Will the US attack Iran before we leave Iraq?

[Jason_Els]

If we do not take out Iran's nuclear facilities then Israel will, giving all of Israel's enemies reason to attack Israel in response. The US has pledged to protected Israel against all enemies. We get drawn in and the scenario unfolds as below.

If we take out Iran's nuclear facilities then Iran will surge troops across the Iraqi border and not only will we be facing Iran, we will be attempting to hold hostile, insecure territory in the process. Syria enters on the side of Iran while Russia dispenses arms to Iran and Syria on a lend/lease basis. Once again we're caught fighting another major power on a proxy basis only now we have to hold on to a hostile Iraq, a hostile Afghanistan, keep tiny Israel safe, defeat Iran, and prop-up Saudi and Pakistan so their governments don't fall to hostile groups already active within their borders.

If we withdrawn from Iraq then Turkey invades Kurdistan, Iran, backed indirectly by Russia, takes southern Iraq, and Sunni Iraq becomes a Vicy-like client state of Iran unless international efforts can bring it under Jordanian rule or create a UN protectorate. We set-up base in Qatar to defend Saudi. Meanwhile, Iran works to overthrow the Saudi government to capture the oil-rich northeastern shore of Arabia where Shia predominate.

There are no good answers in this. What we could truly use is a statesperson of great respect and impeccable credentials to act as a moderator. Someone acceptible to Russia, Iran, and the Arab League. They broker a deal so that Russia can still protect her interests via Syria, Afghanistn, and Iran, while the US can still protect her interests in Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Saudi. Iraq can be split into three separate areas, nominally independent, but functionally controlled by their associated regional power. Each of the three states will be DMZ areas with Kurdistan protected under NATO aegis. Insure Turkey's cooperation by (indirectly) using admission to the EU as a reward (and expulsion a potential punishment) for not invading Kurdistan.

Pakistan is thornier but to successfully construct a solution requires the cooperation of Iran, Russia, India, and the US. Ideally Pakistan is again split into two entities, a secular south and a Pashtu north, handing the Pashtu regions of Afghanistan to the newly formed northern government. The rest of Afghanistan can be sectioned off to other countries who have ethnic minorities there (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) though it won't be easy. Like Yugoslavia after the fall of Tito, the ethnic groups aren't in neat little rows:



This will be the hard part. If we get it right though, we can give everybody most of what they want and tensions should be lessened considerably. It is also very helpful to the rest of the world to get rid of the ungovernable countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also gives the Pashtun an actual nation state of their own and nation states are something that the US (and other nations) can deal with far easier than dealing with an international ethnic groups that doesn't respect borders as the rest of the world does. They get self-determination and responsibility. We get someone we can embargo, bribe, and otherwise deal with on a one-to-one basis; something Musharraf can't do because he has next to no control over those provinces. Besides, I think Musharref would like being dictator of half of Pakistan instead of being dead.

So who should go? Here's my list of power brokers who I think could get this done.

Václav Havel - Former President of Czech Republic
Mary McAleese - President of Ireland
Oscar Arias Sanchez - President of Costa Rica
Mario Enrique Villarroel Lander - Venezuelan. Former President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The following may possibly be helpful as intermediaries in certain areas:

Nelson Mandela - Former President of South Africa. IF he's up to it.
Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah - King of Bahrain
Prince Karīm al-Hussaynī Aga Khan IV
Muammar al-Gaddafi - Leader of Libya
Mohammed Ben Al-Hassan - King of Morocco

[gentlearts]

If only we had the manpower and the money left, that little wart in Iran needs to be taken out.

[dubuqueaskme]

Quite personally, I think we may have a BIG chance of losing a war against Iran. All of Iran's allies who dont like/ or are on the fence with America would join in, and I dont think the European countries (our main allies) would want to get involved due to their proximity to Iran. We'd be wrong for starting another war. We are all ready in 2 wars, the war on terrorism, and the war in iraq. I think that Iran and Al Qaeda are probably close allies, and IRAN and Al Qaeda are setting a trap for us to attack Iran.

[Jason_Els]

If Iran and al Qaeda are allies it is only an alliance of convenience. al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia. I think Iran is happy to indirectly help, to a point, any group who creates problems for the United States but they don't dare let it get out that they're assisting al Qaeda in any way. It would give Iran's enemies the moral force to damage Iran's standing in the world. They would lose all support from their allies. There are credible reports that bin Laden has crossed into the Pashtun regions eastern of Iran several times probably with Iran's knowledge but not acknowledgement.