Iran’s Influence on Iraq Growing
This leverage gives Iran an enormous negotiating edge. If the U.S. wants to avoid an eruption in Iraq that is tantamount to a civil war, then according to Iranian leaders, Washington will have to meet Tehran’s terms on the nuclear weapons issue and forestall any military option by the U.S. or Israel. As Iran sees it at the moment, it is holding all the cards. Arguably, the ace in the deck is the apparent cooperation between Prime Minister Maliki and the Iranian mullahs. Since Maliki understands he cannot rely on U.S. forces to maintain stability — with withdrawal the overarching goal — he has thrown in his lot with the Iranians.
It is apparent the Obama administration has not considered the law of unintended consequences. The announced plan for withdrawal has set in motion actions American military commitments were designed to prevent. It is ironic that the United States is dependent on Iran to bail it out of a dicey situation at the same time that it claims to oppose Iranian nuclear ambitions.
As I see it, the die is cast. The United States’ government will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary. Furthermore, it will seek to obtain Iranian influence as a regional stabilizer even if it means the mullahs will insinuate themselves into Iraqi politics.
Clearly the spin doctors in Washington will attempt to put the best possible gloss on this situation, but as I see it, this is a loss-loss for American diplomacy and a significant blow to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
THANKS OBAMA. Your foreign policy is doing WONDERS for US prestige/influence globally… NOT!!!! What a bumbling airhead we have for a president (is that being too nice???). Mr. President, why don’t you go back to Chicago, or wherever, and organize communities again (if they’ll have you); but base all your future activity on this premise: the Republic of the United States is just WAAAAAAYYYYY beyond your community organizing expertise. Consequently, make certain your efforts are for a much… much… MUCH smaller community. That is BARELY… about all you can handle (and even this is questionable).
Indeed. One possible slant is that America’s attempt to create a secular democracy in Iraq was doomed from the start, that this is only the logical culmination of regional dynamics that American power is insufficient to countervail. That, of course, would suit the Democrats, especially their left wing base, quite well.
Is it possible that such an outcome could be spun into a “refutation” of preemptive defense, and perhaps of the rightness of toppling murderous tyrants before they can graduate to international threats? I expect the Left to make the effort; I can’t say whether it will “sell.”
Which is exactly what Obama has clearly stated he has wanted all along. Less American influence as his vision of the Soros version of the Utopian Global “Peaceful” World proceeds on schedule. Unintended consequences indeed. Bad Bad Arrogant America!
Gee, what a surprise! We overthrow Iran’s #1 enemy, destabilize Iraq, disband its army, and then wring our hands while its powerful neighbor does what powerful neighbors will do.
Of course he’s thrown in his lot with the Iranians, Just like the eastern Europeans we’ve abandoned will throw in their lot with the Russians if push comes to shove.
Walesa is right, and we should all hang our heads in shame.
We ( that are trying to save America ) do not and will not hang our heads in shame for the decisions of poorly informed voters.
Our resolve is greater.
The opinions here are all wrong, so far. The Iraqis are turning to Iran, because they see Ahmahdinejad as stronger than Obama. These primitive societies only understand power and leadership. They DESPISE weakness. Absolutely DESPISE it.
It’s not about about geopolitics, or Iranian might. Iraq’s military is arguably stronger than it has ever been, since we’ve been training it. They fared well in many situations after the Surge began, like in taking down al-Sadr. Obama is weak. They DESPISE weak.
Criticize Bush all you want, but even bin Laden respected him. He was totally shocked at Bush’s ferocious response to 9/11, attacking not one, but two Muslim nations! He said so. Maliki was down with Bush. He respected the resolve, the strength.
Maliki is turning toward a rapprochement with Iran, because he DESPISES weak. Obama is throwing away our victory in Iraq. Weak. Weak, weak, weak, weak, weak!
It is premature to know whether Maliki’s Baath-bashing will lead to electoral success either for him or for the more flagrantly Iranian-backed Sadr/SCIRI coalition. I heard a lot of fear-mongering, but I have yet to see one poll that says the Iraqi people want closer collaboration with Iran. God willing, on March 7, the people will speak, and their choices will say volumes.
Per Joseph #4, this shouldn’t be a surprise.
Since Islamists are the primary Mideastern threat, why did we give a high priority to replacing a secular Arab regime?
I’ve been asking that for years and am still waiting for enlightenment from The Most Brilliant Man Harriet Miers Ever Met.
Once again, a post that I made has not appeared here. I made it yesterday morning. It is among many that I’ve made over the past ten days or so that also have not appeared. Are you folks so busy that you’re overlooking them, or are you part of some great conspiracy intent on violating my free speech rights? Just joking. But, I am very curious as to what is going on.
You can let me know at the email address I’ve posted.
Thanks
GS, That Frankenstein we helped create to keep the crazy mullahs at bay turned out to be just as bad. Having a democracy next door is undermining the mullahs far more than Saddam ever did. Plant a seed, see if it grows. Guess what? It is growing.
Joseph said “We overthrow Iran’s #1 enemy, destabilize Iraq, disband its army, and then wring our hands while its powerful neighbor does what powerful neighbors will do.”
Only if we fail to stay the course (like we did in South Korea, West Germany etc), which Obama has already signaled he won’t do.
I have yet to see any liberal fool make the case that tensions would be *lower* with Khameini’s Iran jockeying with Hussein’s Iraq and his renewed* nuclear pursuits (once sanctions were dropped as they wanted).
*The big final WMD report (Kay?) that concluded no major stockpiles still existed *also* definitely proved that Hussein had held on to all his tech info and key scientists with the intention of resuming work full steam once the West (with paid off France & Russia) tired of enforcing sanctions. It also proved that he was much farther along toward nukes than had been thought.