Is Iran Offering Us a Way Out?

Great Debates
1

Inspired by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/w...all&oref=slogin

It strikes me a golden opportunity, that may have been deliberately proferred. The Iranians may have finally realized that the best way to deal with the Americans is to make a deal with the Americans.

The Iranians, it appears, have ceased to hedge their bets, they’re putting their clout behind al Maliki, who may be expected to be appropriately grateful. If Sadr is neutralized, the coming elections will be a breeze for al Malikis coalition. A unified Shia front is a demographic 800 lb gorilla. An election will bring a solid and undeniable legitimacy to an Iranian friendly regime. So Iran has every good reason to support such elections, and none to impede them.

And, gosh, elections are victory for the US, right? Free and fair democratic elections, thats what we said we were about, right? Can’t get much more democratic than a landslide, can you? Which means we can smile and say “Goody gumdrops, we won!” when al Maliki’s government invites us to bugger off. Hey, victory!

And the Bushiviks will claim whole credit for the wonderful development, of course, since it was clearly US policy that brought about this wondrous thing. Several serious men will be on TV to tell us so, how a combination of the surge and tough talk brought Iran to its knees. Of course, al Maliki will have to promise to be nice to the Sunni, and not hassle the Kurds. Of course, he will. Here’s your hat, what’s you hurry, oh, look at the time…

And Bush gets what he wants most, he gets to save face. He gets to stand there and swear that we won, and thats why we’re coming home. And just in time to pull McCain’s nuts out of the fire.

2

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost Sadr just said he is ready to go to the mattresses. This fiasco has a lot of different ways it can go,

3

Yeah, I read some other evidence a while back that behind the scenes Iran was backing away from Sadr and actually helping the Iraqi government against in in some places.

It’s hard to really understand what’s going on. You might be right that this is a conscious decision on Iran’s part to attempt to help Iraq get on its feet and become an ally. On the other hand, it could be a faction within Iran exerting itself without approval of the leadership. The Quods force has done that several times recently. Or, it could be false reporting, disinformation, or some other motivation we don’t understand yet.

However, I don’t know why you keep saying a Shiite Iraq would be a great ally of Ian’s. Do you think the Shiites are of one mind about this? According to that opinion poll of Iraqis I linked in the other thread, 68% of of them would like the U.S. to provide military support of them with respect to protecting against Iran. There is very much a split among Shiites in Iraq as to how close to Iran they want to be. Nationalism is still a strong force in Iraq, and there are plenty of Shiites who do not welcome Iranian influence.

Maybe this is a hearts-and-minds operation on Iran’s part - The Mahdi Army has lost popularity in Iraq, and if it’s looking like Iraq is going to wind up as a viable state, Iran could basically be changing tactics, dropping al-Sadr and trying to be the good guys in order to gain public opinion in Shiite Iraq. In other words, you’re right - they could be trying to influence the election. I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing, if they’re doing it by helping Iraq find some stability. Iraq isn’t going to become an Iranian puppet. There will be those who want close ties with Iran, those who want close ties with the U.S. (the Kurds) and those who want close ties with Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria. Just like every country has its populations who support different allies. Look at the U.S. today, with its large Hispanic population, polarized political culture, and a social culture that changes dramatically from region to region.

The question is how much influence Iran would have, and to what end.

4

Yeah, gee, I guess that was kinda redundant, the way I kept saying that over and over. Sorry about that, didn’t even notice it, then or now. Which is to say: huh? Wha?

Seeing as Iraq is moving from an actively hostile regime to one at least somewhat more accomodating, its a plus. Iran doesn’t need a “great ally”…it might be nice, but not particularly practical. They might very much prefer that a hundred thousand US troops not be parked on their border. Yes, I think they might like that very much.

Which is the bulk of my point. al Maliki is decidedly friendly to Iran, but being an ally of Iran is (most likely) not his main goal, cementing power in Iraq is his main goal. And so long as the US remains in Iraq, he will fall short. But if he can sweep a legitimate election, peacefully conducted, etc. he will be in a position to hand us our hats and show us the door. Politely, of course. With all pomp and circumstance.

As well, your view of Irans intentions is a mite skewed, considering that making Iraq our ally was a stated intention. Not a realistic one, to be sure. But putting paid to that would surely allow them to breathe easier. They don’t get everything, but they get one heck of a lot. Even if Iraq is not a wholly owned subsidiary, it will at least be a somewhat more friendly Shia dominated state in a Muslim world dominated by Sunni.

But any Iraq not full of US troops is a major plus for Iran, given our rhetorical belligerance over the past months. And they are offering a mighty big damn carrot: the illusion of “victory”, which is as close to actual victory as we have any hope of achieving. They offer a huge propaganda bonanza for the Bushiviks, the troops might begin arriving home just in time for the Gosh, Do We Ever Love The Leader and the Republican Party Extravaganza. A huge boost to McCain, who is married to Iraq. Yes, I think they’ve measured their man quite correctly.

Of course, promises will be made on behald of the Sunni minority, hell, they might even mean it! Pencils have erasers, after all. And if the Sunni object violently, well, then, they are “insurgents”, aren’t they? Trying to dislodge a legitimately elected government. Ssy, isn’t AlQ Sunni? Seems I heard that, somewhere…

5

How will Iran stop Sunni-Shi’a violence if the US leaves? Or How will Iran stop the Kurds from seceding (even more than they already have)? I don’t see how that can happen without an escalation of violence, which would shatter this illusion of victory.

I think you misread Bush. He’s not looking for an easy way out. He really thinks he can make Iraq into a reasonably successful Democracy and ally of the US. He kept the war going through the 2004 election and the 2006 election without skipping a beat-- and that latter election was a hell of a lot more important to him than 2008 is going to be.

6

Why stop the Kurds from seceding? Aren’t they more trouble than they are worth? Hell, they pretty much already have, no? And no one seems all that worked up about it.

The Sunni are a thorn, to be sure. Can they be bought off? At least long enough to usher us out the door? Dunno. But the Iranians were going to have to stop hedging their bets sooner or later, why not now? When there is so much to be gained, and so little to be lost?

As for GeeDubya, this election if very important to him, if the Dems acheive major dominance, they will start in turning over rocks. 'Nuff sed?

7

Like in Turkey there is a sizable population of Kurds in Iran to…and like Turkey Iran sees them as a potential problem. You are thinking of things in terms of yourself here…not in how Iran sees it. A lot of nations in the region ARE all worked up about the potential for a separate Kurdish nation 'luci…and one that would have at it’s heart the oil wealth of Northern Iraq in the bargain, thus being economically viable.

Your analysis of this issue is really simplistic…it’s a VERY complex issue. It’s also oriented toward Bush which I think is a mistake. I seriously doubt that even if things work out as you say ( :dubious: ) Bush is going to be bringing the majority of the troops home for victor parades to ensure McCain gets the top seat. I doubt we’ll see sizable troop withdrawals this year regardless of how things spin out in Iraq. YMMV of course.

-XT

8

Because they’ll want Kirkuk, which neither the Sunni nor Shi’a Arabs will allow. All that oil revenue isn’t going to given up without a fight. And because Turkey, Iran, and Syria do not want an independent Kurdistan on their borders.

Bought off? I have no idea. How would you go about buying them off? If you gave them money, maybe they’d use that to arm themselves.

I don’t think he’s really all that worried about that. The Dems got a major victory in '06 and nothing significant has happened.

9

A bigger problem than a mass of American troops in Iraq? A bigger problem than a semi-permanent presence, with semi-permanent military bases in Iraq? What might they be wlling to trade away to have that threat evaporate? A lot, I think.

And you know better how Iran thinks? Since when? Got your certificate handy?

There will be, for all practical purposes, a Kurdish nation, whether or not it is draped over with the polite fiction of a federal Iraq. There already is.

Well, I would have consulted your acknowledged expertise in the matter, but this works about as well.

Who said anything about bringing home a majority? How many do you need to declare Victory! You don’t think that GeeDub would give your right nut to do that? They’ve sold us huge piles of horseshit before, why not again?

10

Not a matter of what they want, but what they can live with. As for oil revenue, the Shia got tons of the shit. Why fight the Kurds for more? Esp seeing as they are waaay up north.

No doubt. But the Shia have more money, more people, more everything.

A major victory which would have caused a sensible person to see the handwriting on the wall. He refused to see that. But if they don’t have the WH, and don’t own the Justice Dept., and don’t have executive privilege to sling about…well, thats a whole different kettle of piranha, now isn’t it?

11

Allow me to rephrase, there was needless snark previously.

How do you know that the Iranians aren’t as simplistic and dull-witted as I?

12

The Iranians wouldn’t like it, I’m sure, and for the same reason as the Turks: An independent Iraqi Kurdistan would give their own Kurds ideas.

13

You guys seem intent to approach this question for the problems left unsolved. Which are many, of course, it won’t cure malaria either. But it does offer a means to get US troops out of Iraq, which would greatly lower the stress factor in the daily life of an Iranian politico. Then the question becomes how much are they willing to pay for that relief?

Giving up on Sadr and backing Maliki? Why not? (There is a sub-text here beyond my scope, and that is the percieved, or real, alignment of the Maliki regime with the “ruling class” families of Iraq as compared to Sadr’s more “proletariat” advocacy…). If the Maliki government gets the blessing of all concerned by holding valid elections, and the Sunni can be calmed…you have a condition that permits Maliki to say “Well, thanks for helping, guys, you can go now.” Remember, Maliki is already on record for wanting US troops out soonest.

And what excuse would we have to stay? Bush is equally on record as saying if asked to leave, we shall. If I were an Iranian responsible for the lives and well being of my fellows, getting American troops out would be priority number one, other problems pale in comparison.

Now, personally, I still think Bush is angling for a permanent military relationship and presence. But with what leg to stand on? Remember: this can be sold as Victory! Try to imagine how desperately Bush wants to be able to say that with a straight face. Not even close, try again.

Is Kirkuk a problem, are the Kurds a problem, oil revenue sharing? Sure! But how do those problems compare with the possibility of American troops being gone? And keep in mind: the Kurdish problem is a problem regardless. No matter what happens, there will be a Kurdish problem. There will also be a Sunni problem. What there won’t be is 140,000 US troops next door to Iran. I think they would give a lot to solve that problem. A whole bunch of a lot.

14

You are making the assumption that Iraqis want all American soldiers out of their country. That doesn’t seem to be the case. They definitely want an end to the large-scale coalition presence, but large percentages of Iraqis want Americans to continue to protect them.

In that opinion poll I linked to earlier, Iraqis were asked what future role they would like America to play with respect to their country. Here are some results:

Want America to provide training and weapons to the Iraqi military - 76%
Provide financial aid and reconstruction assistance - 73%
Assist in security of Iraq in terms of Iran - 68%
Assist in security of Iraq in terms of Turkey - 66%
Participating in security operations against al-Qaeda or foreign Jihadis in Iraq - 80%

That’s not a picture of Iraqis wanting complete disengagement of America. If Iraq becomes stable and the economy improves, I can see Iraqis approving of a U.S. military presence very much like the presence of the the U.S. military in Korea and Okinawa - a large force (maybe 20,000 - 50,000 personnel) who provide training, logistical support, and provide a military presence that prevents neighbors from threatending them. And of course, who bring economic benefits through buying local goods and services.

However, it must be said that these answers are somewhat in conflict with the answers provided in the section “How long should U.S. and coalition forces remain in Iraq?” 38% said they should leave immediately, 35% said they should stay until security is restored, 14% said they should remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, and 10% said they should remain until the Iraqi security forces are fully independent. only 1% said they should remain indefinitely.

Reconciling those two sets of answers is an interesting challenge.

15

Much more from Iran’s perspective. I can’t overemphasize how dire many nations in the region view an independent Kurdistan.

Most definitely. I seriously doubt the Iranian’s look upon those bases in anywhere near the panic they engender in the anti-war crowd here in the US and Europe. However, an independent Kurdistan is a BIG deal that could cause a lot of problems for Iran and others.

To make the ‘threat’ of the US go away? I doubt they are actually all that excited about it to be honest…and doubt they would be willing to trade much of anything to see us leave. Oh, I’m sure they won’t exactly be broken up about it when we DO leave…but I doubt it’s worth all that much to them to get us gone right this second. Conversely an independent Kurdistan IS a big deal, and one I doubt they would be willing to hold out as a bargaining chip for anything at all. Maybe Tamerlane will wander in to give us the doctorate thesis on why that is…we can hope.

I’m not sure what you are asking me for a cite here for to be honest. I’ll just drop in this Wiki article on Iranian Kurdistan in the hopes it’s what you are looking for.

No, there isn’t, and no, it’s not inevitable that there WILL be one either. Think of it this way…how would the Chinese look on it if Taiwan decided to formally declare it’s independence? No…ramp that up a few orders of magnitude. Now you have some idea of how countries like Iran and Turkey (among others) would feel if the Kurds ACTUALLY declared independence and formally became a nation. Essentially the Kurdish populations in those other countries would go nuts and it would be ugly.

Oh…well, I assumed you meant for GW and his merry men to not only declare victory (didn’t they do that already?) but to have anyone not drinking the kool aide actually BELIEVE it. Shipping home a few thousand troops would certainly be a big SHORT TERM morale boost…but it ain’t going to get McCain into office. To do THAT trick Bush et al need to bring home the majority of troops…and that ain’t gona happen.

BECAUSE they have sold us so much horseshit in the past…well, extraordinary claims are going to take extraordinary proofs at this point. At least to all but the faithful.

-XT

16

Well, two things. First off I doubt the Iranians collectively are anywhere near as smart as you are…and they certainly have less of a sense of humor over all. Second I assume that YOU aren’t rife with factions, some working at cross purposes. My point was that there is no monolithic Shia or Sunni block…but various factions, some of which what one thing, and some of which want something entirely different. There are factions that support al-Sadr and others that don’t…even factions that want to re-establish ties with the US. And this is just in Iran…this doesn’t count the myriad factions just on the Shia side in Iraq. And that’s just the Shia!

-XT

17

Gracefully put. But, nonetheless, your case rests on the assumption that the Iranians don’t regard the Americans as a theat, despite all belligerent rhetoric and sabre-rattling. Perhaps you are right, perhaps they brush aside such alarming potential with an airy wave of calm certitude.

Perhaps they simply say “No, that would be stupid, and GeeDub is a paragon of reason and rationale, with a long unbroken history of intelligent and thoughtful action.”

Perhaps you and I are both Queen of Rumania.

18

Well Your Majesty, while I am not saying that Iran views the US as a friendly power, I seriously doubt they look on us as all that threatening to them atm. Their own actions seem to indicate that either they don’t consider the US a major threat or they feel they can handle us fairly easily if we DO threaten them.

Regardless of how threatening they may or may not think of a theoretical attack however, they KNOW what a united Kurdistan would mean for them and for the other powers in the region. So, it’s one of those threat in the hand is worth two by the Bush thingies…at least IMHO. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Iran would be willing to trade the possibility of a Kurdish homeland in exchange for the US to go away.

I think there is simply a faction in Iran that is supporting the group they think they can work with best in Iraq…and who they perceive as the eventual winner. If they also feel they will get more influence with this group at the expense of the US…well, that’s got to be a bonus. I just doubt the rest of your chain of logic as to the reasons and thoughts of the various players.

As I said, YMMV and I don’t claim to be an expert with the intricacies of the various factions or politics of the region. I know what pretty much everyone else knows about it after years of this cluster fuck.

-XT

19

If they ask us to leave, it will be hard for Bush to finagle staying. But I don’t see them asking us to leave (we’re they’re bodyguards, basically), and I don’t see Bush the way you do. Both he and McCain think a real victory is still possible, and as long as they think that, they’re not going to leave.

Anyway, we’ll see soon enough which of us is right. I want us out, but frankly I think we’ll have thousands of troops there (tens of thousands) when the 2012 campaign is in full swing.