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

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

Beet,

I agree completely that action is required in Iran.  I also agree that it is a bigger threat than Iraq was.  I was hoping that Bush would have the courage to back the student movement there, but he really looks gun shy right now.

Lunar,

I don't think we import that much oil from Iran.  We have had sanctions on that country since 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over.

[The Duke]

Iran has a decen enough chance to reform on its own that the West should intervene with force...remember the IRaq-Iran war? The IRanians are generally patriotic, they will support their leaders in a war, much like Americans would. The West should focus on supporting the democracy movement within the country instead.

Gustaf,

Correct! That's why we have taken no overt action against Iran since 9/11.

But also no COVERT action.

At least some words of encouragement, maybe?

[The Duke]

John,

Don't bet on the "no covert" action...

You know something I don't?

*hopes so*