Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Implying Iran is part of the Arab world.

[Helgoland]

Implying Iran is part of the Arab world.

If you read closely you'll find that I didn't

[10ebbor10]

Iran is actually a reverse Turkey. Turkey has a secular government, with a religious population. Iran has a theocratic government, but the secular population is proportionally quite large. That could get violent if the theocrats remain adamant about their power, but so far it seems that they're willing to allow very, very slow reform. Also, the US is making a great common enemy.

Problem is, if the US were to cooperate militarily with Iran in fighting ISIS in Iraq, they tacitly agree with an Irani Anti-ISIS intervention in Syria.

[Sheb]

Yeah, it'll take a lot of flexibility to fight alongside Iran in Iraq while opposing the Iranian-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Of course, we could hope that closer Iranian-US relations would help find a way to create a peace between the FSA and the regime.

But who am I kidding. I bet the US will pressure Iraq into refusing Iran's help (or at least try to), reinforcing ISIS' hand.

Regarding Iran's population, is the rural population also secular? The green revolution of 2009 was largely the product of the urban middle-class. After all, Turkey's urban middle-class are also secular, with the AKP (Which cannot be called secular except in the strictly technical sense that it is not run by mullah) having his power base in rural Anatolia.

Helgoland: My bad, you are right. I apologize, and blame my lack of sleep for this misunderstanding.

[10ebbor10]

Iran's rural population isn't secular. The urban population is, for a certain definition of secular.

Urban population in both countries accounts for 70% of the population though.

Anyway, the correct comparison would be.

Iran is actually a reverse Turkey. Turkey has a secular government, but is tending towards increased influence of religion in politics. Iran has a theocratic government, but the secular population is proportionally quite large.

[XXSockXX]

Iranian involvement in Iraq seems rather troublesome, the Sunni-Shia conflict is at the core of the whole thing and Iranian involvment will not help making the Sunni minority trust the Shia government. Also I don't think the US would backpaddle on their position toward Iran.

[Sheb]

Troublesome, but less troublesome than letting ISIS run over the country. Also, Maliki has done a really good job of messing up the situation by himself.

[XXSockXX]

Well, yeah, but it might help only in the short term, in the long term it might make the division worse. Sunnis are already deserting the army en masse, not necessarily because they sympathize with ISIS, but because they distrust the government.
On the other hand, if ISIS destroys the Shia holy sites in Iraq (they have an iconoclastic streak like many radical Sunni movements), that would upset the entire Shia world and pretty much guarantee Iranian involvment anyway.

[10ebbor10]

Worst that can happen is an unauthorized Iranian intervention. The entire Shia-Sunni conflict flaring up against. Iran-Iraqi intervention. The Iraqi government stuck between ISIS, Sunni-militia, and Shia militia. Possible US involvement in the entire conflict and you have the next Gulf war.

Probably not going to be that bad, assuming all nations are a bit covert in their operations.

[smjjames]

From your most reliable news source, Iran might deploy the Qud's force to fight ISIS in Iraq

Yeah, when CNN showed that in the headline bar, I was like 'Which side???'. Kind of ironic that Iran is fighting against terrorists because they support two other terrorist groups. Though I suppose that would be equating to the US supporting two rebel groups and fighting against a third.

The middle east is really going to hell in a handbasket isn't it? And I use that metaphorically, not that all of the middle east is going to hell, know what I'm trying to say?

Islam really could use a second reformation or something, but then again, if the Catholic Protestant Christian reformation tore Europe up as much as it did, an Islamic reformation could end up being just as bad, or even worse.

As for the US intervening, well, it's an incredibly complex situation and is also one of our own making. It's like a 3D chessboard or even the butterfly paradox, something you do, or even don't do as a superpower has some major effect later on.

Since the US populace is tired of the war and doesn't want to have boots on the ground again, maybe we could just support with airstrikes (which we are REALLY good at), while the Iranian troops have boots on the ground. Then again, cooperating with Iran has it's own political baggage.

As I said, complex as hell. As someone said, ISIS came out of Syria, which we really didn't want to get involved in, and now, a group which we ignored is forcing us to not ignore it.

Also, Iran helping Iraq will definetly help repair relations between the two countries in the future.

BTW, I'm sure you guys know of it, ISIS is so extreme that even Al-Quaeda has disowned the group.

Edit: Okay, Obama said no boots on the ground. So, coordinated airstrikes?

[10ebbor10]

You do know the origins of this conflict right? Islam is not united. The 2 main groups, Shia (Iraq* and Iran) and Sunni (most the others) can't stand each other. This is why I doubt Iran is supporting all terrorist groups they say they are supporting. Most of those groups are Sunni, and they don't get along. 

So, I don't think adding a few extra groups in there will work. Besides, the Reformation, as you know, was a throwback to a more religious and strict lifestyle, not secularity.

ISIS intends to set up a massive Sunni state, and that probably includes the elimination of all the heretics, mainly Shia.

*Saddam led a Sunni Minority government. That's why Iran invaded Iraq (after Iraq had it's ass handed back to them after invading Iran) rather than ending the war in 1982. They wanted to free their oppressed brethren and install a Shia state (as is know the case, Shia being the majority in Iraq and all that.)

[palsch]

Umm...

Also note that, in contrast to some previous AUMFs, the 2002 AUMF has no geographical limitation.  It authorizes force not in Iraq, but rather “against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”  To the extent that the “continuing threat posed by Iraq” is today constituted by ISIS forces operating in tandem (and under a single military structure) in Iraq and Syria, the statute arguably authorizes the use of force against ISIS in Syria.  Put another way, the 2002 Iraq AUMF arguably authorizes force against ISIS in Syria if the President determines that such force is necessary and appropriate to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.  It is not hard to imagine that the President could make that determination.

I'm going to go with this being pure legal wankery (and wonkery), but that would be a fun set of congressional hearings...

[smjjames]

I am aware of the Sunni-Shiia split, yes. I was kind of rambling off thoughts.

[Zangi]

Yeah, when CNN showed that in the headline bar, I was like 'Which side???'. Kind of ironic that Iran is fighting against terrorists because they support two other terrorist groups. Though I suppose that would be equating to the US supporting two rebel groups and fighting against a third.

Not as hypocritical as you would believe... different terrorist/rebel groups could be fighting for drastically different reasons that conflict with each other...

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, when CNN showed that in the headline bar, I was like 'Which side???'. Kind of ironic that Iran is fighting against terrorists because they support two other terrorist groups. Though I suppose that would be equating to the US supporting two rebel groups and fighting against a third.

Not as hypocritical as you would believe... different terrorist/rebel groups could be fighting for drastically different reasons that conflict with each other...

As it is this time. As a rather poor analogy, you won't see the Westboro Baptist Church supporting the Spanish inquisition.

And besides, if anyone is hypocritical here it would be the US. I mean, the US has supported pretty much every ideological terrorist fraction in the middle East when it was beneficial for them.