The United States attacked Iraq by hook or by crook. Why only sanction Iran?

The hostile relationship between the United States and Iraq has lasted for decades, and the latest round of sanctions has passed 14 years. Affected by sanctions, people's livelihood in Iran is on the verge of collapse. Last year, people's livelihood caused quite a riot, which almost brought down the current regime.

Leaving aside the dispute between the United States and Iran for the time being, there is a question worth discussing, and that is why the United States has been attacking Iran by economic and political means for decades, but rarely by military means.

Compared with Iraq, it is obvious that the United States launched two wars against Iraq and directly brought down Saddam Hussein's regime for the second time. As an enemy entrenched in the Middle East, why does the United States take one side? Does it really dare not use force against Iran?

From a military point of view, obviously not. Not to mention Iran, even if this country has the strongest military strength, the United States still dares to move if it wants to. No one should question this. Of course, nuclear deterrence is not considered.

Therefore, there must be other reasons behind the United States' daring to fight Iraq but not Iran.

Saddam Hussein represents the interests of the minority, while Khamenei represents the majority of Iran.

Many people think that Iraq (Saddam era) and Iran are similar countries, both believe in Islam, both in the Middle East, and both are relatively authoritarian regimes, but in fact the difference between them is huge.

There are three main factions in Iraq, namely, Shiites with the largest proportion and Sunnis with a small number, plus Kurds of non-Arab nationalities. Among the three factions, the Shiites, who have the largest number, account for only about 65%.

In contrast, Iran is dominated by Shiites, accounting for more than 90%. It is a typical unitary country.

Although Iraq is dominated by Shiites, Saddam himself is a Sunni, and almost all senior officials and other vested interests in Saddam's regime are Sunnis. Therefore, during Saddam's time, the rulers of Iraq only represented the interests of a few people, even in name.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a Shia, so he can represent the interests of most people in Iran (nominally). This means that the cohesion of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's administration is far less than that of Iran. Of course, the persimmon is soft, and the United States is not stupid. Of course, if you want to hit a soft persimmon like Iraq, you should think twice about a hard persimmon like Iran.

The US military is likely to play beyond its limits in Iraq, but it is difficult to play normally in Iran.

There is another factor that the United States has to consider when attacking Iran, and that is Iran's unfavorable terrain. The whole of Iran has only a small real plain bordering Iraq. In addition, either plateaus or basins crisscross the country.

This geographical environment is very unfavorable to modern weapons and equipment, so if we really want to fight Iran, the US military must be prepared to fight more and less, and it is not even excluded that Iran will use its terrain advantage to fight the army.

If the US military is likely to play a low-level role in fighting Iran, it is likely to play an extraordinary role in fighting Iraq. Because Iraq's terrain is dominated by plains, modern armored forces can easily March. In a joke, Iraq's terrain is the biggest leader, which is tailor-made for the US invasion.

Indeed, in the Iraq war in 2003, the US military basically exceeded expectations, and the war ended earlier than almost everyone expected.

You have to see your friends after beating the dog. The "national pulse" of Iran is much better than that of Iraq.

During Saddam Hussein's period, the United States conducted two military operations against Iraq. The first time was the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The purpose of the United States was only to recover Kuwait, and it did not seek to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.

The second time was the Iraq war at the beginning of this century. This time, the United States killed its hand and directly wiped out Saddam's regime.

Interestingly, the United States fought the Gulf War with an "imperial decree" (recognized by the United Nations), but the Iraq war was active and bypassed the United Nations. Do not destroy the country when it is legal, and destroy others when it is illegal.

It stands to reason that the second American war against Iraq should be condemned by the international community, but in fact, few people stood up to help Iraq. Occasionally, they just say nothing. Why?

The reason is very simple, that is, Saddam Hussein's regime has too few friends in the world and excellent friendship, and even fewer people can talk about it. However, if we really want to talk about the friendship between countries, it is the thinking of children, and ultimately interests will dominate. So strictly speaking, Iraq under Saddam Hussein is not very important to other countries, especially big countries.

But Iran is different, not to mention that ordinary countries, even Russia, have deep cooperation with Iran, whether it is economic, political or even military.

Therefore, if the United States really wants to fight Iran, it must first consider its friends who can talk behind it, especially Russia. Obviously, no matter how powerful the United States is, it is impossible to openly engage in military confrontation with Russia, so Iran is naturally much safer than Iraq.

War is just a game. If there are other ways to solve the problem, war is obviously the most uneconomical and risky choice. Therefore, the United States has not used military means against Iran before, now and in the future. Only when the international situation changes suddenly can the drama of the United States attacking Iran be staged.