There seems to be only one winner in the fiasco known as the "Iraq War". Iran. Since it is inevitable that the Democrats will win the 2008 election, US troops will likely be leaving sometime in 2009. This will leave a power vacuum that Iran has already stated they are ready, and willing, to assume. They're already building power plants for the city of Najaf in Iraq...

Iran to build powerplant in Iraq

Does anyone else think this is the only solution to the current situation? Just let Iran have the damn mess.

Saddam has been removed and we have found no weapons of mass destruction. Mission was already accomplished. Would it not be best to just give governing control to Iran? Iran is a democracy after all. So in a round about way, we bring democracy to that country, and leave it in some semblance of order. The only downside is losing some international credability; something which as we all know, is already pretty tarnished.

Iran then assumes all the problems assoicated with different fighting factions of Iraq, and Iraq benefits from the youth of Iran who are opposed to their current leader. All it takes is one US sniper bullet to put an end to Amadeenajad (or however you spell it) and a better leader takes control of the whole mess. The people of Iraq benefit from oil prices and build a stable economy and middle class. They have a stake in the world and are no longer a threat to us or any other nation.

Problem solved!

No need to thank me.

A couple of problems there....

Iran has always fed into the Iraqi power grid. It's probably cheaper for them to build plants in Iraq then it is for them to fix their transmission lines which in some cases are not powerful enough to power a single light bulb after they cross the border into Iraq. I think that is all this story is really about but if it is not.......

Iran does not want to help the country anymore then it wants to help Lebanon (where it is approx a 50-50 split Shia-Sunni). It's a Sunni view point that the Shia in Iraq are allied with Iran. It's not necessarily true.

Historically, the Shia were in Iraq first. I doubt that there is widespread trust of the Iranian government in Iraq among the Shia but the Sunnis think there is. Also, the problem would not end there as the Saudi's discriminate against the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia and that country is really the target NOT Iraq.

The Saudi's are not stupid and they realize they are the target. So you can imagine what it means for Iraq's future if Iran gets heavily involved with Iraq without an agreement with the Saudis (not going to happen unless they pull back in Lebanon which Iran is not likely to do).

Iran wants three things, the additional Oil revenue and additional ability to control Oil exports (in the hopes it can get it's economic embargo lifted), also wants access to the population to use as cannon fodder in foreign lands, last it wants a launching pad for attacks and destabilization of Saudi Arabia. Thats basically it. Iraq can continue to burn beyond those three goals as far as Iran is concerned.

One last point is that the majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni not Shia, it's like 80% or more are Sunni. If the Shia cause massive turmoil in Saudi Arabia or near it's religious shrines it's going to be a fairly large event across the region.

Nobody has won anything yet in Iraq and it is not a matter of winning anything it's a matter of that country standing on it's own two feet.

Erich...his may all be true and Iran, of course, is just using Iraq for its own ends. But the fact remains....all these groups you mention become Iran's problem. You know some sect there will not like Iran and start terrorist activities against them instead. I mean just reading off the list all of these fighting factions gave me a headache. It doesn't sound like something the US should be involved in anyway..like what's a "Sunni"? If 90% of our country can't answer that question, we have no business being there. We should not be involved in something we don't really understand. Although you seem to have a pretty good grasp of the situation, most here do not.

In any case, like it or not, Iran will be the controlling entitiy of that country when we leave (assuming the Democrats win). We can still maintain some kind of base there and use drones to patrol to make sure things don't get out of hand. We could also make Iran's control contingent on us having some oversight of its nuclear program.

Worth a shot I think since most of the candidates are talking withdrawl.

quote:

Originally posted by patriotmissile81:
In any case, like it or not, Iran will be the controlling entitiy of that country when we leave (assuming the Democrats win).

I don't think that will happen no matter what the future scenario. We'll see though. I suspect Iraq is using Iran right now for reconstruction and it figures it has to live with Iran anyways.

Once Iraq gets on it's feet the relationship will be more Iraq as a peer of Iran or superior to Iran. I just can't see Iran controlling Iraq for very long. BTW, Iraq has done OK for itself in 4-5 years, if you exclude the internal strife.

They had a awful lot of debt forgiven, some new infrastructure built and have developed somewhat of a consumer based economy. I don't think it has been a complete disaster over there and their Parliament is meeting again this month so we'll see if they make any more progress.