[lutherquick]

Iraq population: 26,783,383
Iran population: 68,688,433

Iraq land area: 437,072 sq km
Iran land area: 1,648,000 sq km

Only a fruit cake or a nut job would think America would attack Iran with the same PNAC "bright ideas" applied to Iraq. If Bush attacked it would be far worse than Iraq and would be 100 times more expensive. The delusional, PNAC crazies might do a little bombing, but that's about it.

[whereagles]

On a linear basis, it seems that Iran is nothing more than three times Iraq

But of course we all know that military difficulty/costs don't scale linearly

[shakespear1]

It's a bad idea any way you look at it. However I think the Bush White House has a case of tunnel vision and only sees what it wants to see, Democracy in Iran.

[mrflora]

I think the Bushies are (or were) hoping for purely internal "regime change" in Iran (with a little bit of help from the CIA and U.S. special forces). I don't think there's much hope of that.

A ground invasion is quite out of the question. A bombing campaign is likely. It would have to take out the uranium enrichment facilities, the long-range rockets (and probably the R&D/manufacturing facilities for them), the "Silkworm" antiship missiles, and the submarines. A tall order, but within U.S. capabilities. Whether it is worthwhile, given the inevitable oil price spike, is a call I cannot make.

Regards,
M.R.F.

[IanC]

There has been a lot of talk about Special Forces exploiting ethnic divisions in Iran similar to how we allied with the Kurds in N. Iraq to fight the Sunnis and Hussein. Does anyone have a good idea about the ethnic makeup of Iran? Is there a viable minority group that could be used to destabilize the Shiite government? Any chance of popular uprising?

It seems to me that Iran is a more ethnically homogenous country than Iraq, so partitioning the country and/or inflamming simmering tensions will be a lot harder.

-Ian

[whereagles]

About bombing:.. how can you destroy a nuclear research facility that is buried deep below bunker-busting bomb range?

I'd say that requires tactical nukes..

[rushdy]

Pffft, 'Tactical Nukes' indeed. I've seen your 'Smart Bombs'.

Whats Bush going to tell everyone when they miss and accidentally bomb Egypt?

[bobcousins]

Pffft, 'Tactical Nukes' indeed. I've seen your 'Smart Bombs'.

Whats Bush going to tell everyone when they miss and accidentally bomb Egypt?

"Stuff happens"
-- D. Rumsfeld

[marko]

There has been a lot of talk about Special Forces exploiting ethnic divisions in Iran similar to how we allied with the Kurds in N. Iraq to fight the Sunnis and Hussein. Does anyone have a good idea about the ethnic makeup of Iran? Is there a viable minority group that could be used to destabilize the Shiite government? Any chance of popular uprising?

It seems to me that Iran is a more ethnically homogenous country than Iraq, so partitioning the country and/or inflamming simmering tensions will be a lot harder.

Actually, Iran is just as ethnically diverse as Iraq, or more so. According to the CIA World Factbook, only 51% of Iran's population is ethnically Farsi. This is a smaller majority than the 60% of Iraqis who are Shiite Arabs. In fact, if the 51% figure comes from the Iranian government, it could be exaggerated, and the dominant Farsis might be a minority, albeit a plurality. They are overwhelmingly Shiite and dominate Iran politically and culturally.

The next biggest group is the Azeris (24%, some sources give a higher number). This group, which speaks a language close to Turkish, is the majority in the neighboring country of Azerbaijan. However, the Azeris are Shiite like the majority Farsis, and there is not much record of Azeri opposition to the government.

Each of the remaining minority groups makes up less than 10% of the population. Three of them (Gilaki and Mazandarani, together 8%; and Luri, 2%) are Shiites and ethnic cousins of the Farsis and seem well integrated with the dominant Farsis. The Turkmens (2%) also seem well integrated, and observers report that most young Turkmens speak Farsi and do not identify much with their ethnic origins. The only groups that have shown much evidence of separatist sentiment are the Kurds (7%), the Arabs (3%), and the Baloches (2%). These last three groups live in border regions.

The Sunni Kurds are the obvious allies for the US. They live along the Iraqi border, and their territory an obvious bridgehead for a US invasion (however farfetched that might seem at the moment). The Kurds are aware that the US has supported the autonomy of their brethren in Iraq, and no doubt some of them might hope to break free of Iran and form a pan-Kurdish state. Turkey, however, with its own large Kurdish miniority, would vigorously oppose this and would react with hostility to any US support for such a development.

Iran's Arab minority is also a hypothetical US ally, but I doubt that the US is endearing itself to Iranian Arabs. These mostly Shiite Arabs mostly live in Khuzestan, in the southwest, along the Iraqi border, and they are ethnically identical with the neighboring Shiite Arabs of Iraq. Iraq's Shiites are growing increasingly disenchanted with a US that is seen as using Shiite Arabs for its own purposes.

Finally, the Baloches, also known as Baluchis. There is a Baluchi separatist movement in neighboring Pakistan, and the Baloch/Baluchi extends from Pakistan into neighboring Iran. These are mostly tribal people who probably do not identify with the Farsis. However, they are also conservative Muslims (mainly Sunni) and are unlikely to be friendly to the US.

While Iran is ethnically diverse, there has not been much history of ethnic unrest outside Kurdistan. Iran's ruling class defines itself more in religious than in ethnic terms, and I think that there are few barriers to ethnic minorities who embrace Shiism and can speak Farsi, so there is not so much sense of grievance. Also, unlike Iraq, Iran has a history of stability within its present borders going back more than 3 centuries.

While the neocon dreamers in Washington may imagine that they can use ethnic division within Iran to bring down the regime, I think that the most that they could do would be to create a headache for Tehran along Iran's western border in Kurdistan.

[MOCKBA]

There has been a lot of talk about Special Forces exploiting ethnic divisions in Iran similar to how we allied with the Kurds in N. Iraq to fight the Sunnis and Hussein.

Iran would be totaly different gig then Iraq and would be more like Yugoslavia. There would be a little bit of bombing and big economic blockade, then UN peace-keeping/humanitarian aid would move in, then there would be subversion operations to rebel the majority against clerical regime (Iranian (the people, not the government) are quite favorable of the West, more favorable then any other country in the region). Then clerical regime would fall and UN would move out leaving pillage to neighboring Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. See, almost exactly like in Yugoslavia.

If there was any other way to pacify Iran (like doing it unilateraly) it would have been exploited by now. Since there is none, US is waiting on Iran to make a wrong move (like attacking Israel directly or inderectly or claiming that they have the bomb) to create an outrage and unanimous support for sanctions.

[Denny]

It's a bad idea any way you look at it. However I think the Bush White House has a case of tunnel vision and only sees what it wants to see, Democracy in Iran.

Actually, the real scary thing for the Bushies here is that the current whacko leader of Iran was democratically elected. So, he's got a lot more credentials than Saddam did. And, logically, on could expect a much bigger share of that larger population,vi-a-vis Iraq, would become "insurgents", which seems to be the new word for people who fight a foreign aggressor.

Whatever the PNAC crowd may say, I think the reality is they prefer dictators and monarchs, like their friends in Saudi Arabia.

[lutherquick]

Man, this doesn't end.

Interesting rant from the Iraqi President. He complains that Iran is shelling an area at the boarder in Iraq. The reason is that these Iraqi Kurds keep invading Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_ ... ran_turkey

Now I ask. What's the problem? Why is Iraqi President Jalal Talabani bitching that Iran is shelling Kurds invading Iran?

What is Iran to do? Roll over and play dead?

Iran needs to do what it needs to do. If Talabani can't control his Kurds then Iran needs to help Iraq into a civil war.

Deeper into the article the Iraqi president is insisting that Iraq "sovereign independent nation that won't let other nations interfere in its internal affairs" and that Iran should not interfere.

OK, fine, I agree...
But the dip sh!t misses the point, his Kurds are attacking Iran.
HELLO !!!
How friggen stupid are humans?

No wonder 99.99% of the people don't understand Peak Oil.

Say "Thank you" to Bush's intership of "bright ideas".

[jackal42]

Deeper into the article the Iraqi president is insisting that Iraq "sovereign independent nation that won't let other nations interfere in its internal affairs" and that Iran should not interfere.

the US interferes though???

[lutherquick]

The US doesn't interfere, it spreads love and democracy...
Ha, ha, and Enron is profitable....

[mekrob]

I hate when people group the Kurds with Iraq or Iran. They are actively against being with either nation, thus the wars. They are pretty content with just letting Iraq going to shit, as long as they have their peshmerga to protect their Kirkuk (too bad a few massive permanent US bases are right around Kirkut). The rest of Iraq never gave a shit about the Kurds, nor when the Kurds were attacking Iran. So why give a shit now when Iran is retaliating? Iran is hitting Kurdistan, not the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq. You're not getting shelled (yet), so shut the fuck up.

[hoplite]

Saladin was a Kurd. THe Kurds may yet have a role to play in the end game of modern civilization...

[lutherquick]

mekrob,

I have nothing bad to say about the Kurds, Iraqis or Iranians...
My point is that Talabani is complaining about Iran, when Iran is being attacked...

This is like Japan complaining about the US after Pearl Harbor... Ot Germany complaining about thwe Russians in Berlin in 1944... Or Germany complaining about UK/US bombing in 1944...

The words and the conversation are pointless...

If Iraq splits up, and even if Iran's Kurds join the Iraqi Kurds, that's not my argument...

My point is that news stories are becoming so theme based, so much symbolism and BS....

The math is simple, Iran will stop the shelling after the Kurds stop invading, whether it's right or wrong, these wars, I will keep that opinion to myself....

But if you put your hand in the fire, it hurts, I ask, what's the ephifiany here?

[Bleep]

Casts doubt on the veracity that Iraq and Iran fighting each other:
http://www.electricpolitics.com/2006/04 ... .html#more

[miraculix]

I would read it the opposite way

[zed]

I wouldn't believe anything you read in the mainstream media about Iraq/Iran. Possibly not even the alternative media either. There are lot of things going on behind the scenes, covert operations, and disinformation designed to suit the agenda of whomever is sponsoring them.

The point of the article in my opinion is that covert operations are the norm for something like the Iraq-Iran situation. We hear lots of reports about violence and bombings in Iraq but rarely do we hear exactly did them and for what specific reason. The bombing of the golden domed mosque comes most immediately to mind.

At this point all of the players (US, Iran, various Iraq groups) are keeping their agendas secret. But what actions are they taking today to attempt to make their visions come true? To what extent are these agendas and actions being hidden and how much of it is really reflected in the news articles coming out of the region?