I’ve seen it hinted at and talked around, so I just thought I’d write it down in the simplest terms:
By going into Iraq in the first place, war with Iran and/or the complete decimation of Iraq was made a requirement of US policy. I wrote about it pre-war in terms of starting a fire that cannot be put out.
Jump into the wayback machine and consider the controlling factors limiting possible outcomes for Iraq in relation to Iran:
- Iran is ruled by the same ethnic group that is the majority in Iraq.
- Iraq was to become a democracy.
- Iraq, therefor was destined to become a satellite of Iran without further military intervention by the US, be it War on Iran or permanent occupation of Iraq. While some may have hoped/believed otherwise, this was obviously the most likely outcome to anyone with a brain and two seconds to think.
The idea that ‘you broke it, you bought it’ is solely out there to mask the slightly more accurate version that served as a principle of our Iraq policy: ‘You break Iraq, you’ve bought war with Iran.’ Two wars for the price of one.
Vast expansion of Iranian influence was obviously NOT the point of our Iraq policy. It was a known risk that leaves only three options for ‘victory’, all of which we seem to be pursuing simultaneously:
- War – The Iranian regime is brought down completely.
- “Stalemate” – patterned after the Israeli control of the ‘Occupied Territories’ – or the Koreas, if you’d prefer. Otherwise known as permanent occupation.
- “The Albatross Option” – Iraq is so decimated that when the Iranians take over, it is more of a burden than they can handle while still maintaining their ability to project power elsewhere.
Obviously the last option is odious, but being prepared for successfully. As is the first, ‘preferred’ option.
It seems the American populace is willing to stomach a greatly expanded Iranian influence (at least as far as they have thought about it). However, just letting Iran expand it’s influence on our dime is not going to happen if ‘the establishment’ has a say (and it does), so “Stalemate” seems to be what the Dem leadership is calling for at the moment.
So, the Dems are for permanent occupation (at least until Tehran is brought in line somehow) and the Repugs are for destruction of the Iranian regime.
There is no double-down by neo-cons, but rather a well-understood, unavoidable set of seconds steps required even before the Iraq went south.
The very idea that Democratic leadership was not aware of all of this is reason enough to throw them out of office as well, as is the case in which they DID consider all of this: incompetence and/or deceit should not be rewarded with more power.
If you find yourself voting in the primary because ‘At least she/he is electable’ – slap yourself back to reality, please, or stop complaining and start cheering for the policy you have been paying for all along and your kids will for some time.
Either you are with them or you are against them, remember?