  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Joe Conason: Our Iraqi Friends Befriend Our EnemiesPosted on Jan 18, 2007By Joe Conason Should the United States attack Iran, which side would the Iraqi government support? The answer to that simple question is far from clear, despite the thousands of lives and billions of dollars we have sacrificed to support the ruling coalition in Baghdad. While the Bush administration seeks to isolate and even overthrow the Iranian regime, as well as its Syrian ally, its partners in Iraq are establishing closer relationships with both. Indeed, the most powerful elements of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s political coalition regularly collude with the Iranian intelligence apparatus—which the Bush administration has accused of arming the insurgents and terrorists who are attacking our forces, committing sectarian atrocities and undermining the new Iraqi democracy. The Maliki government has resumed diplomatic relations with Syria, signed a billion-dollar aid agreement with Iran and encouraged the expansion of Iranian consulates and border stations. Friendship with Iran and Syria is endorsed not only by Shiite fundamentalists such as Moqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army warlord, and his rival Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, chief of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq—but also by President Jalal Talabani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Kurdish leaders who believe in secular democracy and actually like the United States. Nothing better illustrates the profound differences between the U.S. and Iraq over relations with Iran than the recent raid by American soldiers on an Iranian office in the northern city of Irbil, where they arrested five alleged Iranian subversives. During a tense confrontation, the Americans faced the cocked weapons of Kurdish troops, who surrounded the Iranian facility. Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, described those prisoners as “foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq’s request.” But Zebari rejected that accusation and demanded their immediate release. He told the Los Angeles Times that his government’s policy is to “engage [Iran] constructively”—notably in a security agreement just signed between the two countries. So in Iraq, the friends of our enemies are ... our best and only friends. That lethal contradiction is among the many reasons why the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq won’t achieve his objectives—and why the basic framework of his policy is fundamentally flawed. What will happen when five additional American combat brigades arrive in Baghdad during the next several months? According to the Bush theory, they will combine with the Iraqi army and national police to establish security while suppressing both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. In reality, the probable result is that the Shiite militias will temporarily disappear, while the joint American-Iraqi operations finish disarming and driving out the Sunni rebels. Then the Shiite militias will reappear—as they certainly will if the United States engages in hostile action against Iran. As an American military official complained bitterly to The New York Times, “We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn.” Nothing proposed by President Bush in his “new way forward” speech solves this conundrum. Instead, he and his aides pretend that the Middle East is now divided between “reformers and responsible leaders” in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, versus Iran and Syria. So said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Jan. 11, when she declared that the president’s escalation represents a “regional strategy.” She was wrong, as usual. There is no such simple divide in the Middle East. Even Israel has been secretly negotiating with the Syrians through third parties over the past two years, as revealed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. For the United States to rule out discussion with the Iranians or the Syrians—while the Iraqis exchange diplomats and sign agreements with those governments—is not a regional strategy. It is merely the residue of strategic failure. The only “new” way forward in Iraq and the Middle East, as the study group led by James Baker III and Lee Hamilton explained, is the same as the old way forward: broad negotiations among the conflicting parties, sponsored by the United States and its traditional allies, to achieve political solutions. Among other things, that would mean inviting the Syrians and the Iranians into regional discussions on the security of Iraq. Whenever the Democratic leaders in Congress grow weary of hearing that they have no alternative to Bush’s plan, they could do much worse than to adopt the entirely sane Baker-Hamilton report. Copyright 2007, Creators Syndicate Inc. SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Bush the Infallible
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Esther, January 24, 2007 at 5:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Scott Ritter, fomer UN arms inspector, writes:
“Reigning in the Israeli desire for armed conflict against Iran would provide the United States with a tremendous amount of room from which to begin negotiating a non-violent solution to the Iranian crisis.”
Scott Ritter, from his book, “Target Iran”, page 212
Yes, kiddies, we have to face facts: the notion that Iran is America’s “enemy” in some essential sense is a falsity carefully nurtured by the Israel lobby.
Report thisBy rod ruger, January 23, 2007 at 9:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
perhaps u.s. neocons have no “enemy”, except peace, in the mideast. we assume the u.s. goal is to pacify iraq, syria, et al. maybe the neocon goal is to foster continuous fighting in the region. why? because constant fighting provides a rationalization for a large u.s. military presence in the area: troops, carriers, subs, f-16’s, cruise missles, nukes. we want a large military presence there because: israel, oil, china, india, pakistan, afghanistan. probably other reasons that do not immediately occur to me. i doubt very much that the boys in washington want peace in the m.e. look at u.s. m.e. foreign policy from that point of view and incompetence starts looking smart. sick, yes, but at least not totally stupid.
Report thisBy Skruff, January 20, 2007 at 6:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The comment by #48716 by Sharkie on 1/19 at 3:42 pm couldn’t be more accurate.
Do our so-called “leaders” not read history. Folks more capable, and knowledgable than the US (within the confines of the middle east) have underestimated Persia. Dispite what Bushco says, they are smart, highly nationalistic,old (since 30005th c. BCE) and largely unfettered by the PC diversity craze overtaking the rest of the planet.
Iran is NOT Iraq, and were I doing the diplomatic thing today, I would tread lighter!
Report thisBy Sharkie, January 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
For several months the US has spew enough thread to just about cover the eventuality of war, this time with Iran. It doesn’t occur to most the very act of speaking of such disaster in itself could certainly tip the start of this event towards the Iranians themselves. And who could blame them; US carriers in the gulf, U.S.-led forces detained five Iranians in Irbil, no fly zones over Somalia, saber rattling by politicians, Israel practicing war games. Did it ever occur to anyone Iran is quite capable today, right now, to take out Iraq’s green zone, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or all the US naval presence in the gulf. Years of Chinese and Russian arms sales has given Iran the capability to destroy much of the region, nukes or not. Besides being the most populated and industrialized state in the Middle East, Iran possess enough short and long range missiles to “wipe out” Mr. Mushroom Cloud and his side kick Final Throes in a pre-emptive first strike. In addition, they would welcome the guerilla war that would surely take place in the mountainous border areas shared with Iraq. And who do you think Syria would be launching their missiles at? You take on Iran and you get the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization at your door. Those patriot missiles recently sent to the area are to protect guess who? US troops policing sectarian divide in its infancy stage in Baghdad.
Report thisBy Steve Hammons, January 19, 2007 at 2:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A U.S. attack on Iran could change everything. You think we are short of Army troops and Marines now?
The reactivation of the military draft could be a real possibility.
The article below takes a look at this:
Military Draft Needed for War With Iran and Syria?
By Steve Hammons
Posted: truthout.org
Thursday 20 September 2006
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/6 4/22754
Report thisBy Gene McCreary, January 19, 2007 at 10:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nobody who seriously understands anything about Iraq takes the Baker Hamilton plan seriously--way too little, way too late.
Report thisAnd that is good. And it is good Bush will fail again. It’s important to remember that we don’t want war criminals and constitution destroyers to succeed. It’s like wishing that Hitler had done a better job of subduing the Ukraine.
By TOC, January 19, 2007 at 7:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
1. The wider regional war, at this point, cannot be avoided
Report this2. Maliki will never crack down on the miliias because he knows that the U.S. will ultimately back the Sunni in a regional war.
3. The Security Council and the 5+ 1 negotiating with Iran are simply powers who hopefully can decide on a plan to share the spoils of this regional war. This is probably the best that the world can hope for.
4. Here is a scenario. War breaks out. The Gulf is closed even temporarily or there is widespread destruction in the oil fields. After importing 6 Million people a month from the provinces for the past couple of years, China is faced with unemployment caused by energy shortfalls. How much unemployment? 50 to 100 million people.
5. Would it not be prudent for the Chinese to begin discussing sending troops to the ME now to head off an eventuality like this.
6. Far fetched? India was invited to join the coalition of the willing. The reason? Indian dependence on ME oil.
7. None of the great Powers are going to allow a Sunni-Shiite quarrel to disrupt energy supplies.
8. The Iranian government will not be allowed to survive. Russia will be given the Northern fields and hegemony over the flow of oil from Central Asia.
9. The killing has not begun in the ME. Reading Newspapers misses the point. Historic pressures are building up there that outside forces cannot control.
10. The present American intervention will be remembered as a prelude to a much larger conflict.
11. Welcome to intersting times.
By jon eden, January 19, 2007 at 3:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“...that we have no alternative to Bushs (real) plan...,"the surge plus war on Iranwhat Tony Snow recently told us was urban legend, will become increasingly clear as the days roll along. On Tue, the USS Stennis steamed by my little town on the Strait of Juan de Fuca enroute to the Persian Gulf--there it will join the USS Eisenhower. We hear tonight on the news that An Iranian offer to help America stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Cheney in 2003 this even though the State Dept thought it a good offer and that we should negotiate with them.
Prior to our engaging Iraq, there was a trifecta favoring a war with Iran: a radical in charge there, their position on our regime change list as a member of the axis of evil, and Irans refusal to stand down on uranium enrichment.
Now, the probability of war with Iran is favored by a double trifecta: the preceding plus their interfering with our Iraq project, a US president who needs a wider war to shield his Iraq failure, and Iran being the grande beneficiary of that failuremaking that failure egregious beyond description in foreign policy terms.
So the surge plus war on Iran strategy is really a no brainer for the Bush administration as it not only masks the Iraq failure but will allow them to also solve the Iran problem--and making sure that Iran (old people, women, and children) pays heavily for this administration’s blunder is an added bonus. This new policy was not only signaled in the rhetoric of Bushs surge plus war on Iran speech, but by our assaulting an Iranian facility and the kidnapping of 5 Iranian diplomats the next day, by putting an admiral in charge (of this so called ground war), and by moving the carriers and their task forces into position off the shore of Iran.
Before the US begins raining fire down upon them, we only need to wait for the public to be brought along by a ramping up in the media of how evil Iran is, how they are interfering with our democracy building in Iraq, of how they are killing American solders, and how Iran is about to get the NUCLEAR BOMB and destroy ISRAEL (and we will be told afterwards that it is for this reason that we had to use the nuclear bunker buster bombs.) This media blitz will be achieved by a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran and the media whores. We mere citizens only need work, shop, watch TV, and support the troops (while those people who are smarter than us finish the laying of a swath of fire that stretches from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.
As former senior NSC staffer Roger Morris reminds us, tragically this spilling of the blood of deceived (and increasingly bribed) young Americans, mostly from small towns, to protect the egos of powerful white men in Washington is nothing new:
I sat across from the angry deflecting bravado of another military unable to admit defeat, impotence and its own ample share in the common disaster, officers who became mentors of our puerile power point generals of Mesopotamia. After I resigned from the White House over the invasion of Cambodia, I saw another universe of careerism, of craven equivocation in a Democratic opposition ever cowed by Republican chauvinism. I sat then across from maimed Vietnam veterans come to Capitol Hill to scream and murmur for peace, their bodies shaking in rage yet legs and arms strangely still, frozen in paralysis. Iraq is not Vietnam. Not just in the far wider geo-political ruin, but in sheer blind repetition of behavior expecting a different result, a mark of madness in nations as in individuals, it is worse .
jon eden
Report thisConnecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
By John Doraemi, January 18, 2007 at 11:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a disgusting bit of subtle propaganda.
“Our enemies” = the Iranians?
Not MY enemy. Perhaps yours. Last time I looked, there has been no official declaration of war against the sovereign nation of Iran.
This piece starts with the presumption that “we”, meaning all Americans are in a state of war with Iran, and therefore we must proceed to defeat them and their influence around the globe accordingly.
That is a certain worldview. Not one I subscribe to. Hopefully most Americans ("progressives" on this site?) will see through this at first glance.
“and terrorists who are attacking our forces,”
People attacking an armed occupation army are not “terrorists” by definition. The definition of terrorism is attacking civilians for political ends. Learn the basic terminology, great pundit.
Next, the neo-liberal hegemonic imperial vision is confirmed with the endorsement of the Baker plan, for staying “in Iraq.”
Not a peep about getting the hell out of Iraq, where our illegal war of aggression has already led to the deaths of 650,000 civilians.
As everything that takes place in the nominally “sovereign” nation of Iraq needs to be “sponsored by the United States,” whether the people there like it or not (they emphatically do not), this author has lost all credibility. He is a spokesman for a certain faction of “old guard” imperial domination. And that is how this article should be understood.
Crimes of the State Blog
Report thishttp://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
By Daniel, January 18, 2007 at 5:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Let me assure you that I will bring Iran to it’s knees and lower, I will make them slaves to the world, and I will make them an example of worthlessness among all mindkind.
No one can change this, it is my choice and my choice alone, there is no reason no doubt, I do not answer any whys.
Report thisBy Skruff, January 18, 2007 at 2:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The ruler5s of Iraq are not necessarily my friends....I don’t know them. Ditto the rulers in Israel.
The Iranian rulers are not necessarily my enemies. I’m far from clear on what Nuclear poliferation entails… If the Iranians “stand down” will we in turn eliminate our nuclear weapons?
Would you folks who think you speaak universally stop. HAlf the country is out-of-sinc with your ideas!
Report thisBy Anamika, January 18, 2007 at 1:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Heres more on Al-Dawa the party of PM Al-Maliki
[Keywords: Al Dawa, Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, Iran and Iraq, terrorism, US Embassy attack]
1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since 58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980
In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterdays grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.
An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters.
2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982
Membership in Dawa, which means the call, is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.
3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983
The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.
4) SHULTZ SEES LINK BETWEEN BEIRUT, KUWAIT ATTACKS OFFICIALS IDENTIFY MAN WHO DROVE TRUCK BOMB, The Miami Herald, December 14, 1983
Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there quite likely was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.
(snip)
The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.
5) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.
Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.
It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.
While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Irans tacit acceptance.
Report thisBy david, January 18, 2007 at 1:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The U.S.A. under the Bush monarchy has no credibility at all with anyone. It will take impeachment to regain even a grain of credibility with the world. Bush is clearly unstable and unfit to serve. The same for Cheney. If we do not rid ourselves of these demons and apply suitable and substantial punishment for the laws that they have broken, this country will be seen as no more than a banana republic. If we let these two escape, we will BE no better than a banana republic.
Report thisBy David, January 18, 2007 at 12:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good thing the Kurds are on “our side.” With the mutterings of the Saudis promising to send BILLIONS of dollars in aid to the Sunni insurgency--it sounds like they are planning a surge of their own. However, the Saudi surge may be more effective than this non-surge surge the President proposes. Is it possible for the Administration to screw up anything else? Stay tuned.
Report thisBy loffko, January 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hi, you can discuss about War in Iraq at link
Report thishttp://discusshottopics.com/?cat=16
By TAO Walker, January 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well hell, Joe. With “friends” like the Bush regime, Iraqis sure-as-shootin’ don’t need anymore enemies.
Report thisBy Quy Tran, January 18, 2007 at 11:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Which side is Iraq taking when the war with Iran broke out ? We should ask Maliki and we never know how does a poodle act when his boss not yet given an order. The slavery fate is so difficult
Report thisto work freely.
By Terry, January 18, 2007 at 11:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The premise of your heading is questionable: Iran is not “our enemy”. Even if GWB decides to invade or bomb Iran, I refuse to consider Iran “our enemy”. The Iranians may fight back against the Bush/Israeli illegal war of aggression, but that is Iran’s right as a sovereign country unjustly assaulted.
Report thisBy KatieL, January 18, 2007 at 9:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Enough already. We have spent over $300 billion in Iraq so far. The cost of ending world hunger and malnutrition is a mere $19 billion, according to the Borgen Project. It’s time we put our money somewhere useful, somewhere that could make an impact. Tell your representatives that you want to see support of the Millennium Development Goals!
Report this