Iraq should take back Kuwait

[Haji 2003]

I was thinking this earlier today and delighted to see the following just now

It makes a lot of sense. Kuwait only exists because of British politicking. It should be part of Iraq. Its reacquisition by Iraq would be a calibrated response by Iran and her allies and would ensure that global powers 'pay a price' for meddling in the Middle East.

Unlike 2003, this time Iran would help defend Iraqi interests - a ground war would be impossible. Because if Saudi Arabia were used as a staging post for repelling the invasion, the next step would be a demolition of their oilfields.

It would also send a message that any further adventures would be met with a similar response.

 

[Diaz]

But why tho? What happened? Did Kuwait do something? 

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, Diaz said:

But why tho? What happened? Did Kuwait do something? 

No one of these kingdoms will be anymore safe if war spread. 

[Diaz]

19 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

No one of these kingdoms will be anymore safe if war spread. 

Which kingdom? Spread where? Sorry brother I did not get you. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

Unfortunately it would also be dumb and adventurist, whatever the merits of this may be. The pretense of neutrality that the Sunni Arab states are putting up would also be gone. 

Presently, Iran, and even the Shia in the Middle East have much bigger fish to fry. We can't afford to be bogged down in another absolutely needless war. 

The topmost priority now has to be making the bomb, cleansing the country of Mossad moles and bases, and working on their own intelligence so that they're not caught sleeping the next time someone attacks. 

Edited June 22 by AbdusSibtayn

[Haji 2003]

2 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Unfortunately it would also be dumb and adventurist,

One of the pacifist reasons for Iran responding to Israeli attacks is that if an aggressor believes that there will be no cost to their actions, they will simply carry on doing so.

By the same measure, the Gulf monarchies have seen for the last couple of decades and more that they can do whatever they like in the Middle East and beyond (Libya, Egypt, Sudan, etc.) while at the same time living in a bubble of luxury. Their get-out-of-jail-free card is always 'saying' the right things.

Until someone shows them the price for their actions, they'll simply continue and likely get worse. Bear in mind that these are often countries of a few million whose actions are impacting countries with populations of tens of millions.

The reacquisition of Kuwait was just an exemplar, but the broader principle is there.

[AbdusSibtayn]

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

One of the pacifist reasons for Iran responding to Israeli attacks is that if an aggressor believes that there will be no cost to their actions, they will simply carry on doing so.

By the same measure, the Gulf monarchies have seen for the last couple of decades and more that they can do whatever they like in the Middle East and beyond (Libya, Egypt, Sudan, etc.) while at the same time living in a bubble of luxury. Their get-out-of-jail-free card is always 'saying' the right things.

Until someone shows them the price for their actions, they'll simply continue and likely get worse. Bear in mind that these are often countries of a few million whose actions are impacting countries with populations of tens of millions.

The reacquisition of Kuwait was just an exemplar, but the broader principle is there.

They won a protracted war in Syria where Iran played a much stronger hand and was more actively supported by two superpowers. With a weakened Hezbollah, Iran itself in the middle of a war, and a lackadaisical and lukewarm Russia and China, how far can Iran pull this off? 

And even this is assuming that Iraq is in a position to put up a good fight, which it is not. ISIS are regrouping in the North. The country itself is ravaged by misgovernance and wars and civil wars for going on for over two decades and the people are sick of it all; there's a loud and growing anti-Iran constituency even within the Iraqi Shia (led by Muqtada Sadr) which is convinced that friendship with Iran and its projects had brought more harm than good to them , good luck convincing them to send more sons to the meat grinder for a country they already don't think highly of. And who will do the actual fighting? The demoralized Iraqi army reeling under corruption? Or the fatigued Hashd who are already burnt out and stretched thin over the ground? 

I respect and appreciate Marandi for his role as the unofficial spokesman of the Shia world in the anglophone media but what he and the people echoing him are advocating is simply wrong and senseless. Maybe he's been spending too much time engaging with Western hawks and some of their influence has rubbed off onto him, but warfare is not solving a math equation- even if you have the same constants you can never guess the variable and each mistake will cost you dearly in the most ugly manner. 

The best thing for Iran to do right now is to go back to the drawing board, work on their own country and get that bomb quick. You don't strengthen your game by rearranging pieces on the chessboard, you do so by honing your skills. Thinking that a punitive war to cut Gulf Arab oildoms to size will make up for lost geopolitical ground is asinine thinking, and just as these oildoms can't control and rearrange things across the Middle East as they please, so can't Iran, as it has just learnt to its sorrow in Syria. And this time without active Russian and Chinese aid, the cost of every adventure increases manifold.

Iran simply cannot afford to open another front right now. Advocating this has as much wisdom as advocating cardio workout for an asthmatic in the middle of an asthma attack. 

Edited June 22 by AbdusSibtayn

[Haji 2003]

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The best thing for Iran to do right now is to go back to the drawing board, work on their own country and get that bomb quick.

The issue with this approach is that I think the US game plan is to have the Iranians negotiate away their right to nuclear, in return for no more bombing.

But that's all the Iranians will get in return.

Negotiating from a position of power the US/Isreal will be tempted to say that sanctions will remain (or tighten) unless Iran dismantles links with Hezbollah/Hamas etc. Their narrative so far is that they have the upperhand.

And they'll keep pushing ... until they get someone like King Hussein running Iran.

So although everyone is talking about de-escalation - the US has every incentive to keep escalating and they will. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Netanyahu to become King of the Middle East.

The only challenge to the above scenario is a calibrated Iranian military response - to keep raising the price for American actions.

[AbdusSibtayn]

6 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

The issue with this approach is that I think the US game plan is to have the Iranians negotiate away their right to nuclear, in return for no more bombing.

But that's all the Iranians will get in return.

Negotiating from a position of power the US/Isreal will be tempted to say that sanctions will remain (or tighten) unless Iran dismantles links with Hezbollah/Hamas etc. Their narrative so far is that they have the upperhand.

And they'll keep pushing ... until they get someone like King Hussein running Iran.

So although everyone is talking about de-escalation - the US has every incentive to keep escalating and they will. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Netanyahu to become King of the Middle East.

The only challenge to the above scenario is a calibrated Iranian military response - to keep raising the price for American actions.

Yes but in that case they should attack US bases and Zio settlements, not antagonize Sunni Arabs in the process. 

Thinking that a war/aggression would give leverage in negotiations with the West is exactly what Saddam thought in 1991. We all know how it ended for him. 

[Haji 2003]

11 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Thinking that a war/aggression would give leverage in negotiations with the West is exactly what Saddam thought in 1991.

In 1991, he thought that April Glaspie had given him the green light to go into Kuwait. He believed that they agreed with him that this was an Arab problem.

Bear in mind that one of the issues he had with the Kuwaitis was that they had funded his aggression against Iran and wanted their loans repaid.

These small states have a history of trouble-making going back decades.

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

In 1991, he thought that April Glaspie had given him the green light to go into Kuwait. He believed that they agreed with him that this was an Arab problem.

Bear in mind that one of the issues he had with the Kuwaitis was that they had funded his aggression against Iran and wanted their loans repaid.

These small states have a history of trouble-making going back decades.

Yeah but still antagonizing the already unfavorable Sunni Arabs is a foolish thing to do in my opinion. Iran has too much on its plate already. 

[Haji 2003]

19 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

One of the pacifist reasons for Iran responding to Israeli attacks is that if an aggressor believes that there will be no cost to their actions, they will simply carry on doing so.

echoed in an FT op-ed

Quote

But the Iranians will also fear that, as American neoconservatives like to say, “weakness is provocative”. A failure to respond could invite further attacks by Israel, as well as emboldening Iran’s domestic enemies.

https://www.ft.com/content/8864cb64-36ed-4324-be67-e1a673a4d574

[Guest Information]

I saw a map today of US military bases in the region, and it's amazing how many the US has just in Kuwait... here's an article and a map:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/12/mapping-us-troops-and-military-bases-in-the-middle-east

 

With 5 US bases in Kuwait, it seems like it would be difficult, even besides the political issues.

 

I was also surprised that the US even has bases in Turkey.

 

People should also watch this video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlJazeera/comments/1lgp0l9/arab_leaders_caught_helping_lsrael_attack_iran/?sort=top

 

I knew the Arab states were puppets, but it's shocking how integrated their are with Israel, and have investments in Israeli companies, and how they hire Israeli companies to spy on their citizens.

And even Turkey is intertwined with Israel, and lets them use Turkey for flight training (probably to get practice for attacking Iran).

 

[Haji 2003]

Marandi is not happy with other countries either:

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

4 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Marandi is not happy with other countries either:

 

To Mr. Marandi, with some concern: log off for sometime, kaka sahib. Get good food and good sleep. 

[Haji 2003]

Apparently, the Iranians have said that they will have a go at American targets. I think Bahrain is likely. It has very little of economic value to anyone else.

[Hameedeh]

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

Apparently, the Iranians have said that they will have a go at American targets. I think Bahrain is likely. It has very little of economic value to anyone else.

Considering that Bahrain is historically an Iranian island that was stolen by foreigners.

Give Palestine back to Palestinians, give Kuwait back to Iraq and give Bahrain back to Iran.