Iraq is essentially a failed sectarian state. I wasn't saying Iran would pursue an invasion and annexation without the US' go-ahead.
But why would the US give Iran the 'go-ahead' to annex Iran? Why would the US hand over a the nation it spent a decade nation-building to a state that it thinks is part of the 'axis of evil' (a politically unpalatable option with the American public)? Why would the US hand over Iraq to one of its primary regional rivals - the only state in the region with the capability and motivation to challenge US interests seriously - and a rival of Saudi Arabia and Israel, the US's two primary regional allies? This is one of the dumbest conspiracies I've ever heard.
Are you aware how primitive they are? They're getting their asses kicked by feel-good socialists in Syria.
You're aware that the 'primitive' Afghan resistance was capable of sapping the Soviets dry during the 80s, right? The Islamic State is able to engage in asymmetric warfare with US allies, and they're fairly good at it.
He's actually a respected foreign policy expert and was criticizing his own Democrats in what they were setting up with Iran.
The question is in what capacity he was speaking, not his qualifications. As a politician, he has ulterior motives for inflating the risk of ISIS - if George Bush says that North Korea is part of an axis of evil and "represents a threat to global peace", that doesn't mean that the combined intelligence of the US government has actually assessed Noko as capable of triggering WWIII. It means Bush has a political base and he wants them fired up.
Ah, yes, can't leave personal vendettas out of this one. You diminish your own standing by coming down to my level, if you think I really am down here.
I think the majority of your posts are vapid and that you rely on rhetoric and elitism to justify your views. I've called you out elsewhere as I am here because you contribute little to this board other than your self-aggrandizement.
Here's the original video I heard him say it in.
Charles Krauthammer believes that the Obama policy is allowing Iran to "take" Iraq (into its sphere of influence). You misrepresent his view: Obama isn't "giving Iraq" to Iran. Krauthammer thinks Obama doesn't have the will to confront Iran in Iraq and that he is planning accommodation and rapprochement with Iran. This is not a new or controversial view (George Friedman has been predicting eventual US-Iran detente and rapprochement for the last decade). That Iran can expand its influence in Iraq is not the same as Iran conquering Iraq.
Here's a column of his I found in 5s. It's from January 22nd, so I'm not entirely sure if it covers everything he thinks, but it may.
Again, this is far more moderate than what you make it out to be. Krauthammer thinks that Iran is aspiring to regional hegemony and is using regional disorder and clandestine support for rebel movements to expand its influence. This (getting more regional influence/flexing your muscles) is not the same thing as Iran conquering Iraq - of invading and annexing another country.
And here's another piece I found on the matter in 5s. Essentially, everyone is talking about this, no matter the political bias of an outlet.
Again, does not say "Iran will take over Iraq". It says Iran is expanding its influence in the region. Saying that China is expanding its influence over Japan is hugely different from saying China will "take over" Japan.