deal made then you can start exerting some of that reforming neo-colonialist pressure.  The strange thing is that the same people that are calling for engagement of China and Saddam et al, in order to modify their behaviours, are the same people calling for disengagement from the governments of Pakistan, Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe.  

There is little hope that we can influence China.  There is every chance in the world of being able to influence Zimbabwe and keep them from doing business with undesirable regimes.


----------

