On the plus side, we can cheer the progress represented by the Iraqi government differentiating itself from the United States military occupation. And hell, maybe the Iranians will be able to recruit and train security forces more effectively than we have. Sure Steve, I see why you want to bash Bush on this, but have a little perspective. There is a glimmer of hope that we could have everything we want: increased stability in Iraq improving the lives of the people and allowing us to bring our troops home AND Bush and the neocons coming out of it looking horrible!
Posted by Daniel Maskit at July 7, 2005 06:02 PMEither this is bery, bery, bad for us because it shows that we lost control of Iraq or....there is some good in here somewhere for bush and Co.
I can't get my finger around this.
hmmm random thoughts here
Could this somehow be used as the reason to invade Iran quickly? Or the reason we need a draft to add more troops to stabilize Iraq. Wonder if Chalabi played a role in this, especially now that his best US girlfriend Ms. Miller is in the slammer?
Interesting times indeed.
emal, I'm wondering if this is a way to prevent the US from invading Iran. At least in the minds of the Iraq/Iran alliance. Could they be sending the message that if Bush tries anything, it could get uglier than even he could imagine? How many other countries in the ME are supporting this trial balloon, I wonder.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 7, 2005 07:02 PM1960: U.S.S.R. Romania
2005: U.S.A. Iraq
Know your history.
Posted by argus at July 7, 2005 07:26 PMemal and cyote, you are both onto it. there is a draft in the future and the prospect of invading Iran is a wet dream for the shrub types. makes me sick to my stomach. there are so many ways to change this path. but the idiot cannot see them. it will be a long three years.
iamcoyote,
Your thoughts about the alliance were my very first. But as I started thinking more about it I wondered if Bushco somehow had a hand in this, and if they did why did they do it? What were there mpotives? Anyway certainly interesting...and I guess who is really calling the shots is what I want to know and then perhaps we might have our answer and the motive(s) behind this action?
Still wondering about the Chalabi angle...I mean he was supposedly tied into Iran and he currently is the Oil Minister in Iraq.
Posted by emal at July 7, 2005 07:32 PMInteresting...an oil swap is underway between Iran and Iraq. In exchange for 380,000 barrels per day of oil, Iran will provide oil derivatives along the same pipeline.
“We are planning to export kerosene and diesel to Iraq,“ [Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh] said, adding that the oil swap project has to be conducted via the key port of Basra, in the southeast of the war-torn country.
Also noted, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice mentioned recently that "The Iraqis have relations with their Iranian neighbour and we think that it is a good thing." Previously she had been talking tough to the Iranians. During her first trip abroad as Secretary of State she let it be known that she was ready for Iran to be brought before the UN Security Counsel. Following the Iranian elections, however, she has been doing little talking whatsoever.
The foreign policy of the U.S. and the diplomatic initiatives of the Secretary of State are at odds with the development of strengthened ties between the current Iran regime and Bahgdad. A cross-border alliance means that we may eventually be expelled from the Mesopotamian valley or face threatening aggression with an atomic Iran.
Iran is renewing ties to Pakistan and Armenia. They won big by having our military conveniently take out the hostile regime of Saddam Hussein and they are quickly coalescing strength witin the region. Strength that was paid for by U.S. blood. Meanwhile, the British, who freed Basra so the port could ultimately deliver oil to Iran, deal with terrorists on their own soil.
As the West has for centuries indulged itself with interferences into Mideast affairs only to suffer cruel twists of fate, so it remains. We delivered a pacified Iraq to Iran and it cost them nothing. A tragically failed foreign policy.
Posted by obelus at July 7, 2005 07:50 PMemal, simple answer, under Rummy and Reagan, the US played both sides against the middle, dealing with both Iran and Iraq. At some point, don't you think the wife is going to talk to the mistress and they'll get revenge on the two timing sonamabitch what done them wrong? Somehow, I get the feeling that Rummy would never have guessed this move in a thousand years. Because I'll bet he's got another girl on the side.
(truthfully, I think he's the only one that doesn't have an escape hatch and he'll be the first to go down, but that's MOFO)
Posted by iamcoyote at July 7, 2005 07:56 PMThis gives Bush the perfect excuse to invade Iran.
Posted by SirRobin at July 7, 2005 08:06 PMthe end has come, for the zeolot west, or so i hope. i will laugh to see the US population feel what it is like to be the little one. don't get me wrong, i am and always will be Texan, but i find it comical -- sad -- that we as the US have sunk to this spot. "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet." Get used to it. Think about it. Is there a Mosque in your town? Was one there 10 years ago? Do you know anything about Islam? If so when did you learn it? I learned it in college many years ago. Were any of you there? In Western Civ? I doubt it. The tail of the dragon is sharp.
night
thanks, iran. can we leave iraq now?
Posted by matty fred at July 7, 2005 08:38 PMWhat has Mr. Al-Sistani been doing lately?
And the Iraqi, Saadoun al-Dulaimi, he's a Sunni, according to this article, moderate and secular.
We're done, thank goodness, in Iraq. All we need to do is determine how bad the exit is. Attacking Iran would cut us off from oil from both Iraq and Iran, and who knows who else. Hugo Chavez would love nothing better then to tell bush to fuck off, Canada isn't particularly thrilled with bush's moves, Britain is bound to do some long hard thinking about their alliance with bush, the Saudi's don't really care about us, just our money and our guns.
So what kind of exit strategy do you think bush is going to come up with?
Posted by Duckman GR at July 7, 2005 09:23 PM"Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries."
Unless it's this deal Buchco is forcing you to cut.
So why this deal? Slight-of-hand to get some time. We are screwed on the ground in the middle east. We can do battles, but we can't hold any territory. We're triple dipping people on their deployments in Iraq as we speak. The troops are tired, and stop-loss and the backdoor draft are taking their toll. Anyone who can is getting out. Few are enlisting. The only thing left is the invisible draft of mercs. Military estimates tell us there are no more boots to spare for any other conflict, and we can't do any meaningful increase in troop levels in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Iraq and Iran forming an alliance? The first real sign we are fucked beyond all belief...brought to a TV near you by Bushco.
Posted by phidipides at July 7, 2005 09:58 PMSlight-of-hand to get some time.
Intended to also say: And the time Bushco hopes to buy will be having this deal slow the terrorists (who will now be called insurgents) coming in from Iran.
Posted by phidipides at July 7, 2005 10:06 PMWhat will be king george decisions for the American? I wander when I learn that Iraq and Iran decided to help each other.
This is again the Bremer’s Medal of Freedom as he destroyed Saddam’s Constitution who would outlaw foreigner’s ownership of any asset in the country, and did this not mentioning the oils as it was not yet on the menu. In the last 2 weeks oil co met in London.
Bush is destroying this nation and turned us closer to a 3d world nation with all his favorites laws to help his favorite companies!
The saddest is that we let it happened 2 times stolen elected president! And we did not move
We seem to forget who owns our nation debt. Well learn that people fear that this administration is out of control that is why some other nations are now forming treaties. They have been one between the Chinese and Russians,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-07/06/content_3180901.htm
Five years from now this figure is expected to rise to US$60-80 billion, which will make China-Russia one of the most important trading partnerships in the world.
Welcome to bush destruction to our way of live!
There are Islamic sectarian elements in this alliance, as well as national politics.
The Shia in Iran and Iraq have a strong bond. If Iraq's Shia can count on Iran for support, then the US can't make some deal with the Kurds and Sunni's that reduces their majority control over the government.
BUT, the Saudis and other Sunni countries cannot be happy with the Shia uniting.
It has been reported that 40% of the Iraqi parliament want immediate US withdrawal. Getting Iran to support Iraq and train their troops makes them more independent of the US.
A US war against Iran would ignite the Shia in Iraq, making our presence in Iraq impossible.
You can bet if the US backed this alliance, US officials would have signaled this support in advance, instead of appearing to be blindsided.
Rummy and Cheney and Rice must be worrying a lot over this. The silence from the WH is deafening.
The prospects for a civil war seem larger now. The Kurds must be looking around wondering how they remain independent with Iran/Iraq united, the US forced out, and Turkey still angry at them. The Sunnis have even more to lose, and no likely military supporter with a credible force.
When the genies of war, occupation and sectarianism is unleased, rarely do good things result. Too bad we didn't think of this while BushCo was believing in a rose-petal path into a country that was a nation in name only.
Posted by JimPortlandOR at July 8, 2005 12:10 AMNot stupid, that's one of the Bush administration's failed policies, not creating new alliances. It is the major flaw of the neo-con, go it alone philosopy. When Strauss developed the philosophy, the USA was in a much stronger position, it was perhaps a feasible strategy, but it does't work in the current world. I think even Bush, as dim-witted as he is, is starting to realize that.
Posted by sf at July 8, 2005 12:18 AMThis administration has demonstrated the behavior typical of that displayed by tyrants. As this administration has engaged in increasingly arrogant pursuit of its agenda, I've been confident that it would destroy itself. We've seen the beginning already. The extremist are spouting rhetoric that any rational mind must reject, including conservative republicans. Even the staunchest supporters must now have difficulty ignoring the mounting evidence of infinite acts of subterfuge ranging from lies to war to war based upon lies. Soon, the supporters will realize that their own rights have been trampled.
When the Bush administration fell, I imagined that the nation might learn from its mistakes. We Americans would reclaim our lost freedoms and strengthen our government's checks and balances on power. I still have that hope but I didn't envision the cost being so high. The news of an Iraq/Iran Military Alliance is terrifying. I can only see worst-case scenarios.
In each, the civilians of Iraq will endure the greatest suffering. I don't want our soldiers to have to discover that all the sacrifices they made in the name of humanitarianism were pointless. Nuclear war is the greatest threat from this alliance.
This alliance now explains other recent developments. In the last few weeks more talk than usual surrounded the question of how and when the US could end the occupation of Iraq. At the same time we have been imploring Iran and other nations to cease in their development of nuclear weapons. Yet while we preach non-proliferation, it is revealed that we are "testing" the bunker buster bomb. Regardless of claims, this bomb will result in radiation fall-out and each has the potential to kill thousands. I would have once though it outrageous to speculate that we would use nuclear weapons against Iraq. This would destroy the very lives we claim to be fighting for. However, considering other outrageous developments and revelations we have witnessed throughout the Bush administration, it makes perfect sense. I don't doubt that some have considered it a perfect solution to the mess they have created. Of course, there will be a claim that it is the necessary and only possible response to some act of aggression.
I hope that my imagination has finally exceeded the actual possibilities. I don't want any of us to suffer any destruction that the US might incur, nor the eventual guilt we may have to endure from destroying innocents along with terrorists.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it , always.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)"
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it , always.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)"
Gandhi was right, however, the death and destruction created by these tyrants are a huge price to pay before the fall.
Daniel Maskit Johnson is right! If good relations with Iran strengthen Iraq's stability, good for them and good for us. If it makes bush look like a blustering fool, so much the better.
Posted by benjoya at July 8, 2005 06:54 AMSo are we witnessing the work of some sort of Iranian version of the Manchurian Candidate? Seriously, how could this possibly be going better for Iran?
Posted by Matt Davis at July 8, 2005 07:20 AMAmericans aren't used to managing an empire. Sooner of later the puppet seeks to see how long the strings are. That's what may be happening here. Communist Romania was a true Translvanian nightmare, but it sometimes casted votes in the U.N. that the U.S.S.R. didn't approve of.
In this case, whether the Bushites pre-approved this alliance or not is another possibility. Remember the quote about remaking reality at will.
Posted by argus at July 8, 2005 07:55 AMYou can bet if the US backed this alliance, US officials would have signaled this support in advance, instead of appearing to be blindsided.
I have to disagree. If Bushco let it be known they were behind this deal the neo-cons and republi-cons would go ballistic. The right wants Iraq nuked. They talk about it at all times and wonder why we haven't yet turned the Middle East into a parking lot.
I don't belive the Iraqi parliament acted unilaterally to accomplish this. Our mercs are notorious for making brother-in-laws and family members disappear when things don't go our way.
But of course, we can't forget that Iraq and Iran have been allied for many years after their 80's war. Remember where Saddam sent all of his good fighter aircraft and exocet missles in 1991? Iran. There is every possibility this is nothing more than an overt expression of an alliance in place for the last 13 or 14 years.
Posted by phidipides at July 8, 2005 08:03 AMIraq and Iran have been allied for many years after their 80's war.
not only that, but the enormous iranian losses of that war are rightfully laid at saddam's feet. with him out of the picture the neocons' dream of a greater iranq can come into being.
the new iraqi/iranian alliance also makes it (slightly) more likely that saddam's crimes against iran will see the light of day at his trial. that would be interesting.
Posted by benjoya at July 8, 2005 08:57 AM(slightly) more likely that saddam's crimes against iran will see the light of day
and by "(slightly) more likely" I mean a 5% chance rather than a 2% chance
Posted by benjoya at July 8, 2005 09:00 AMPhidipides:
I tend to agree with Jim in Portland's analysis on this, but I would love to hear further from both you and Daniel Maskit some detailed thoughts on what you think is really going on here.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 8, 2005 09:30 AMI think it's great that we saved Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's rape rooms, even if we bombed a lot of them to death while we were doing it.
Finding out that we helped heal the rift between Iran and Iraq is just icing on the cake. Are we a great county or what?