Iranian War Is Not The Same As Iraq

[HappyFace2025]

Some people seem to think the current war equates to the one in Iraq in the 2000s. It manifestly is not the same.
While Saddam treated Iraqis appallingly as the Islamic Republic has done to Iranians, Iran has been exporting terror throughout the Middle East via its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and Houtis, as well as elsewhere including the UK, where 20 terrorist attacks were foiled last year (announced yesterday.)

And to stop them from exporting terrorism. Exact same.

Edit to add. Both even share the same evangelical undertone.

@BigBangSherry I think Israel has chosen now to attack because it's has secured the backing of the US now, and because it is very sure that Iran has no nuclear weapons now ie the risk is low. The ultimate reason is that, as you rightly say, Iran is a threat to Israel (and would be a huge threat if the current regime had the resources to make it so which thankfullyit doesn't).

I think Trump's decision to attack Iran now is somewhat different, except that he is also aware that the ability of Iran to offer any real opposition is low.

As a citizen of the UK I see no benefit in the UK blindly following the US into yet another war in the middle east. If I was an Israeli I might think differently. As for the benefit to the Iranian people- we'll that kind of depends on what happens next. Certainly the precisidents aren't good but maybe things will work out this time. I dont think the primary purpose of this action was to benefit Iranians though, do you?

They had none.

I know that but the Iranian regime has enriched uranium to a level that has no civilian use in a nuclear power programme.

While we don't actually know how close they really were to building a nuclear bomb, the boasting of the negotiators that "they’re aware that could make 11 nuclear bombs” was a threat. They also boasted of having evaded all sorts of oversight protocols. This from a regime that has previously denied that they wanted to build a nuclear weapon.

They are not a regime to be trusted and can never be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.

The issue with Iran is not that we think they have nuclear weapons now it is that, despite earlier denials, they appear to be actively seeking to develop the capability to build a bomb.

Which would be disastrous for Israel in particular, given they want to destroy the country.

Given there’s been no nuclear response from Iran, it’s blindingly obvious their possession of any serious weaponry has been greatly exaggerated. This is just Iraq (and Afghanistan, and Libya) all over again and it will turn out the same way: quick air victory, long term utter failure with unforeseen consequences we’ll be dealing with for decades.

Best post, thank you.

No one said they did have serious nuclear weaponry currently.

The issue with Iran is that they appear to be actively seeking to develop nuclear capabilities and according to their own negotiators, were well on the way to building a nuclear bomb.

What I'm saying is that Trump is proposing that US does its thing then basically abandons the Iranian people to sort out the mess for themselves. What sort of strategy is that??? Not arguing about the help, just observing that it isn't help if it goes the way this always goes, drop the bombs then withdraw with no actual planned approach.

And?

And what? Are you struggling to keep up?

@Bringemout thank you for that excellent post.

Well yes if your post said something else and they had it already we’d see why that’s a bigger problem. It’d be too late then.

Yes agree with pp, excellent post.

Several things can be true at once:

The Iranian regime are utter bastards, causing suffering at home and abroad.

and

The past consequences of American intervention in the Middle East inspire no confidence that this won’t be a disaster. Even when in the past they were led by presidents with a reasonable level of cognitive ability as opposed to Trump, a narcissist whose dementia is affecting his ability to string coherent paragraphs together. And Netanyahu who is just as much of a bastard as the Iranians.

Also:

International law was always a bit of a polite fiction.

and

We shouldn’t be stuffing it in the bin without a backwards glance.

There is a similarity though in how the endgame of this is being approached.
The campaign in Iraq was rightfully criticised because of the critical lack of strategy in terms of what came next after saddam was toppled.
There seems to be no defined objective here either so there is the same risk of mission creep and protracted instability.

Do you support this war then?

Iran is around 90m people, an Army/Militia of approx 1m, they have acute water shortages, spiralling inflation.... Iran and can and will stop oil tankers heading east and west, very little we can do about that, as these ships cannot get insurance

Nothing is going to be the same again, we will see a return to super hi energy costs, inflation, mass influx of migrants to Europe... very little of which will affect the USA.

I'm not saying Iran should be allowed a Nuclear weapon, no but i don't think trying to bomb Iran into total submission is great either.

The comparison to Iraq is pointless, different times, no troops on the ground and a very different regime but the outcome will be worse.

It absolutely is the same. Anyone who believes differently is naive or stupid or both.

And anyone who is comparing this to ww2 has lost sight of one small factor. Trump thinks he’s Hitler. So if you want to support him then it would be like Britain joining forces with Germany, not going against them.

Regime change is a non concept. It doesn’t exist.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and now Iran.

The reality is that no other country can bring about regime change, it has to come from within.

And the truth is that a dictator can only be a dictator with support.

The Iranian regime is in tact still. There will be a vote (all in secret, with very specific conditions) to elect a new leader.

There is no suggestion that anything is going to change for the Iranian people, absolutely none. In fact things are likely to get worse for them.

So while people might want to argue that invading Iran was apparently in the interests of the world, even though we know there were no nuclear weapons and this is just trump trying to throw his weight about before the dementia takes over the derangement, there is not a single person here who gives a shit about the Iranian people caught in the middle of this.

Nothing is going to change for them. Just like it didn’t in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, in fact in Iraq and Afghanistan things became markedly worse.

And anyone who thinks that women are going to benefit from this in any way shape or form seem to have lost sight of the fact that we’re talking about countries and a religion where women are already classed as nobodies. Whatever makes anyone think that’s likely to change now?

I don't think its me that's struggling with the op's point that Iran is not Iraq.

I don’t think people would and they also wouldn’t be ok with a regime militating and killing as a response as their dc enter more of the same.

I think we all know that.

But what it is, is an imperialist US that thinks its ok to interfere in Iran, meanwhile, allows, even supports Russia (in effect) in Ukraine.

No good will come of this and USA/Israeli actions will ensure 100s of 1000s of deaths, maybe millions.

Not that the pro Trump/Israeli lobby cares about that.

There are a whole bunch of similarities though right? Enough to give us pause for thought.

What would you want Iranians to do instead?

I support a short war of a few weeks, yes. I support the 4 objectives outlined by Trump & clarified by the White House:

• Destroying the regime's ballistic missile stocks and its capacity to produce new ones. "You see that happening on an hourly basis," Mr Trump said.
• "Annihilating" the Iranian navy. Ten ships had already been "knocked out" and were "at the bottom of the sea", he said.
• Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
• Stopping Iran from arming, funding and directing proxy militant groups.

@Alexandra2001 I agree with you that comparison to Iraq is pointless - as you say, different times, no troops on the ground and a very different regime.

To say the outcome will be worse however is just speculation unless you can see into the future.

And we also have to consider that the outcome of not intervening could equally be worse than intervening, if we are speculating.