Iraq... Iran... whats the difference?

[Beet]

September 11 commission report links Iran to 2001 al-Qaeda attacks: media

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The September 11 commission's report, due out Thursday, says Iran may have facilitated the 2001 attacks on the United States by providing eight to 10 al-Qaeda hijackers with safe passage to and from training camps in Afghanistan (news - web sites), US media reports said.

Time and Newsweek, in similar reports quoting congressional, commission and government sources, said Iran relaxed border controls and provided "clean" passports for the so-called "muscle hijackers" to transit Iran to and from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s camps between October 2000 and February 2001.

...

The commission's report says Iran at one point proposed collaborating with al-Qaeda on attacks against America, but bin Laden declined, saying he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia, according to Time.

Newsweek said the Iranian finding in the commission's report is based largely on a December 2001 memo discovered buried in the files of the US National Security Agency.

The memo, according to Newsweek, says "Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to place stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia who were traveling from bin Laden's camps through Iran."

Time said commission investigators "found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border," a practice they said dated back to October 2000.

Iranian officials, Time said, issued "specific instructions to their border guards ... not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel and otherwise not harass them, and to facilitate their travel across the frontier."

[Beet]

The difference:

Conquering iraq was easy, and American politicians like easy things.  Iraq could be hit overland from Kuwait or Turkey.  It could be hit by sea from the Red Sea, the Mediterrenean Sea, and the Persian Gulf.  Iraq had a small, decrepit conventional army.  Iraq's leader had name recognition, and so the war was easier to sell.

Iran is hard to conquer.  It has mountains, a superior military, and can only be accessed from the Persian Gulf.  Its leaders, while brutal sponsors of terroism, are not well known.  For those more cynical types, you should know that Iran also has lots of oil, and it has the second largest reserve of natural gas in the world.

Iraq was easy.
Iran would be hard.

That is the difference.

Yeah there's a difference there true. Although, I doubt the Iranians would be able to defend their huge coastline, while the Iraq-Kuwait border was a very short stretch of land. Just from looking at the maps, it truly looks easier to attack Iran, if your only base of operations are the Persian Gulf and Kuwait. And before the Iraq war the media was fretting about the 72,000 "Republican guard" and 20,000 "Special Republican guard".

But yes, Iraq was easier, and it was easier by more than most realized. The Iraq regime was a gang of mobsters running the country. Iran on the other hand claims that its brand of religious fundamentalism is ordained by God. No doubt some Iranians actually believe that.

Nevertheless, Iran is a big problem. It is more dangerous than Iraq was. So is North Korea, and what we don't know about what goes on in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And being in Iraq really hasn't helped us with that.