The Bush Administration has been scaremongering about the prospect that if we walk out of Iraq, Iran will walk in.
But from a foreign policy standpoint, wouldn't we benefit from handing the Iraqi quagmire off to Iran? From a strictly Machiavellian point of view, shouldn't our foreign policy goal be precisely to get Iran bogged down in Iraq?
It strikes me that very little could be worse for Iran than to be left holding the bag in Iraq. There is no doubt the Sunnis would consider them a bitter enemy. The Kurds have no fondness for Iran. But even the Shiites have no special fondness for their neighbors. They merely want Iranian help getting the US out. Once the US is out, what is the likelihood that the Iranians would be welcome?
Yet they would undoubtedly be sucked in. How would Iran be able to ignore the chaos next door? One Shiite faction would invite them in, while others would likely take arms against them. Isn't it likely that an Iranian "occupation" of Iraq would inflame Iraqis against them? We are merely the Great Satan. The Persians and the Arabs have been at each other's throats for thousands of years, and most adult Iraqis can remember the last war between Iraq and Iran.
Bear in mind that Iran has nowhere near the resources that the US has. Like us, its nuclear weapons are useless in a guerrilla war. But its troops are nowhere nearly as well armed. Its economy is weak. And it is full of Arab minorities who might easily take to anti-Persian terrorism if they objected to an Iranian presence across the border.
And what would be the political consequences within Iran? Likely growing discontent with the theocratic regime, not merely with the intellectual elite, but from every family with a son in uniform. What would bring down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faster than an unpopular occupation?
From a strictly Machiavellian point of view, wouldn't the US's best move against Iran be to walk out of Iraq and invite them in?