the notorious Field Manual FM 30-31B

Why does US even want Syria's regime change? I mean, the Islamist will just take over after they are gone, what is the point?

Originally Posted by jackliu

Why does US even want Syria's regime change? I mean, the Islamist will just take over after they are gone, what is the point?

The hawks in the US pushing for regime change in Syria sees it as a vassal of Iran. If the US and Friends attack Iran, by say launching air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, it is feared that Iran would ise Syria as a base to launch counter attacks against Israel.

Thus, instigating regime change in Syria could be seen as paving the way for an eventual strike against Iran.

Originally Posted by plawolf

The hawks in the US pushing for regime change in Syria sees it as a vassal of Iran. If the US and Friends attack Iran, by say launching air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, it is feared that Iran would ise Syria as a base to launch counter attacks against Israel.

Thus, instigating regime change in Syria could be seen as paving the way for an eventual strike against Iran.

Why do they want to attack Iran? I mean, there is no way they actually want to occupy it, they can destroy Iran's conventional military, but then what? Iran can just rebuild and hate the West more than ever. Where is the final goal in all of this?

Originally Posted by jackliu

Why do they want to attack Iran? I mean, there is no way they actually want to occupy it, they can destroy Iran's conventional military, but then what? Iran can just rebuild and hate the West more than ever. Where is the final goal in all of this?

If US and Isreal ever attack Iran, they definitely would not content themselves to merely cripple Iran's military apparatus, but try to prop up a pro-western gov, like what has been tried more than half a century ago

Originally Posted by victtodd

If US and Isreal ever attack Iran, they definitely would not content themselves to merely cripple Iran's military apparatus, but try to prop up a pro-western gov, like what has been tried more than half a century ago

I don't think that will work, although Iran government is not popular, but every faction inside Iran hates the US equally. And just like you said, they already did it in 50 years ago, it is doubtful they can do it again. Unless they want another Iraq.

Originally Posted by jackliu

I don't think that will work, although Iran government is not popular, but every faction inside Iran hates the US equally. And just like you said, they already did it in 50 years ago, it is doubtful they can do it again. Unless they want another Iraq.

They were successful from 1953 to 1979 in Iran, from 1973 to 1990 in Chili ( Pinochet ). In 1948 they installed the murderous dictator Syngman Rhee as president of South Korea. He remained president until 1960 and was followed by a succession of military dictators ( while the US President was commander-in-chief of the South Korean army ) until South Korea started to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy in the later '80's. These are just a few examples. They have often been successful, but less so recently. We think of Iraq and Afghanistan. But hope springs eternal.

I have to declare an interest. After WWII The Netherlands were greatly damaged, although less than many other European countries. Its government decided that the Dutch colony in South East Asia would have to be exploited to pay for the repairs. That colony had just declared itself independent under the name Indonesia, on August 17 1945. The Netherlands sent army of about 1000000 man in 1946 for "police action" to "restore order". In 1949 it had to accept that this had been entirely unsuccessful, as well as very expensive, but it took nearly another half century before the then Dutch government accepted that Indonesia had become independent in 1945, not 1949.
In the mean time the Dutch government had sold Dutch independence for Marshall aid to pay for reconstruction and the country became a member of NATO and sent forces to Korea to protect Syngman Rhee when North Korea tried to reunite the country in a move that reminds one of 1861-1865.
I prefer countries to be independent and I would have them cooperate to maintain that independence as described in the Charter of the United Nations.
I ask forgiveness for writing this piece that has become somewhat political.

Originally Posted by delft

They were successful from 1953 to 1979 in Iran, from 1973 to 1990 in Chili ( Pinochet ). In 1948 they installed the murderous dictator Syngman Rhee as president of South Korea. He remained president until 1960 and was followed by a succession of military dictators ( while the US President was commander-in-chief of the South Korean army ) until South Korea started to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy in the later '80's. These are just a few examples. They have often been successful, but less so recently. We think of Iraq and Afghanistan. But hope springs eternal.

I have to declare an interest. After WWII The Netherlands were greatly damaged, although less than many other European countries. Its government decided that the Dutch colony in South East Asia would have to be exploited to pay for the repairs. That colony had just declared itself independent under the name Indonesia, on August 17 1945. The Netherlands sent army of about 1000000 man in 1946 for "police action" to "restore order". In 1949 it had to accept that this had been entirely unsuccessful, as well as very expensive, but it took nearly another half century before the then Dutch government accepted that Indonesia had become independent in 1945, not 1949.
In the mean time the Dutch government had sold Dutch independence for Marshall aid to pay for reconstruction and the country became a member of NATO and sent forces to Korea to protect Syngman Rhee when North Korea tried to reunite the country in a move that reminds one of 1861-1865.
I prefer countries to be independent and I would have them cooperate to maintain that independence as described in the Charter of the United Nations.
I ask forgiveness for writing this piece that has become somewhat political.

I know all the history lesson, but like I said, this time, it is not likely they can find a friendly regime. Every faction inside Iran pretty much hates US. And for what happened in the past, it will not be easy for them to put in another puppet.

So what is the point of all this?

Originally Posted by jackliu

I know all the history lesson, but like I said, this time, it is not likely they can find a friendly regime. Every faction inside Iran pretty much hates US. And for what happened in the past, it will not be easy for them to put in another puppet.
So what is the point of all this?

If they manage to change the regime are you sure some of those US-hating factions will not start "loving" the US?
Even if they don't find a faction to do the job isn't that a problem? All they have to do is to create one. Not a big deal.

Originally Posted by escobar

If they manage to change the regime are you sure some of those US-hating factions will not start "loving" the US?
Even if they don't find a faction to do the job isn't that a problem? All they have to do is to create one. Not a big deal.

By this logic, anything that can happen might happen, but judging from current event in Iran and judging from history, the chance of this happening is very small. And I don't think US will plan to invade Iran base on this.

It seems no one have any good ideas to why, so I'm going to stop asking.

An ambitious and powerful Iran in the middle east is obviously not to US interest. Use all means possible to disrupt the possibility. The use of schism is a tried and effective method employed through out the world.

Originally Posted by JsCh

An ambitious and powerful Iran in the middle east is obviously not to US interest. Use all means possible to disrupt the possibility. The use of schism is a tried and effective method employed through out the world.

How do you exactly "disrupt" Iran? Short of invasion and taking it over Iraq style, you will just piss it off even more. And a pissed off Iran can do many things that are harmful to it is neighbors, it will be worse than a hostile Iran.

well let me see.

embargo. sanction using international AND DOMESTIC laws. I am sure you know the play.

A piss off/hardline Iran would react with desperate measure that further isolate herself.

Iran should take a leaf out of China's book, although I think it is rather too late now.

Originally Posted by JsCh

well let me see.

embargo. sanction using international AND DOMESTIC laws. I am sure you know the play.

A piss off/hardline Iran would react with desperate measure that further isolate herself.

Iran should take a leaf out of China's book, although I think it is rather too late now.

Sanction, embargo is ALREADY happening right now, we are discussing, what is the motivation for attacking Iran, that is another step beyond hard diplomacy.

The posturing of attacking Iran (or the stated policy of regime change) is just way of keeping the pressure on Iran. Iran would go hardline and over-react by stirring up trouble all over middle east. What happen in Syria is more done by SA and the gulf states rather the US (a reaction to Iranian up the ante action(or is it the other way round?)). US is just taking the sides of SA. I reckon US would calculate that Iran is more a threat than militant Islamist. Iran is after all a nation state with vast resource at her command. Iran has an anti-west history and is willing and potentially ABLE to seriously hurt US interest.

By that logic, US would do all things possible to disrupt the Iranian regime including military action be it special force or full scaled occupation.

I agree with you that an overt military action is not likely at the moment. First I do not think the American people have the stomach for it and second is like you said the consequence/outcome is way too hard to predict and control. But like the argument put forth above, the us objective could be to disrupt with the minimum cost and you could never rule out military action entirely.