Iran's concern over Taliban threat

[Communism]

The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. The late Bush era corresponds to the late 2000's. There's nearly thirty years in between.



Not least because of Iran making sure American occupation forces will have a rather hard time in those countries.



Besides the fact that, as pointed out above, at least some three decades passed between the Islamic Revolution that saw Iran engage in an principled anti-imperialist policy and the USA's strategic shift towards containing China, all this means is that Washington does not have a military option against Iran. The USA regime always has other concerns in addition to Iran, so that isn't really a valid contention.

The U.S.'s opposition to Iran is almost purely based on the Israel Lobby.


The Israel Lobby doesn't dictate the U.S.'s foreign policy continuously.


Iran never posed much of a threat to the U.S. at any point in time.


Consequently, the U.S. generally had Iran as a low priority target.


Basically, Iran was always a "target of opportunity," which was to be tackled when not focusing on more important things.


You are somehow forgetting that the U.S. was fighting the Cold War with the USSR until ~1991, and then was fighting to annex all of the Soviet Sphere of Influence after the Fall of the USSR.


The U.S. didn't completely finish rolling up the Soviet Sphere of Influence before China appeared on the Radar.


This is why Syria was left unfinished.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The U.S.'s opposition to Iran is almost purely based on the Israel Lobby.


The Israel Lobby doesn't dictate the U.S.'s foreign policy continuously.


Iran never posed much of a threat to the U.S. at any point in time.


Consequently, the U.S. generally had Iran as a low priority target.

Doesn't square with USA military aggression of several regional neighbors of Iran, knowing that out of these, Iran has been the one to harm Washington's interests the most.

Again the logical conclusion stands out: launching full fledged war with Iran for the USA would be biting off more than they can chew.

 

[Communism]

Doesn't square with USA military aggression of several regional neighbors of Iran, knowing that out of these, Iran has been the one to harm Washington's interests the most.

Those countries were far more important than Iran.


Most of them were in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.


Iran was neutral.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Those countries were far more important than Iran.


Most of them were in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.


Iran was neutral.

The Soviet Union had ceased to exist for over a decade when they were attacked.

 

[Communism]

The Soviet Union had ceased to exist for over a decade when they were attacked.

The point was to roll up as much of the Soviet Sphere of Influence as possible before Russian power resurrected.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The point was to roll up as much of the Soviet Sphere of Influence as possible before Russian power resurrected.

This is far fetched now. For one there's no guarantee that governments formerly included in the Soviet sphere of influence would continue to be as closely allied with Moscow. There are several counter-examples. Secondly, Russian revival was not really in sight in the early 2000's. Thirdly, Iraq had ceased to be in the Soviet geopolitical realm, the USSR even joined the American-led coalition during so-called operation Desert Storm.

Those governments weren't more important than Iran to Washington because with or without Russian backing, their potential is significantly limited compared to Iran's. Iran is a heavyweight, the likes of Libya weren't.

Last but not least, you left out the possibility of enhanced Iranian-Russian cooperation, which actually did take shape. If the USA regime was wary of Iraq or Libya potentially moving under the Russian umbrella, then it would have been manifold more worried about Iran, a more resourceful country entering a strategic partnership with Moscow.

 

[Communism]

This is far fetched now. For one there's no guarantee that governments formerly included in the Soviet sphere of influence would continue to be as closely allied with Moscow. There are several counter-examples. Secondly, Russian revival was not really in sight in the early 2000's. Thirdly, Iraq had ceased to be in the Soviet sphere of influence, the USSR even joined the American-led coalition during so-called operation Desert Storm.

Those governments weren't more important than Iran to Washington because with or without Russian backing, their potential is very limited compared to Iran's.

Now it is you who is naive.


The U.S. controlled Russia totally until ~2008, when Putin began slipping his U.S. chains.


Russia also supported NATO's destruction of Yugoslavia under Yeltsin.


Iran was simply less important of a target at the time.


There were so, so many countries to conquer from the Soviet Sphere of Influence after the fall of the USSR.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Now it is you who is naive.


The U.S. controlled Russia totally until ~2008, when Putin began slipping his U.S. chains.


Russia also supported NATO's destruction of Yugoslavia under Yeltsin.


Iran was simply less important of a target at the time.


There were so, so many countries to conquer from the Soviet Sphere of Influence after the fall of the USSR.

This is a self-contradicting statement to make. If the USA "controlled Russia totally until about 2008", then resurrection of Russian power would not have been a prime concern to Washington in 2003 when they attacked Iraq.

Also as said the prospect of Iranian-Russian alliance, a development in full swing today, ought to have worried the Americans far more given Iran's superior power and potential compared to Iraq or Libya. Therefore even if Washington's military adventures of the last of decades in West Asia and North Africa were truly determined by the Russian factor then Iran would still have been their most important target.

 

[Communism]

This is a self-contradicting statement to make. If the USA "controlled Russia totally until about 2008", then resurrection of Russian power would not have been a prime concern to Washington in 2003 when they attacked Iraq.

Also as said the prospect of Iranian-Russian alliance, a development in full swing today, ought to have worried the Americans far more given Iran's superior power and strength compared to Iraq or Libya. Therefore even if USA military adventures in West Asia and North Africa over the last decades were determined by the Russian factor then Iran would still have been their most important target.

The U.S. operates on RealPolitik.


The U.S. knows that any country can sometimes slip it's chains.


If the U.S. cuts the pieces apart and conquers them one by one, they are much harder to be stitched back together again.


This can easily be seen as to what happened to the countries east of Berlin.


Iran is neutral, so it is easily mollified if things get dicey.


That's why the U.S. can simply dangle something in front of Iran for Iran to no longer sell weapons to Russia.


Iran was never in the Soviet Sphere of Influence, so it is a bond that is easily bribed away.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The U.S. operates on RealPolitik.


The U.S. knows that any country can sometimes slip it's chains.


If the U.S. cuts the pieces apart and conquers them one by one, they are much harder to be stitched back together again.


This can easily be seen as to what happened to the countries east of Berlin.


Iran is neutral, so it is easily mollified if things get dicey.

Iran's not neutral, she's an adversary to Washington.

That's why the U.S. can simply dangle something in front of Iran for Iran to no longer sell weapons to Russia.

Call me when that happens.

Iran was never in the Soviet Sphere of Influence, so it is a bond that is easily bribed away.

Having been within or outside the Soviet sphere of influence is not what ultimately determines post-Soviet relations with Moscow.

Also this entire premise is flawed, we have policy documents at our disposal from the neoconservative and subsequent USA administrations relative to their bellicose policy in West Asian and Northern Africa: Russia is not cited as a prime motivating factor at all.

 

[Communism]

Iran's not neutral, she's an adversary to Washington.



Call me when that happens.



Having been within or outside the Soviet sphere of influence is not what ultimately determines post-Soviet relations with Moscow.

Also this entire premise is flawed, we have policy documents at our disposal from the neoconservative and subsequent USA administrations relative to their bellicose policy in West Asian and Northern Africa: Russia is not cited as a prime motivating factor at all.

Lol, and you think U.S. think tanks didn't know that Salafi jihadists are simply CIA assets too?


Anyone can read those documents.


It would look really, really bad if they revealed too much of the truth.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Lol, and you think U.S. think tanks didn't know that Salafi jihadists are simply CIA assets too?


Anyone can read those documents.


It would look really, really bad if they revealed too much of the truth.

Except that fear of a hypothetical Russian reemergence as the core motivation behind the destruction of Iraq, Libya and so on, is not the kind of thing they'd systematically cover up, as opposed to their covert backing of takfiri terrorists. If that was Washington's paramount concern in its West Asian and North African policy, we'd be hearing it day in day out.

 

[Communism]

Except that fear of a hypothetical Russian reemergence as the core motivation behind the destruction of Iraq, Libya and so on, is not the kind of thing they'd systematically cover up, as opposed to their covert backing of takfiri terrorists. We'd be hearing it day in day out.

NATO's eastern expansion was also not framed as a counter to Russia.


Some things simply do not need to be explicitly laid out.

 

[SalarHaqq]

NATO's eastern expansion was also not framed as a counter to Russia.


Some things simply do not need to be explicitly laid out.

Russia laid it out in the most explicit terms. But uttered no word about the USA destroying nations in West Asia and North Africa with the aim of countering her.

There's no evidence for the claim - hardly ever made includin by pro-Russian analysts - that Russia was the motivating factor behind USA wars in the region, and if it were the case then Washington's attention would have focused on the prospect of Iranian-Russian rapprochement far more than on a battered Iraq or a second tier actor such as Libya. A prospect which actually became reality and harmed USA interests far more than Iraqi or Libyan cooperation with Moscow could have.

 

[Communism]

Russia laid it out in explicit terms. But uttered no word about the USA destroying nations in West Asia and North Africa with the aim of countering her.

There's no evidence for your claim about Russia being the motivating factor behind USA wars in the region, and if it were the case then Washington's attention would have focused on the prospect of Iranian-Russian rapprochement far more than on a battered Iraq or a second tier actor such as Libya. A prospect that actually became reality and harmed USA interests far more than Iraqi or Libyan cooperation with Moscow could have.

Russia couldn't do jack about the Middle East until Syria.


Why would they purposefully embarrass themselves by whining about something they couldn't do anything about.


Moscow had far more pressing issues to deal with, like NATO's eastern expansion.