Home / Iran / Is Iran a New Iraq? Here are the similarities and big differences
Israel

Is Iran a New Iraq? Here are the similarities and big differences

An American administration publishes dire warnings about a Persian Gulf country, questions about war speech and the quality of intelligence. And those facing Iran and those who do not accept Iran as a factor.

If the Iranian war speech sounds familiar, it may be because of the fact that Israel is the factor, and that it is similar to the rise of the 2003 Iraq War.

The biggest difference: Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and his supporters were wary of George W. Bush’s adventure in Iraq. Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel became a vocal supporter of the stance faced by the Trump administration against Iran.

Here is a comparative guide.

Weaponry

Iraq: The Bush administration has launched intelligence reports that it is an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and an existing chemical weapons program that plans its elements. The reports following the war showed that the evidence was the best speculative and, at times, contrary to the contrary, evidence was suppressed. The same Iraqi official, Saddam Hussein’s father-in-law, said that he had been liquidated in 1995. However, Bush administration officials, among them Secretary of State Colin Powell, did not mention the second point.

Iran: Iran lacks material and all technical information that has the infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons, but does not disintegrate sufficiently according to a Congress Research Service Report dated 10 May. Iran stressed that its program was peaceful; After being stolen from a large Iranian archive a year ago, he claimed that Iran’s aim was to build a nuclear weapon, at least before the 2015 nuclear deal. Under the nuclear agreement, Iran has committed to enriching uranium for the next 10-15 years, with only sufficient levels for medical research.

Inspectorate

Iraq: After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to disassemble weapons of mass destruction and allow them to verify the suitability of US inspectors. At the end of the 90s, the Inspectors complained that Saddam had set out from the obstacles they had set in motion and that he did not agree with the letter of the agreement, so as not to allow them to visit certain areas. On the eve of the Iraq War, however, Hans Blix, a nuclear inspector who was one of Saddam’s most vigorous critics, reported that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction put forward by the Bush administration as an indicator of war.

Iran: The US nuclear inspection agency said Iran is in compliance with the 2015 agreement on sanctions for Iran’s return to Iran’s nuclear program. (President Donald Trump has removed the United States from the agreement a year ago.) Critics of the agreement say their audits are not intrusive enough; Iran can significantly block the controls of a site not covered by the agreement. Investigators have not yet requested such an inspection.

Bad actors

Iraq: The Bush administration claimed that Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization behind the 9 September terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. There were no such ties, and the insistence of some existing officials led to the negative effects of raising terrorists’ profile and popularity in Iraq, which had not previously received significant support.

Iran: Iran has long been tied up with rebel groups in the region, and most importantly, he thinks that Hezbollah terrorist militants in Lebanon are one of Israel’s most formidable enemies. Hezbollah, working under the guidance of Iran, was critical in revealing the effectiveness of the Assad regime in suppressing the civil war that the opposition launched in 2011. The Trump administration says the Houthi uprising in Yemen will not happen without Iran’s support. The US is backing up Saudi’s offer. Trump’s criticism of his support for the Saudi war in Yemen suggests that the uprising is indigenous and that Iran’s support is over-exaggerated and that the United States effectively supports an initiative that demands massive civilian casualties.

Intelligence

Iraq: The Bush administration claims on the basis of intelligence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is united with terrorists targeting the United States. The allegations led the wider party to support the war. Bush officials silenced or smudged opponents in the Western intelligence community, including the US, who said intelligence was wrong. Opposition after the war was determined to be based on intelligence distorted or questionable resources.

Iran: The Trump administration speaks of intelligence that officials say it points to Iranian aggression close to US forces in the region. He sent military reinforcements to the region last week and ordered a partial release of the US Embassy in Baghdad this week. Evidence of what exactly Iranians planned and what they were planning. By paying attention to the results of the Iraq War (including the permanent blot on the reputation of men and women with presidential ambitions), he is demanding more detailed information around MPs from both parties.

Senator Robert Menendez, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the Jewish Telegraph Agency, said: We have no briefings about the intelligence that caused the eviction of our embassy in Iraq. Yahudi Un We have no intelligence briefings about what the last game of the administration is and how they are trying to achieve it. You will not be blinded by national security and foreign policy decisions. ”

Israel and Netanyahu factor

Iraq: Following the Iraq War, some of the Israeli figures, the Israeli MPs, fought on the borders of Israel and its defenders, based on the approval of the war by the Congress and by some people. Pro-Israel groups. Netanyahu, who was then prime minister at the time, defended Saddam Hussein’s dismissal in 2002 from congressional testimony. two of them respected the foreign policy blues, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who published the thesis in the 2007 Steph Israel Lobby.

In fact, the Israeli government officials and the pro-Israeli figures that approved the war did so by order of the Bush administration. President George W. Bush, in his first term, drafted a formula ları against us or against us array on all policies, but especially in Iraq and foreign leaders, lobbying groups, politicians and media quests enter the battlefield. Vice President Dick Cheney asked the support of Jewish leaders and pro-Israeli lawmakers for the emergence of groundless intelligence, which Iraq’s missiles pointed to Israel.

Behind the scenes, he said, Bush’s engagement in Iraq gave a free hand to Iran, and it gave fear that post-war chaos proved to be true when Iran increased its influence. Prime Minister Sharon, who emerged after the war, urged Bush to restrict the occupation’s objectives.

Iran: Israel has been the main driving force since the 1990s to confront Iran with regard to the nuclear ambitions of the international community. Netanyahu – since 2009, the prime minister has intensified oppression through lobbying in international bodies and Congress. The tensions between the Obama administration and Netanyahu rose in 2015 after the Israeli leader accepted the Republicans’ invitation to file a lawsuit against the nuclear agreement in Congress. Netanyahu has repeatedly praised Trump for withdrawing from the nuclear deal and pressured Iran to stay away from its nuclear program and adventurism.

“We are united in our desire to stop Iranian aggression,” Netanyahu said on Tuesday. I believe that all countries in Israel and in the region and in the world wanting peace in the region should stand against the US aggression of Iran. “

This, the Trump administration criticized Iran’s policy as a factor in Israel. One of the 23 nominees for Democratic presidential nomination, D-Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, released a video on social media on Tuesday, claiming that Netanyahu walked out of Israel’s prime minister on Tuesday to fight the war with Iran neocons and neolibs.

Menendez, a pro-Israel follower, said the decision whether to take military action against Iran should be based on what is best for the US, not for Israel.

There is no question in my mind about whether Iran will be left without restrictions at the end of the day, it could be an existential threat to the State of Israel, he said. ”But we take our decisions based on what the US’s national security interests are.“

Check Also

Violence Continues In Iraq Despite Mahdi Stepping Down As PM

Violence Continues In Iraq Despite Mahdi Stepping Down As PM

As turmoil continues to rock Iraq, the worst kind since the elimination of Saddam Hussein, …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *