Could Syria and Iran Be Next? - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 01-12-2007, 05:27 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic and Republican senators voiced strong concern on Thursday that the
Iraq war could spread to neighboring
Iran and
Syria if the U.S. military were to chase militants across the border.

President Bush, who accuses Iran and Syria of fomenting the violence in Iraq, on Wednesday proposed sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to try to restore security nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Bush sparked worries that the conflict may widen by his comment that "we'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Senators fear Iraq war may spill to Iran, Syria - Yahoo! News

Do you think this is a possibility? Could this be part of a plan to pressure Iran, especially, into a bone head move?

littlefranciscan · #2 (**permalink**) 01-12-2007, 10:54 AM

I would hope we don't send troops there as well...I just can't see why we can back away from all these other countries..Is it our responsability to solve all the world problems?

CHUQ · #3 (**permalink**) 01-12-2007, 12:59 PM

No one ever said that dems and repubs were intelligent. But I agree, for now.

deelip · #4 (**permalink**) 01-13-2007, 03:03 AM

I am afraid , we may have troops there from us hehe.

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 01-13-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neorealist234

I am fully convinced that an conflicy with iran will happen...I'm not saying I totally like the idea, but its going to happen regardless IMO.

Syria, not so much. They've already started to distance themselves from Iran, and they will even more as the stakes rise.

The Saudis have increased oil production, will then look for them to slash prices; Iran will have to adjust to keep their income up with that I look for them to make other ill-advised decisions and the possiblity of a US action of sorts.

CHUQ · #6 (**permalink**) 01-14-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neorealist234

I never thought about that....eureka! have you read this somewhere or is it your own idea?....having the Saudis flood the market with oil driving the price down, which will upset Irans oil revenues.

THe Saudi gov't truely is a US ally IMO...its people, thats a different story.

A combination of several things, 1st Cheney went to Saudi, then a re[ort saying that Iran's oil revenue could be gone by 2015, 2 and 2, sort of. There is a lot of stuff being done to provoke Iran, some subtle some not so.

CHUQ · #7 (**permalink**) 01-14-2007, 05:16 AM

An opinion about Bush's speech.

Bush's Iraq speech is less about resolving the calamitous situation in Iraq than about setting the stage for a widening of the war. US blogger Andrew Sullivan, himself once a supporter of the Iraq aggression, has it about right:

"My gut tells me that this speech was, in fact, a serious military warning to Syria and Iran. This president may have in mind a future escalation far greater and more explosive than anything we're doing in Baghdad. The real reason we're not withdrawing is that we are keeping our options open for a wider war. And the president, as always, is not being honest about his real intentions."

Indeed, it is hard to see how the additional troops being dispatched can make much of a difference to the situation on the ground in Iraq. The new deployment is opposed, not just by US and world public opinion, but, interestingly, by the Iraqi government as well. The reluctant premier al-Maliki clearly fears that the new US troops will be turned against his own supporters, largely to appease a Saudi oligarchy allegedly fretful over the fate of Iraqi Sunni Arabs and in reality fearful, as ever, for their own plutocratic skins. The most likely consequence in Iraq of the upping of the violence is therefore a further disintegration in the residual political support for the US-British occupation - amid, of course, an increase in the already horrific casualty rate.

Comment is free: Words of warning

#8 (**permalink**) 01-15-2007, 09:38 AM

I can’t help thinking that one reason Bush doesn’t want US troops back –and now increasing them- is to have iran surrounded.
Though even I don’t think it’s possible to attack iran at least now –and today I heard in CNN it’s not going to happen, thank god! though it's not still off the table – I think Iran’s leaders are counting on that too much.

CHUQ · #9 (**permalink**) 01-16-2007, 04:59 AM

I agree with neo--there is too much in the news saying it will not happen--the old saying--me thinks they do protest too much.

lordoftheworld · #10 (**permalink**) 01-16-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUQ

An opinion about Bush's speech.

Bush's Iraq speech is less about resolving the calamitous situation in Iraq than about setting the stage for a widening of the war. US blogger Andrew Sullivan, himself once a supporter of the Iraq aggression, has it about right:

"My gut tells me that this speech was, in fact, a serious military warning to Syria and Iran. This president may have in mind a future escalation far greater and more explosive than anything we're doing in Baghdad. The real reason we're not withdrawing is that we are keeping our options open for a wider war. And the president, as always, is not being honest about his real intentions."

Indeed, it is hard to see how the additional troops being dispatched can make much of a difference to the situation on the ground in Iraq. The new deployment is opposed, not just by US and world public opinion, but, interestingly, by the Iraqi government as well. The reluctant premier al-Maliki clearly fears that the new US troops will be turned against his own supporters, largely to appease a Saudi oligarchy allegedly fretful over the fate of Iraqi Sunni Arabs and in reality fearful, as ever, for their own plutocratic skins. The most likely consequence in Iraq of the upping of the violence is therefore a further disintegration in the residual political support for the US-British occupation - amid, of course, an increase in the already horrific casualty rate.

Comment is free: Words of warning

Bush has no reason to go to war with the Saudi's. He and his companies have great ties to the royal family. It would cost him more money than he'd rather lose.
How is it hard to see that additional forces will help secure Iraq? So lets reduce troops and they can be over-ran, our cut and run completly and Iran is free to take over Iraq and use it like a puppet. The US has alradey faced the worst terroristic attack with no check in the ME. Our presence their allows us to take out al Qaeda officials and flex our musle to Iran and Syria. Iran knows they dont want a full blown out war with America, but that's what they fear. An American takeover like they saw with Iraq.