Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: The "New" Iraq= Stronger Iran

  1. #1

    The "New" Iraq= Stronger Iran

    This is a very well written article by Dr. Alani pointing out how Iran has taken advantage of the US overthrow of Saddam.

    As i ve said many times before this was a stoopid war b/c it was a no-win situation for the USA. You can argue all you want about WMDs and whether Saddam had a link to AQ (he did not!) but the end result of our invasion/overthrow should have been crystal clear. As anyone with half a brain might have predicted, a post-Saddam Iraq led by a govt chosen by the majority Shia would most likely be a supporter of Iran as opposed to the Neocons fantasy of a pro-USA Democracy that would support us in their bogus "War on Terror".


    [QUOTE][B]Iran’s presence in Iraq[/B]
    BY DR MUSTAFA ALANI

    24 October 2006




    IRAN’S interventionist policy in Iraq has a long history. Teheran’s objective to influence developments in Iraq is motivated by a number of strategic factors, as well as cultural and religious interests. The most important factor is that the history of the two nations has been characterised by a near permanent state of rivalry and political-military conflict.


    In terms of the cultural, religious and ethnic dimensions, Iraq represents the outer perimeter and the final frontiers of the Arab nation and culture confronting the Persian nation and culture. From a cultural, religious and ethnic dimension, Iraq represents a perfect setting for Arab-Persian confrontation. Iraq also represents the point where Sunnis and Shias converge as well as confront each other. Therefore, Iraq-Iran rivalry has always had wider Arab national and historical dimensions, besides narrow local ones.

    In terms of strategic considerations, Iraq always represented the power that acted as a counterbalance to Iran and effectively fulfilled the task of Arab containment of Iran. A Sunni-led Iraq has been the main instrument of the containment of Shia influence beyond the sect’s Iraq-Iran heartland.

    In the Gulf region and the wider Middle East, the balance of power between Iraq and Iran is the key to regional stability. Each of them has tried to alter this delicate balance and taken advantage of the other’s weakness at one point or other.

    Iran’s present plan to intervene in Iraq has its roots in the Iranian government’s decision to lend full support — overt and covert — to Iraqi Shia opposition groups shortly after the success of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Then came the adoption of a plan to help the pro-Iranian Shia religious and political groups topple Iraq’s Baáthist regime and seize power. But after more than 20 years of operation, and despite unlimited Iranian and Syrian political, financial and military support and propaganda, none of these Iraqi Shia groups proved capable of posing any serious threat to the Iraqi regime.

    During the course of the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988), the Iranian leadership mobilised the pro-Iran, mainly Iraqi Shia opposition parties — Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Dawa Party — to support Iran’s military efforts in the hope of achieving victory. These two parties helped Iran with vital intelligence from Iraq; besides their cadres participated in Iran’s military operations along the border, even carrying out a number of attacks against Iraqi targets. The Baáthist regime in Iraq managed to prevent Iranian plans to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs. Indeed, until the US-led invasion of Iraq in April 2003, Iranian strategy to intervene in Iraq proved a complete failure. By mid-2002, the balance began to tip in Iran’s favour with the escalation of the Iraq-US confrontation. The pragmatic Iranian leadership accurately judged the seriousness of the post-9/11 Iraq-US conflict and US President George W. Bush’s determination to oust the Baáthist regime in Iraq at any price and by any means. Thus, while the American administration was fully engaged in plotting the removal of the Iraqi regime, the Iranian leadership was also busy planning how Teheran could strategically gain from any American adventure in Iraq.

    This approach became evident in a number of high-level decisions taken by Teheran during 2002-2003. For example, first, against all declared ideological and political principles of the Iranian revolution and its proclaimed enmity towards the US and its polices, the Iranian leadership encouraged its allies — the main Iraq Shia opposition parties — to move closer to the US, especially during the crucial months preceding the US invasion.

    From mid-2002 to invasion, Iraqi ayatollahs and prominent Shia political and religious figures frequently visited Washington or met high-ranking US officials openly. This unusual and ideologically contradictory alliance was formulated with the approval of Teheran’s religious and political leadership. They endorsed the fact that in Iranian political and strategic decision-making process, strategic interests outweigh ideological commitments or religious principles and taboos. In fact, the roots of this ‘realpolitik’ were evident in the practices of the Iranian Ayatollah’s policies long before the Iraq crisis — when the Islamic government of Iran decided to purchase US-made arms from Israel during the Iraq-Iran war and agreed to a direct supply route for the arms deal, in what became the Iran-Contra scandal.

    Second, as part of the preparation to capitalise on the Iraq-US confrontation, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution — who represents the highest religious and political authority in Iran — ordered in August 2002 the formation of a Special Committee on Iraq to monitor the development of the crisis, formulate an Iran strategy and mobilise the state’s resources to promote Iranian interests in post-Saddam Iraq. The special committee consisted of representatives from defence, intelligence, political, diplomatic, and religious institutions of the state.

    The intelligence arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Forces — Al Quds, created shortly after the Iranian revolution and was responsible for promoting "external jihad" — was in charge of most, if not all, Iranian activities related to the ‘Iraqi theatre of operation’, including the sponsorship and control of the pro-Iran Shia opposition groups in Iraq and a direct and crucial control of these groups’ intelligence and armed wings, as well as militias. Among the chief aims of these institutions were: first, prevent an American success in Iraq to ensure that it did not undermine the stability and security of Iran, as well as threaten the survival of the Islamic regime, at a later stage; second, establish a viable and sustainable Iranian influence in ‘new Iraq’ that could serve Iran’s long-term strategic interests in the region and beyond; and third, prevent the emergence of a ‘strong Iraq’ that could maintain its traditional challenge and competition with Iran, or revive the traditional balance of power between the two states and the practice of containment.

    Thus, the Iranian formula was simple and well-defined: a failed US + a weak and fragmented Iraq = a strong and influential Iran.

    Further, by virtue of its past association, Iran has links with all the important power centres in ‘new Iraq’ too. First, the Iranian intelligence apparatus maintained strong links with and influence over the militia forces and intelligence arm of the Iraqi Shia parties that are in power now. At the same time, the Iranian intelligence community established an overt and covert presence in Iraq, particularly in the Shia heartland in southern Iraq, Shia holy cities, and parts of Baghdad. Second, the Iranian leadership had strong links with the new Iraqi Shia political leadership. Such links were rooted in the traditional Iranian sponsorship of the Iraqi Shia political opposition groups since 1980. Moreover, many of these groups were established and even operated in Iran until the downfall of the Iraqi Baáthist regime in April 2003. Third, the Iranian religious leadership maintained strong links with its Iraqi Shia counterparts because the two centers of Shia spiritual authority — Najaf and Qum — are now closer than ever before. Both religious centres perceive the situation with common interest, which requires a high degree of coordination, and both have huge moral and practical leverage over Iraq’s political and security leaderships.

    Iran’s interventionist policy in Iraq has already attained a significant part of its objectives. In fact, despite US forces occupying the country, Iran has more influence over developments in post-Saddam Iraq than ever before. [/QUOTE]

    D Mustafa Alani is senior adviser and Director of the Security and Terrorism Programme at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. This article is among a collection of analysis and opinions published in the August edition of the GRC’s Security and Terrorism Research Bulletin.

    [url]http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/October/opinion_October77.xml&section=opinion&col=[/url]
    Last edited by kennyo7; 10-24-2006 at 09:53 AM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    Saddam being removed from power is a good thing, to bad it was the USA that had to do it because the UN is a bunch of pocket lining pussies. Iran and Iraq have never liked each other so what's the difference?

  3. #3
    before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ft Lauderdale by way of New York
    Posts
    13,208
    [QUOTE=bitonti]before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think the people that were getting tortured and killed for no reason would want Saddam back in power. Maybe if the UN would do it's job the US wouldn't have to stick it's nose in everything that happens in the world.

  5. #5
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.[/QUOTE]


    people want Saddam back in?
    you and the other commies do, maybe

    true, you dont have any authority, moral or legal, *chuckle*

    keep on questioning everything though-thats what kids do best till they
    figure things out

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]people want Saddam back in?
    you and the other commies do, maybe

    true, you dont have any authority, moral or legal, *chuckle*

    keep on questioning everything though-thats what kids do best till they
    figure things out[/QUOTE]


    yeh that's right i forgot im also a commie

    that's what happens when you question the almighty George Bush and his great "plan" for unending war

    people call you a commie

    read the news toiletflushJet

    Bush's foreign policy is a disaster

  7. #7
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]yeh that's right i forgot im also a commie

    that's what happens when you question the almighty George Bush and his great "plan" for unending war

    people call you a commie

    read the news toiletflushJet

    Bush's foreign policy is a disaster[/QUOTE]

    If the shoe fits-wear it, draftmommy.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=New York Mick]Saddam being removed from power is a good thing, to bad it was the USA that had to do it because the UN is a bunch of pocket lining pussies. [B]Iran and Iraq have never liked each other so what's the difference?[/B][/QUOTE]

    Your wrong here. Iran and the SUnnis (specifically the secular Bathists) in Iraq never liked each other. The Shia in Iraq largely took cover in Iran in the 1980s and were trained by the Iranians. They carried out violence against the Bathists in Iraq and have been tied to anti-West terror acts against the USA in Beirut in the early 1980s (at least those belonging to the Dawa party). Now that the Shia are gaining complete controll in the Nnew iraq govt, its only natural that Iran's influence will (actually already has) spread to the "new" Iraq. That s not a good thing for the USA.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]people want Saddam back in?
    you and the other commies do, maybe

    true, you dont have any authority, moral or legal, *chuckle*

    keep on questioning everything though-thats what kids do best till they
    figure things out[/QUOTE]

    So toilet flushjet, you prefer a pro-Iran Islamist govt over a secular socialist (granted brutal, although not as brutal as the current Shia govt) dictator?

    Why?

  10. #10
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]So toilet flushjet, you prefer a pro-Iran Islamist govt over a secular socialist (granted brutal, although not as brutal as the current Shia govt) dictator?

    Why?[/QUOTE]

    Benedict, I dont prefer either of them.

    Saddam is less brutal than the current Iraqi government? *chuckle*

    And Iran is....peace and love?

    Although you also want Israel off the map, too, true

    Did Maliki rack up a million deaths from war and genocide in the last 3 years?

    We have all the casus belli to knock out Iran next, and at
    any time for supporting Shia hostility all over the ME.

    The Axis of Evil doesnt exactly compute in a libtard way like, well you took out Iraq so that means hands off the others, or no others are included

    Will you wet your pants, or march with Code Pink, ANSWER, Hezbollah and Cindy Sheehan then?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]Benedict, I dont prefer either of them.

    Saddam is less brutal than the current Iraqi government? *chuckle*

    And Iran is....peace and love?

    Although you also want Israel off the map, too, true

    Did Maliki rack up a million deaths from war and genocide in the last 3 years?

    We have all the casus belli to knock out Iran next, and at
    any time for supporting Shia hostility all over the ME.

    The Axis of Evil doesnt exactly compute in a libtard way like, well you took out Iraq so that means hands off the others, or no others are included

    Will you wet your pants, or march with Code Pink, ANSWER, Hezbollah and Cindy Sheehan then?[/QUOTE]

    If you dont want either, why support getting our troops killed to create this pro-Iran govt?

    Malicki is only in power for a few months. He has not accumulated the million or so deaths, but hes on his way, so long as he quietly continues to support the Shia Death squads that have infiltrated his army/police force. Lets see 50-100 civilians murdered/ day , give hime time, he will catch up to Saddam.

    Like, Ahmedinejad, I never said I wanted Israel wiped off the pklanet. Read his speach in the original text, he never said he wanted Israel wiped off the face.

  12. #12
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]If you dont want either, why support getting our troops killed to create this pro-Iran govt?

    Malicki is only in power for a few months. He has not accumulated the million or so deaths, but hes on his way, so long as he quietly continues to support the Shia Death squads that have infiltrated his army/police force. Lets see 50-100 civilians murdered/ day , give hime time, he will catch up to Saddam.

    Like, Ahmedinejad, I never said I wanted Israel wiped off the pklanet. Read his speach in the original text, he never said he wanted Israel wiped off the face.[/QUOTE]

    I dont *not* support anything in Iraq except, when one of ours
    gets killed I want 100,000 of theirs gone.
    We're fighting a hippie/ Baby Boomer I way to avoid
    breakage

    Like the Imperial Japs, if any Muslim faction or country, or all
    of them need to be completely beat down to stop fighting in the ME
    thats whatll it take. I have no problem with that in any
    way shape or form.
    If any of the soldiers dont like it cashier them out.

    Stop dissembling on behalf of Ahmanutjob-its embarrassing

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=bitonti]before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.[/QUOTE]

    Bit, whats your address I will send one today!

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [QUOTE=bitonti]before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.[/QUOTE]

    "We" means liberals. You don't speak for me or anyone I know. You may not be a coward, but you're damn sure a quitter.

    Good thing you share bloodlines with kerry and not Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]"We" means liberals. You don't speak for me or anyone I know. You may not be a coward, but you're damn sure a[B] quitter[/B].

    Good thing you share bloodlines with kerry and not Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.[/QUOTE]

    There you go again with the same old TP. Dont you have any original thoughts?

    Yes we are "quitters" in the same way you would call a scientist who refuses to try to figure out how to turn tin into gold or the zoologist who refuses to search the earth for the last remaining unicorn a "quitter".

  16. #16
    Funny how Weeb and mick and toiletjet all have ignored the content of the article. You would think such staunch supporters of the war would have a counterargument as to why Iran will not have much of a role in Iraq or how we are better off with an Iraq strongly influenced by Iran.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Funny how Weeb and mick and toiletjet all have ignored the content of the article. You would think such staunch supporters of the war would have a counterargument as to why Iran will not have much of a role in Iraq or how we are better off with an Iraq strongly influenced by Iran.[/QUOTE]

    We are not better off with an Iran-influenced Iraq.

    Iran will have only the amount of Influence we allow them to have in Iraq. Leaving will, obviously, open the door for them to have all the influence they wish to have. Staying may not stop that, but then again, it might.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Funny how Weeb and mick and toiletjet all have ignored the content of the article. You would think such staunch supporters of the war would have a counterargument as to why Iran will not have much of a role in Iraq or how we are better off with an Iraq strongly influenced by Iran.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps you can school us as to how to keep iran's hands off iraq if American soldiers just cut and run. I'm not familar with john kerry's magic fairy dust.

    I know war doesn't solve anything and no blood for oil and all that, but just a wild guess leads me to believe that tens of thousands of heavily armed Americans to their west (AND east) might have something to do with it.

    [i]Oh no you didn't...snap![/i]

  19. #19
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Funny how Weeb and mick and toiletjet all have ignored the content of the article. You would think such staunch supporters of the war would have a counterargument as to why Iran will not have much of a role in Iraq or how we are better off with an Iraq strongly influenced by Iran.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry I dont place any credibility in the Dubai News or any other ME govt run propaganda mill as anything but anti-Semitic, anti-American news sources
    -certainly not fact.

    maybe quack drs from foreign countries do, but thats ther deal

    but iran influencing their shia brethren in iraq is hardly a surprise or news

    even if we dont engage iran in war, iran cant take over iraq as long as were there. if we leave today like libs want what do you think will happen genius

    whats your next news source, the world news weekly?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,412
    [QUOTE=bitonti]before the war i predicted that we would be longing for the days of Saddam before this was all said and done

    ... and here we are.

    i'll take those engraved apologies anytime. Turns out i'm not a coward, just smart enough to question authority.[/QUOTE]
    Who is we?

    You look for any reason to declare yourself correct and intelligent, but if it were up to you, the US would have responded to 9-11 through the UN and who knows how many buildings would be lying in rubble.

    Did Hussein plan and execute 9-11? No. But it not a stretch to say that the current policy has fractured the terrorist networks and destroyed many training camps along with destroying several government leaders who supported them.

    Is it worth it in the long run? That won't be know for years, if ever. But sitting around and doing nothing sure wasn't working.

    You declare this policy a disaster. Well so was the last one. The difference is that you sit smugly declaring everyone you don't like to be either a criminal or an idiot as if you know better.

    And you don't. You just like to sit in the cheap seats and take pot shots.

    Like small people do.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us