Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

who said anything about peaceful iraqi-iranian ties? you obviously haven't been listening. everything you posted on the last page was to the point of we can't leave because they don't have a military now you say they don't need a military. you can't have it both ways.

 

Häh?

... I said I disagree with Pike. Sharply. That you apparently did read a need for Iraq to either have an have an army or US protection out of Pike's quote in my post doesn't mean *I* made that point. Also, Pike's assertion doesn't turn his claim into a fact.

It doesn't really matter if the Iranians don't have a military because they won't need it. The babble about 'defending Iraq against foreign threat' is a canard. There is no foreign threat to Iraq. Maliki, Talabani don't feel threatened by their buddies in Tehran. There is, however, a US need for a justification for a presence in Iraq. For domestic consumption the asserted necessity of 'defending Iraq against foreign threat' would meet that requirement.

 

You have much more faith in iran,syria, jordan & turkey than i do. I think that given the chance they would carve up iraq in an instant to benefit themselves. To think otherwise is hopelessly naive. Oh but wait, i forgot, unless us westerners are aggressive emperialists

 

I'm not as informed on the tribal / cultural end of things, but IIRC the US deliberately encouraged the war in the 1980s between Iraq and Iran because they didn't want those two countries gettng friendly. A unified Middle East dominated by Islamics who view the West as the Great Satan is that LAST thing the US would want -- and I would argue they'd be fools to allow it to happen. That's why I bet they'll be there for the long term. They may believe that it's the best of a bad set of options. If they leave and Iran and Iraq get super friendly, it'll be bad news for Israel and bad news for oil prices in the West.

 

Completely off-topic but related. The only country in the entire area that seems to be preparing for the future post-oil era is abu-dhabi. They seem to be building an infrastructure able to provide for them after their oil dries up.

 

That's exactly right, since all the talk about "spreading democracy" in the ME has worn thin with the American people. Now they are resorting to the old Nixonian Doctrine of "containment." They are "containing" Iran from the rest of the ME. Forget that it was they who opened the door for an expanded Irainian presence in Iraq. But nevertheless, they are "Domino Dancing," just as they (the Nixonians) did in the old Vietnam days....

 

A good reason for the US to leave Iraq to it's own devices. Then when one of these more aggressive nations does pick on them, it's the UN's problem, not the US.

The Americans have the equipment they need, Iraq can pay for it with Oil...

Wouldn't Israel be a more effective ally in this regard? I'm sure that they would be happy with extra firepower and the largest military in the world on their side if there's trouble. In return, Israel would have fewer insurgents. Then Iraq can develop on it's own and its neighbours know that the Americans have not turned theor back and will bomb the **** out of them if they act up...

The worst thing for the US is for them to succeed. The US celebrates the development of an effective Army and democracy in Iraq! The problem is that Democracy literally means "people rule", and if the people don't like the Americans, we've built up a military force under the control of a nation that doesn't like them. Isn't that where tehy started from to begin with?

If ther US tells Iraq to fry themselves and pull out, and any of the nations you mention invade Iraq, then that's a problem for the UN to solve, not just the Americans. That puts world war III in their back yard. Put enough Nations interested in toppling enough nations, then sooner or later, they'll fragment the region into the control of local warlords that are smart enough to publicly kiss the ass of the right western nations...

 

Gnarff,
the desire of Iraq neighbours to eat it for lunch are exaggerated.

More general,
what I find quite striking is that some here appear to be convinced that Iran has to be deterred by force and US troops. I dare say that this is rather a result of the US approach and the remarkable incuriousity of the US media in portraying this. It has little to do with general Iranian hostility. The Iranians helped the US after 9/11. The Bushies rewarded them with the Axis of Evil speech and the threat of regime change. Going to a café, ordering cup of coffee, and saying to the owner: "Besides, I want you out of business!", pointing at your gun, "and I want you to know that all options are on the table!" is at best a guarantee for a very bad cup of coffee being served to you.

The US should talk to Iran, drop the nuclear issue as the pretext of their regime change efforts. I remember Bolton voicing in an interview that he had hoped US policy would tempt the Iranians to quit the NPT, which the US would have exploited to, say, get on them a UN security council resolution in order to further isolate Iran. Understand that the current administration instrumentalises issues for other ends. It has done so in the past (WMD for bureaucratic reasons anyone? ), and the implication is that they are deceptive (Or what about 'Permanent' bases? Well, that depends on the definition of what permanent means. The Roman empire wasn't permanent ...) about their actual intentions in their announcements. To believe in their assertions on the nature of their politics at face value without thoroughly fact checking them is an act of folly and being gullible.

Most importantly, the US should drop regime change as a policy goal. Regime change per se means that the US position means that the US considers the other side unworthy of anything but sermons, and that they will not negotiate with the other side about anything else but their unconditional surrender (spot the contradiction). As long as regime change is on the table the US will not be able to do anything else but to confront Iran. Everybody knows the US are able to exercise military force. They should absolutely shut up about 'all options being on the table'. That is brinkmanship, and yields nothing but a hardened Iranian response. Which is incidentally just the point, as a hardened Iranian response allows to better isolate them and make a better case for confrontation, because after all, they hardened up The worse it gets, the better for the case for regime change. True to that logic, the neo-cons rejoiced when Ahmedinejad was elected instead of a moderate. People should start looking beyond that scare crow Ahmedinejad and put US actions in the context of Iranian reactions. That is a thing US media consistently fail to do. It is a fact of life that people and nations don't like being threatened. Threats makes people less cooperative. You don't like to be threatened; chances are it makes you unwilling. I presume that the reason why it is being pursued as a measure of foreign policy anyway reflects a disturbing perception of the own ability to do anything and succeed.

A striking example of the Bush administration’s divorce from reality may be seen in Rice’s article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs:

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry when one reads this. The Iraqis don’t want to be ‘democratized’ by American military power; the Afghans don’t want a Western model of society forced upon them; the impact of Iraq’s ‘transformation’ - that is to say its destruction - has been highly destabilizing for the whole region. Some Gulf rulers may misguidedly feel the need for U.S. military protection, but most of their subjects emphatically do not. Arab prosperity, such as it is, owes nothing to the American military presence and everything to oil and to Arab trading skills.

By destroying Iraq, the United States overturned the balance in the Gulf and made Iran a major regional power. This situation cannot easily be reversed - however much Bush, Cheney, Olmert or the pro-Israeli neo-con wrowd may long to do so. Like it or not, the Islamic Republic is now an unavoidable actor on the scene.

What does Tehran want? It wants to protect itself against a U.S./Israel attack, the explicit threat of which it faces almost daily. This, no doubt, explains its attempt to acquire a deterrent capability. It has painful memories of the eight year Iran-Iraq war - when the whole Arab world (with the exception of Syria) backed Iraq’s aggression against it. It, therefore, wants to keep Iraq under Shiite governance and in close coordination with itself. It wants a united Iraq, but not one so strong as again to threaten it with war. Iran wants to ensure that Iraq and the Gulf States will not allow the United States to use their territory for an attack on it. In a word, it wants U.S. troops to go home. Washington would be far better advised to withdraw from Iraq, engage diplomatically with Iran. Offer Iran a grand bargain. With Iran's interests addressed they will have no need to obstruct the US in reaction to open US hostility. Deal, deal, deal with Iran.

The price for having a sensible approach to Iran is that the US would have to live with Iran's clerics. Oh no, that would undermine the transformation of the Middle East! Iran must be regime changed! There is no other choice! Ahmedinejad is Hitler! Theran is Munich! Holocaust! Horror! Appeasement! Sputter!


A backgrounder: Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States

 

So tell me, Ragusa, do you believe Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism? I think that plays a vital role in this arguement as specifically funded and directed terrorists are, in my book, a method of war.

 

What about economic sanctions? Are they not a method of war? Iran has in the past funded irregulars that conducted terrorist acts. That is correct. The US in the past did similar things. They are not extraditing or punishing a Cuban terrorist who blew up an air liner. They supported the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to do ... what to the Russians? Look who Bush's Middle East advisor Elliot Cohen quite recently supported in Lebanon. Famously, Cheney voted against a resolution in the house to call for Nelson Mandela's release because Mandela was a commie terrorist. Absurdly, Nelson Mandela is still flagged on the US terrorism watch list. Indeed, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist ...

What I want to say is that the US play politics with that label and use it and the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism as a useful political tool. It is a sharp sword because according to US legislation with the label come moral stigma and thus political ammunition - and economic sanctions, just through the administrative act of being added to that list. And as the Mandela incident indicates, such lists are very long lived, and include incidents dating back to the 1970s. With Posada in mind, equal rights for all involved.

In the last decade the Iranians have been pretty well behaved and disciplined, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan. They take care of their interests, sure, but low key. And think of the EFP issue, all the accusations towards Iran notwithstanding, the EFP are being manufactured in Iraq. Fun story:

Can you tell me any recent acts of Iranian terrorism that have not been discredited? You can just as well do the work for your argument.

 

Your arguments are compelling, but are you really comfortable with the idea of Iran as a nuclear power? I can guarantee that Israel isn't. IMHO they are being given lots of really good offers to stop their weapons program yet they are persisting. I don't think the extremists would hesitate to use that bomb on Israel, regardless of the cost . . .

 

What makes you so sure that the 'threat' of Iran becoming a nuclear power isn't a mere assertion? The IAEA reports suggest just that.

 

I heard a report on the news saying that many major governments (France, America, England, maybe even Russia) are offering all sorts of incentives to Iran if Iran stops its enrichment program. Iran has told them to stuff it.

Now that could just be posturing on Iran's part -- their program may be a joke that might produce a nuclear bomb in 400 years at the current rate of progress. But they certainly don't seem to be denying that they are working on improving their nuclear technology, though IIRC they are swearing up and down that they only intend it to be used for peaceful energy generation.

The US really lost its credibility with the WMD in Iraq -- if they unilaterally invade Iran that'll kill their reputation for decades at least. They'll need SOME better intel to spin to the world, and some allies, if they really want to go into Iran. Me, I like the Israeli approach -- didn't they just send in some jets to take out a reactor in Iraq in the 80s? Or maybe it was Iran, I can't remember the target.

 

LKD,
you know why Iran told them to stuff it? Because they have read their treaty.

They are entitled to enrich Uranium under the NPT. To expect them to not do that is to ask them to forgo their rights under the treaty.

Point is, the US *claim* they use it for military purposes. So far, whatever allegations and cues the US pestered the IAEA with, it all turned out to be crap.

All the while, the IAEA reports that they can testify to the, read closely, non-diversion of nuclear material for military purposes by Iran. That's a very strong statement. That's the IAEA is saying: We know everything they have, and we know where they use it, and we know nothing of that goes for military purposes, Iran is in compliance and there is nothing to report to the UN security council.

Now it is the US turn again: But what about all the things you did not tell us about? And so it goes on and on.

 

Ragusa, you may choose to trust your friendly neighborhood Iranian regime -- I , for one, will not. I don't take them at their word on anything.

 

Look where current US policy has put the US: Into irrelevance.

In most areas Washington’s Mideast policies have failed to achieve their goals, or have backfired spectacularly and made things worse for US interests and allies. Democracy promotion has led to a regression in democratic freedoms in most Arab countries and Iran. It has caused most native democrats in the region to shun any involvement with the United States. To make democracy promotion with American assistance a dangerous endeavour for Middle Easterners is an astoundingly amateurish foreign policy.

Washington’s pressure on Syria and Iran has not caused neither to change their policies significantly. It has predictably made them both more defiant. Washington closest ally, Israel, has ignored US insistence to boycott Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and has instead entered into negotiations with all three of them simultaneously (and wisely so, given the ineffectiveness of Washington's sanctions-based approach). The Israeli-Hamas ceasefire announced this week is good news for both sides, and an embarrassment for Washington. Fun fact: It was brokered by Egypt.

 

This may shock you, T2, but I actually agree with you. I don't believe for a minute that Iran can be trusted. The current regime is hostile to anything, which it perceives as being remotely "Western." They are tyrants and bullies, mostly towards their own people.

Nevertheless, America has a past tradition of dealing with tyrants when its intrests coincides with theirs - yes, remember when Suddam was "our guy" in the Gulf? Did we have any concerns then about his need for weapons of mass destruction? I believe that what Ragusa suggests has a very practical dimension to it, rather than a moral one. Yes, we can deal with them, but that doesn't mean that we have to trust them, nor approve of how they conduct themselves internally. But if they continue to threaten Israel....

 

How long ago did talks start between Israel & The other countries start ragusa? Could it have been around/after jimmy carter was tactless enough to announce to the world that Israel has about 150 nuclear devices last month? Now it is a well known "secret" that they have them but it's a sort of a gentleman's agreement that they aren't to be discussed in the general news. If there was ever a country that is willing to go nuclear it is Israel. But that tends to happen when all your neighbors express the desire to destroy you.

 

That's hilarious! Ever heard of Mordechai Vanunu? No? Anyway, there was a world before last month, and before Jimmy Carter. Think of Sadat, Golda Meir, the Sinai, 1973 and Nixon.

Chandos,
Reagan sold detente to the hawks by calling it trust but verify

Much like I don't trust in the factual correctness of much of what the US administration says atm, I don't trust in everything the Iranians say. No matter how often they repeat the line, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program only because the Bush crew says so. I trust the IAEA though, and they verified the Iranian statements on their nuclear program, and not the accusations levelled at them by the Bush administration.

As for threatening Israel, Ahmadinejad's quote has been mistranslated, and that is pretty well known for a while. Also, he does not have the command authority to order an attack on Israel, he is all talk, and a splendid scare-crow, and in his re-election he is facing a formidable foe in Larjani. I hope Larjani wins. Even with Ahmadinejad, Iran is a rational actor. They have been acting quite astute and very pragmatic in Iran and Afghanistan, exploiting US blunders. Considering the open US hostility it is hard to blame them. As rational actors considerations like this (PDF file ... oh no! Holy ... Jimmy Carter, did you reveal THAT too?! ) are known to the Iranians and they are acutely aware of that.

Keep in mind that Israel's demand that the Arab states accept it's statehood and right for existence is unrealistic (for a lot of reasons, religious and political ones). The truce with Hamas is a hudna, a temporary peace, that can be renewed again and again if it works. It is the only way to begin a process of gradual confidence building while moving forward in what may be very long negotiations. Let us hope that both sides have the good sense to observe this terms of this opportunity for actual progress. Such truces have held for decades at the time of the crusades. I don't see why it shouldn't work now. The Israelis have eventually gotten the point that insisting on unrealistic demands doesn't work. They are now settling on the doable. Damn sensible of them, because they, you know, have to live in that neighbourhood, and while at it ...

... interesting metaphor T2. You can't choose the neighbourhood you're born into. Iran is a neighbour of Iraq. The US moved into Iran's neighbourhood and now find they don't like the neighbours, didn't like them from the start? If you prefer to not choose your friendly neighbourhood Iranian regime, you you think it is realistic for the US #1 to choose it for them, or #2 that it is easier and more sensible for the US to choose not to have Iran as a neighbour? Because that's the two options you have.

 

That incident quite vivid to me, Chandos. I remember the flash messages, reading them as they came off the wire and delivering them to our CO. I remember steaming to the Straits of Hormuz at 27 knots alongside the USS CONSTELLATION as Battle Group Charlie entered the Persian Gulf and provide air cover and aid to the ships on station. I remember loading the intact Exocet cruise missile recovered from the STARK and bringing the armed, but presumed dud, explosive device back across the Pacific amidst another few thousand tons of ammunition. I also remember the standard operating procedure was to not trust the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's tried the same manuever on another ship two nights before, but with much different results -- the other ship challenged the aircraft, issued a warning, and locked target on the aircraft with fire control radar. Unfortunately, the STARK was not as prepared and her crew payed dearly for that command oversight.

That detour aside, yes, we work with tyrants whenever it suits our immediate needs. Hell, we armed Bin Laden (and trained him ... then left him behind).

Ragusa, you can take the [sic] out of your quote -- I don't hit 100% on spelling, but neighborhood is the correct spelling according to Webster's. If you want to take glory in pointing out mistakes, make sure you're right.