Daniel Storobin from Global Politician is pondering the possiblity of a U.S. invasion of Iran and Syria. Now let’s pick it apart, because I only agree with him to a point, at which point some things stop being considered.

Some reports also suggested that Iraq was chosen as the second step in the War on Terror to surround Iran, with American troops to the east of the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan and to the west of it in Iraq. While such claims remain unsubstantiated, having well over 100,000 American soldiers stationed right next to Iran certainly does help Washington and should keep the Ayatollahs in Iran awake on many nights to come.

And…

Some have contemplated that Israel may attack Syria, while the United States will attack Iran.

Alright, yes, I do believe that invading Iraq was to gain a military foothold in the Middle East so that we can conduct operations elsewhere. Also, Israel will definitely be in on it. However, this is where Storobin’s argument begins to… stop making sense.

Others reject this as a bluff because the U.S. is currently tied down in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan, so it may not have the means to invade either Syria or Iran, much less both, even with Israel????????s help. Proponents of this theory believe that Washington is merely trying to play ???????bad cop??????? to Europe????????s ???????good cop???????, so as to persuade the Iranian leadership to cooperate with Europe????????s diplomatic efforts in order to avoid the wrath of America.

This theory has been challenged by those claiming that the United States would not need as much military in Iraq if Iran and Syria did not aid terrorists and insurgents. As such, an invasion and destruction of terror-sponsoring regimes in Iran and Syria would immediately lead to a peaceful Iraq, with Iraqi insurgents quickly running out of weapons, money and intelligence information.

I doubt it. Without the U.S. military in Iraq, which is acting as a police force right now, Iraq will become worse with or with Iran and Syria. And we already know that diplomacy is like a Middle Eastern tradition. Well, delay thereof anyhow. I don’t think that the Bush administration is so stupid as to rely on diplomacy, because the longer it waits the more resources Iran will accumulate.

I do think Israel will help, as I have said before, and I think it will be Iran. There will definitely not be many U.S. troops involved in an Iran campaign, as they are already being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. What Storobin does not look at in this article is the potential for a mass popular revolution. With a destroyed military infrastructure, and not necessarily a U.S. military presence, the mullahs will be in a position of weakness with the people. I don’t believe this is some kind of drug-induced optimism either, but a real potential for what will happen.