Here’s my question : Would Iran be a cake walk for the US military as Iraq was?
All signs point to NO.
The first and foremost reason why not is the fact that unlike Iraq, Iran’s leaders were elected through a democratic process. Although the current Iranian regime won by a slim majority, if US were to attack Iran the political opposition would join the elected leaders. If there is no opposition to the current regime at the time of an attack (like there was in Iraq (Shites and Kurds)), US would have a hard time garnering internal support. Without internal support there is no peace in an antagonised population which would mean that US would have to act as an occupying force and we have all seen what a bang up job they do.
The second important reason is, who would support this invasion? Britain, US’s staunch ally, is ready to pull out of Iraq and I don’t see how Tony Blair could justify to the British an Iranian invasion after the unpopular Iraq debacle. Moreover, Britain seems more interested in a diplomatic route than a military route. The rest of Europe and Russia would be vehemently opposed to any form of military operation in Iran. China and India, who have investments in Iran are likely to be opposed to an invasion as well.
The third reason is the US citizens. After the Iraq controversy, would they go along with a controversial Iranian invasion? Again, most signs point to no. Support for Iraq in the US is falling drastically and I don’t know what “evidence” will enable the Bush administration to garner more than 50% support for an Iranian invasion. I mean, everyone already knows Iran wants a nuclear bomb and sooner or later are going to get it. Does it mean that they want to shower US, one of their major oil customers, with nuclear weapons? I would say no.
A nuclear weapon in the hands of a state is more like a bargaining chip than an actual weapon. And to think a state can launch an unprovoked nuclear attack is to think like a person with his head stuck in his ass. Nuclear weapons are used more to grease other negotiations on the table as India showed what could be achieved by becoming a nuclear power with the deal that was struck with the US last month. Unfortunately, this has set a bad precedence. The world and Iran have seen that as long as you have a nuclear weapon, the other party cannot snub you at the negotiating table.
Only a terrorist group can launch a nuclear attack. Does it mean Iran could pass this nuclear technology to terrorists? Sure it’s possible. But to attack a country based on “what ifs” like this is like throwing gasoline in a fire. Remember when USSR broke up everyone said that the nuclear technology is now unsafe and will be used by terrorists? What happened to that scenario? Nothing. The western world (primarily the US) negotiated with the countries formed after the break up of USSR secured most of the nuclear sites.
So why is it impossible to negotiate with Iran. Because of the underlying belief that Iran will use the nuclear weapon as a part of the Islamic Ideology to bomb Israel or US. That again is stupid and completely ostrich like. If a state (in this case Iran) carries out an unprovoked nuclear attack, it would be signing it’s death warrant.
The worst scenario is that even if US was able to bomb the nuclear sites in Iran to oblivion, what then? There will be an out and out war between Islam
nations and US. And the rest of the world will be caught in between and will have to choose sides.
That could be the beginning of the third world war. Are you ready for it?
Desi In Toronto 