Did the invasion of Iraq benefit Iran?

[The Duke]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

[The Duke]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

The new Iraqi government is very friendly to Iran. Hardly a threat.

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border
2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

Threats don't sign defense pacts with you.

Two words, rocket: "Molotov-Ribbentrop"

[The Duke]

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border

Which are tied down in Iraq with the insurgency, are not much threat to the larger Iranian army, and won't be staying much longer as it would be political suicide.

2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

How does democracy "spread"? Is a dictatorship going to change just because a neighboring country turns democratic? Hmm yes, North Korea and Burma have improved so much since their neighbors went democratic and Zimbabwe has been so affected by Botswana and South Africa. Oh wait...

The only Middle Eastern country to become more democratic since then is Lebanon, which happened for completely unrelated reasons, and in a country that was a democracy previously anyway.

Lebanon's cedar revolution, Saudi local elections, Egyptian Presidential elections...

[The Duke]

Lebanon's cedar revolution

As mentioned, happened for completely unrelated reasons.

Saudi local elections

which are even less democratic than Iran's.

Egyptian Presidential elections...

which is still mostly a joke, much like Iran's elections.

Plus none of those were related to Iraq anyway. Saudi Arabia and Egypt know the US will never invade them, they obviously didn't think that they better make some joke reforms to give semblence of democracy or they'd be invaded. I don't see any effects from Iraq at all.

I know you don't believe the argument that when Arabs see voting in Iraq, they will demand it in their own countries and those governments will have to relent.  I'm going to restate that argument anyway.

Lebanon is, therefore, related to Iraq.

I disagree that Iran's elections are any more democratic than Saudi or Egypt's.

Whether they are more or less democratic than Iran's elections is irrelevant to whether the catalyst was the invasion of Iraq.

[The Duke]

Ah, but in Iran, the women can only vote for the government that has no power.  It is a ruse, and no surprise that you bought the ruse hook line and sinker.

[The Duke]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

And as I explained Burma doesn't work to make your case either. Try somewhere else and go argue with John Ford some more.

He just doesn't understand that a government's ability to suppress democratic movements does not mean that democratic movements are not widely supported.