Will the invasion of Iraq lead to a nuclear Iran?Follow

The assumption of most apologists for the war in Iraq is that it was nessicary to remove Saddam from power because of his potential to destabalize the reigon by persuing WMD and essentially throwing a match into the Isreali nuclear powderkeg forcing Isreal to take some sort of drastic military action.

They also point to the deterrent effect on other nations persuing WMD of the US invading Iraq on the WMD pretense premtively. Lybia is frequently used as an example of this. The fantasy, of course, being that Lybia was any closer to producing a nuclear device than I am in my garrage.

Allow me to offer a counter point to both of these theories by examing the case of Iran.

Prior to the invasion, Iran had been persuing a nuclear program, as it should be noted most nations do at one point or another. They had been presuing it, however, in what could be called a "casual" way. While being a Muslim Theocracy with a hatred for Isreal, even the Iranian leadership was leary of invoking the wrath of the UN Security Council, particularly after the support the US was shown after 9-11.

The invasion, however, changed the climate for them, drasitcally. After the US invasion Iran had a vested intrest in persuing WMD much more agressively, and did so. The invaasion made the climate more favorable for Iran to do son in a few ways:

1. The US's uniltateral action in Iraq removed any threat of signifigant large scale action being taken against Iran by either the US or the UN. By committing a signifigant number of US troops to Iraq, the US created a situation where Iran could begin to impact US troop commitments, and more importantly flexibility.

I submit that were I Iran in the same tactical situation they found themselves in a few months after the invasion, I would have sent intelligence forces and paramilitaries into Iraq for a few reasons. Firstly, I'd have the opportunity to kill Amercians with impunity, with the added bonus of having my arch enemies blamed for it (the Baathists). Secondly I'd have a chance to forment religous unrest with the intent of stearing public oppinion towards my end goals, using Sistani as the lens with which to focus my desires.

Not cooincidentaly, I could easily play both sides against the US middle without much trouble as well. Were I to provide arms and logistical support to forces in Fallujah at the same time as providing Sistani as an honest broker for peace talks for instance. Regardless of the end result, I win.

2. With the US removing any semblence of enforcement power from the UN, I'm free to persue nuclear weapons much more agressively, with the added benefit of stealing whatever I can through the porus border with Iraq and the atrocious security there. I also have a brand new hedge against Isreali action because the US will be putting enormus political pressure on them not to take military action anywhere near Iraq. Further, I have more justification in court of world public oppinion to persue defensive nuclear weapons because the US has essentially opened the world's largest military base on my boreder without UN or world approval.

3. The US actions in relation to the North Korean nuclear situation have displayed incredilbe weakness to me, lessing condiederably my fear of even an overextended US taking action against me I should I come close to aquitring weapons. I can now be open about my persuit of weapons and I have numerous examples of the US ignoring various proliferation and world court treaties to justify my actions. I can, in fact, invoke the Bush doctrine of premtively taking this action defend my nation against future nuclear threats which don't exist yet. Just as the US has in Iraq.

In short, I think it's quite possible that when the argument is made that invading Iraq prevented terrorists from getting nuclear devices which could be used to attack US targets, the very opposite may actually be the case. Iran has much stronger ties with Islamic terrorists, and much more motivation to offer them a weapon. Invading Iraq may very well have made the US the least safe from Nuclear attack is has ever been.

Just something to think about.

Although, I do agree that some sections of Iranian society will use this opportunity, Iran is getting way MTV'd out. With a free internet there and Malls(!!!)..it's only a matter of time before they make PersianDisney.

Also since the United States destroyed its credibility any future attempt to instigate a pre-emptive strike against a foreign power will be put under harsh scrutiny and especially if done in the middle east.

Also the Iranians could easily garner international sympathy by saying that the US is repeating Iraq and doing nothing more than empire building or imposing its form of government upon the muslim world.

All of a sudden America is viewed as the Evil Empire around the world and gets zero support.

Yeah, cause that didn't sound sockish.

A case could be made that the war in Iraq could also send Iran spiraling backwards as well. Although the nuclear threat is reaching a peak now it can only stand to ebb. With Iranian leadership focusing on weapons development and exhausting resources in Iraq its own people are becoming more and more cosmopolitan by the day as Pickle mentioned. I do think Kerry would take tougher stances on Korea and Iran which might have the effect of boiling over the tension or suppressing it. The UN has made itself look weak in the Middle East for years now I dont think the perception has changed much before or after the invasion. Saddam has been playing the UN like a fiddle. What the US did in Iraq wasnt necessarily wrong, but it was horribly planned. If our role in the world community is to play good cop/bad cop with the UN so be it. We should be prepared for escalating tensions and realize that the road ahead may be difficult. However, if we're not willing to face that challenge alone then perhaps we need a tough leader who wants to work more concertedly with international powers.

The UN has made itself look weak in the Middle East for years now I dont think the perception has changed much before or after the invasion.

Um, Gulf 1 was weak?

No, everything after Gulf1 was weak... oh and

*cough Oil4Food*

Casual or intensive, Iran is working towards nuclear capability. Either way, we have a vested interest in preventing them from gaining that dangerous ability. That said, I find it extremely unlikely the US would take steps as they did in Iraq to keep Iran from getting nukes. The same goes for North Korea.

Totem

Only to those who believed we should have pulled Saddam from Baghdad back then. And not left the rebellion of the Shi'ites, Kurds or whomever abandoned. Not that I necessarily agree with these views, having been corrupted and confused from watching "Three Kings" far too many times.

blowing up aspirin manufacturers is hardly a bloody nose..

blowing up aspirin manufacturers is hardly a bloody nose..

You could at least get the country right Lefein.