Well this is all very interesting but as that once famous phrase went — Where’s The Beef ?
Of course Iran has self-interests in Iraq, as does the US, but to make the point that the whole dynamic is somehow dictated by Iranian actions seems a little outlandish. Booga, booga and all that.
Is the author saying that the Badr types or the Sadr types are merely puppets of Iran, and that they are now being ‘nicer’ simply because Iran has decided to tone it down a bit.
The US is NOT GOING to attack Iran with the ground forces in Iraq. Never was. That is fairly common knowledge now is it not ? Perhaps a better explanation of recent Iranian actions is the possibility that Iran has also drawn this fundamental conclusion. And has reacted accordingly to increase the stability factor in Iraq because it is not in Iran’s interests that Iraq be unstable and thereby exporting violencr to Iran itself at some point in the future.
And perhaps the widespread and well detailed Iraqi distrust of Iran limits the possibilities of Iran in Iraq. As the Sunni terrorism wanes, the need for Iranian ‘assistance’ to the Shiites also wanes, thus further decreasing Iran’s influence.
Is it not a virtual kiss of death for any Iraqi faction to be known as puppets of Iranian masters ? Is this not one of the reasons that SCRII changed its name, and its stated public goals, and that Sadr and his minions continutally rail against those they call ‘non-Iraqis’?
Iran ‘meddles’ in Iraq. Iran does not ‘dictate’ in Iraq. This article seems to build upon the former ‘fact’ to constuct a flimsy argument professing the latter.
With all respect, I remain unconvinced. Very unconvinced.
