and bombing iran would cause them to back off in iraq? huh? bombing iran would solidify ahmadinejad’s support, which seems to be fraying of late.

when they made an offer to us in 2003 (under the last president), why did we dismiss it out of hand? i turn to that old commie eisenhower’s answer: the military-industrial-complex.

Camp, Clausewitz point was that a government should keep a tight reign on the military and keep the overall situation in mind.
Wars have a tendency to spin out of control with both sides going for total victory. Clausewitz argued that a government shouldn’t let patriotism influence policy but instead it should continuously evaluate if and how the war still served/could serve the policies and interests of the country.

Therefore the problem with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and half a dozen other countries as well as the factions in Iraq is that the US has to
(a) find a way to make a continued war in Iraq unattractive for those countries (bombing Iran and Syria could achieve that but it’s certainly not an option with the others)
and (b) has to keep them from going total war on us. i.e. good version: Iran supports the chaos in Iraq; you punish them with bombs; they see that it isn’t worth the trouble and back off. But just for a second imagine this was some other country using that logic on the US. Would the US back off? No. Even with all the violence in Iraq it’ll be half a decade at least before a US retreat, you can’t expect the Iranians to fold in less time. Especially as they’ll see it as an unjustified attack on their homes instead of a largely pointless police action based on false evidence half way around the world.

Iran has repeatedly made clear in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Afghanistan war that it would be ready to come to some kind of agreement with the US. But for some reason the US can’t look at Cuba and Iran rationally. The US has made deals with Kim Jong-Il (as crazy as they come) and the Uzbekistan guy (forgot his name, but he loves watching people being boiled to death). Despite the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, the Iranian leadership generally is quite sane.
Carrot and stick could be effective in influencing Iran although the US’s stick has become a lot less intimidating in the last 2 or 3 years so it would probably take a lot more carrots than it would have in early 2002.

except for iran, who can’t be contained with threats of counter attacks, cause they’re CRAYZEEEE, right?

Bud, you really have to look at the entirety of a concept/statement, and not just the bits & pieces you can use. I’m afraid people might get the notion, you’re a bit biased… and I don’t want to see that.
.
For example, I think you missed the first sentence in my response:
.
“If actions are taken from within the borders of a nation that negatively impact it’s neighbors (such as bombings), and due diligence is NOT pursued to halt or negate the activity.”
.
If you now take the above sentence into account with your example of Anbar. Then the Saudis COULD be taken to account IF “…due diligence is NOT pursued to halt or negate the activity”. This is where diplomacy & international relations begin to take place. And also keep in mind that nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost. While one may hope for a peaceful resolution to said crisis, do recall:
.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
- Karl Von Clausewitz
.
Some may not agree with Clausewitz, but I find his perspective still relevant at times.
.
Actually, if you want to understand International relations, I suggest learning Child Psychology as well. It’s more applicable & Poli Sci peeps can take themselves way to serious.
.
Food for the mind…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Z5Sll7uow