Petraeus works to halt foreign fighters.

RebSaint said

Of course not. I think BA has stated as much; along with the oil, it was phase I of the neoconservative agenda of attempting to remake the middle east in America's image--supplanting a democracy in Iraq was supposed to rile up the Iranians, and from many perhaps hasten a showdown.

Nevermind the fact that Iran has no navy, no real large standing army which could invade its neighbors without getting clobbered. The same individuals who are trumping up this Iranian "threat" were talking about how much of a threat Hussein was before invading Iraq.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice. :nono:

Click to expand...

I think part of the original calculation on "reshaping the Middle East" was indeed that once we were in Iraq, Iran would certianly fall to the temptation to start allying with Shia militias in Iraq, which would be our pretext for carrying the crusade on to Iran. Kind of like Japan was Roosevelt's back door to war with Germany.

Early on in the "cake walk" phase there was very much a multiphase strategy that envisioned confrontations with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. The various insurgencies in Iraq and the Israeli failure to neutralize Hezbollah threw the timetable off schedule.

Most of this was not shared with the voting public.

At any rate, Iran is hedging its bets across the board. They have aided and had good relations with the Iraqi government as well as the Shiite militias. The extent to which they are in complete control of either is just not proven.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1333861,00.html