Iran Vs. Iraq: Comparison and Contrast

[greekspeak]

Iraq: Most of the world either stood by with a red face or spoke out, while a few "willing" participants, with Poland at the forefront, went along with America.

Iran: Red faces are liable to turn into itchy trigger fingers as world leaders turn on America. The willing are saying "we'll sit this one out, thanks."
----------------

Iraq: A smallish nation, de-fanged by years of sanctions and intense western oversight. A fairly westernized place in the Middle East, no friend of America, but relatively placid compared to some Middle Eastern nations. Hot, but flat. Lots of easy targets

Iran: A larger, stronger nation with a lot of fangs. A nation led by religious fundamentalists, full of religious fundamentalists. Full of anger for the West. Hot and lots of mountains. Land invasion would be hell.
----------------

Iraq: Hardly a nation full of terrorists, but that has become one.

Iran: A nation full of terrorists just waiting to die and go to Paradise for the small price of taking out a few infidels.
----------------
Iraq: Comparative walk in the park

Iran: Fasten your seatbelts...you are going to find out what a real bumpy ride is like.

As the administration rattles its sabers to Iran with the same rhetoric it used for Iraq, a mess that years later is an even BIGGER mess, they sell a cake-walk war to Americans. Iran is NOT Iraq. If this administration starts a war with Iran, it may be the powder keg that sets off World War III. This is not fun and games. This is NOT a pretty package of sound-bites with fake turkeys and flower and candy and staged photo-ops of toppled statues. Arab countries are NOT simply going to sit back and murmur this time. Less Americans are going to cheer this idiot in chief on. Alas, I fear that we are about to see what a hurt-lock the world can put on America.

[enigma000]

1. Iran is not full of anger for the West

It has a very young population that has pro-Western sympathies. And I'm not sure how all that vintage 1970s Soviet weaponry will fair against a couple of US armored divisions. But the Iranians have had military practice as of late: they have been cracking down on their own people.

[Zynx]

3. That view of Iran is Western garbage.

They have bought significant amounts of new equipment, not necessarily tanks though because there is no point in taking on the US military in a set-piece battle. You will find that US armored divisions aren't for spit when attempting to take Iranian cities from tens if not hundreds of thousands of devoted militant followers of the regime. Sure they may not be able to take us head on, but they hardly need to.

Secondly, the point about the population is VERY misleading. There is a PORTION of the population that has Western sympathies and there is no evidence that is even a majority. We do have evidence of very significant elements that are fanatically loyal to the regime. What's more, we have alienated some of the moderates in Iran with our stance on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran is an intensely nationalistic country and our belligerence towards them only strengthens the government's hand.

[enigma000]

4. I was thinking primarily of young Iranians with pro-West sympathi

But, yes, certainly the regime must have many supporters. This is unlike the situation in Iraq where Saddam had few core supporters (maybe half the Sunni Arab portion of the population). The question is, how do we engage the moderates?

[Zynx]

5. It certainly isn't by threatening the country.

[K-W]

6. No, the Iran as a cult of martyrs is western garbage.

Iranians aren't preparing to die out of fanatical loyalty to a regime, they are preparing to die because they think they are going to be attacked. They think the US is going to rain fire on thier cities, and vaporize them with atomic weapons.

The Iranian regime has fanatical backers, so does the American Regime. Most Iranians are not fanatics. Invading Iran would certainly be difficult, but we wouldn't be facing swarms of crazed Iranians, we would be facing an organized guerrilla campaign.

But you are absolutely right about US actions. Alot of the nationalism in Iran, like the nationalism in the US is driven by fear. And in Iran's case the fear isnt completely manufactured because the US really is a threat to Iran.

[HamdenRice]

2. Iran has one more advantage: three years watching Iraq

Hostile countries have intensely studied the Iraqi resistance to figure out how to confront the US. Apparently, Iran has trained whole divisions in insurgency tactics.

If the US invades, I suspect that Iran will not confront the spearhead but the country will become one huge guerilla army.

On the other hand, the US plan is not to invade and occupy Iran, but to bomb its nuclear facilities.

The battle of Iran will not be in Iran, but in Iraq. Iran will retaliate by encouraging a Shiite uprising in Iraq, and sending in thousands of guerillas with IEDs.