Every now and then we hear reports of the Iranian government backing the Iraqi insurgency (or at least one of its factions) . . . or plotting how it’s going to take over Iraq, or at least bring it within an Iranian sphere of influence, after the Coalition forces pull out.
Maybe that would be the best thing for all concerned, including the Iraqis. On the evidence, the Iraqis cannot, at this stage, govern themselves – that is, they’re willing to vote to elect a government, but too many of them are flatly unwilling to submit to its authority. And they won’t be governed by us; we’re infidels.
The Iranians, OTOH, are Muslims, and at least have some experience ruling over non-Persian peoples within Iran (the Kurds, the Azeris, the Balochis, the Arabs of Khuzestan, etc.). The Shi’ite majority of Iraq probably would welcome them, and then the Iranians would have only a Sunni insurgency to deal with. And maybe a Kurdish insurgency, depending on whether the Iranians want to grasp that nettle or not. And I think the Saudi Arabians and the Syrians and the Turks would be rather relieved to have a stable Iranian protectorate on their borders, with no American presence, as opposed to what they’ve got there now.
The idea of an Iraq ruled by the Iranian version of Shi’a theocracy does not appeal to me one little bit – but, if I lived there, I would trade it for the status quo in a heartbeat.
But it wouldn’t bring “wipe Israel off the map” Ahdaminejad that much closer to their territory than he is now. I.e., if he had the capacity to nuke Israel from Baghdad, he would have the capacity to do the same thing from Tehran. And even Ahdaminejad can’t be crazy enough to think he can nuke Israel and live.
So let me get this straight, because the Government in Iraq is Arab Shia dominated, this automatically translates into welcoming Iranian support into there country other than just on a necessary basis? Look, the Iranians might be Shia, but I think Arabs would more hostile to Persians dominating them just like the Coalition was. As for ‘experience of ruling over Arabs’ yes, we’ve seen how that’s turned out in Khuzestan, plenty of attacks against Iranians there by the Arab Shia minority.
Not to mention the complete mobilisation by the various Sunni dominated countries in the Middle East which would almost certainly go and launch their own wars against Iranian domination of Arab lands.
And not to mention the amount of Iraqi Shia who actually fought against the Iranians back in the 80’s, not exactly a distant memory. Hell, even Sadr is known to be a nationalist of some sorts.
As for the Kurdish, well done, Iran takes control of Iraq, and thus enflames the Kurdish minority in Iran (which is pretty much docile at the moment) into launching a sessionist war against Iranians, adding to the Turks and the Iranian occupiers in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia would welcome Iranian occupiers (Shia heretics?) on their front door? Do you know how unbelievable that sounds? We had a Saudi Foreign minister only a few weeks ago claim that if the US withdrew, then almost certainly the Saudis would increase and openly support the Sunnis within Iraq. So there’d be no stablisation whatsoever, you’d see the Iranians bringing about a large regional war.
They’re not governed by ‘us’ BrainGlutton, that elected government which is divided governs them, we provide it pretty much economic and military support. As for ‘flatly unwilling to submit to it’s authority’ it’s called the process of power sharing, these groups have dominated and suppressed each other for years, it’s time they learnt the art of compromise, and they eventually will, as they’ll find out that no one group can dominate the other anymore a la Lebanon. Even if we left defeated, if Iraq continues to be a united state then this scenario will pan out.
Another point is show you that Lebanons political factions don’t show too much stablity, yet there is the show of at least some security they’ve all invested in. That’s what Iraq needs.
Wow, I’m sure Bassar Asad thought the same things when Syrian troops entered Lebanon and didn’t return for nearly 30 years. You cannot think that the Coalition can just dump this problem onto somebodys lap and it will go away. It won’t.
Yet adhere to the notion that they’re Iraq, same as Lebanese Shia consider themselves Lebanese, even when putting there sect ahead of national interest.
Not much. But at any rate, more than they welcome the present occupation.
I doubt that! “Arab nationalism” as such is a dead letter, as Hussein found out in 1990-91. He hoped to become the Sheik of Araby, but found most Arabs unwilling to follow his lead.
Quite true.
But that’s not our problem, is it?
IOW: It opens the way to a chain of events that might lead to a united and independent Kurdistan – without getting our Turkish allies too pissed off at the U.S.
News to me, true. But I rather think the (corrupt, Westernized) Saudi royal family is more concerned with its own **ultra-**Wahabbist internal opposition than with Shi’a heretics on its border. Besides, Hussein’s regime was a serious threat to SA – which is why they welcomed U.S. aid in the Gulf War (which indirectly led to this whole mess). But an Iranian-controlled Iraq would not be a threat to SA, because the Iranians would be too preoccupied with putting the Iraqi mess in order to think of any further territorial aggrandizement.
No, actually, they’re not effectively governed by anybody. That is the whole problem. Iraq at present is a failed state, and will remain so so long as Coalition forces remain there.
Actually, if we leave defeated, there will be a civil war on the scale of Yugoslavia. And if we don’t leave, the same thing will happen. The Iranians are the only power in the region or in the world that has any chance of imposing some kind of order.
Of course it won’t go away. But it will still be better for the Iraqis than what will happen if the Coalition stays there.
you mean sort of like R.E. Lee, a US Army officer who was educated at West Point and took an oath to protect the US agains all enemies, foreign and domestic, put his state ahead of the national interest? How did that work out?
No, but it’s crazy to assume the U.S. wouldn’t retaliate. Not necessarily limiting retaliation to conventional forces. Ahdaminejad is not Osama bin Laden. He can’t hide.
Agreed. Besides, I can’t see Ahmadinejad, assuming he took complete leave of his senses, landing more than one or two nukes on Israeli territory, say on Tel Aviv (but not Jerusalem, because it’s an Islamic holy city), before the backlash begins; the rest of the country still would be there.
Which doesn’t translate into stability. It would also convince the Sunni Arabs that the Iranians were hell bent on domination of their country and their people. So explain to me how the Iranians would without raising international ire, of dealing with the majority of the Sunni population in Baghdad, not to mention other places.
Wasn’t just informing you of Arab Nationalism, I’m talking about Arab racism playing a part in this too, many Arabs wouldn’t take to there arch enemies, the Iranians, dominating the strategic centre of the Middle East, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who as of late have been making a few noisy calls about the threat of Shia and primarily Iranian dominance of the region.
Yes it is, because we were the ones who sparked off that chain of events that lead to Kurdistan becoming autonomous, remember the no fly zones?
They’ll be pissed at us anyway, no win situation, if we leave and that happens, we were the ones who started the process off, if we stay and have control over the situation, it will be more likely not to piss Turkey off. So hence why I think your suggestion that the Iranians taking over Kurdistan would at all be welcomed by the Kurdish leadership (secular and pretty much independent) or even the people, is pretty preposterous.
Wrong, Wahabbist doctrine sees Shia Islam as heretical and a threat to the Saudi monarch, since a large Shia minority is centred around the oil producing areas of the Kingdom, so, an Iranian protectorate thus becomes a threat to Saudi internal interests, and a threat externally, because it’s also threatening the position of the Monarch in it’s position as a major power in the Middle East, not to mention, also being threatened by what it sees an ideology in it’s back yard.
Did you even read about the Iraq Iran war? Hey of course Saddam was a threat, but he was a Sunni threat, and one which the Saudis thought could be contained accordingly. However, with Saddam gone, and naturally Sunni acendancy, that bulwark against revoultionary Iran is now gone too, and a Shia regime, if protected by Iran in it’s place, will be a paramount threat to Saudi and Middle Eastern security. I don’t see in whatever shape or form why in the world the Saudis would just sit down and accept this. So your suggestions are flawed.
Irrelevant, it’s not all about territory, alot of it is about ideology and that ‘they’ are controlling ‘us’ not also to mention that Iran would now have a puppet state in which the second largest Oil producing regions in the world are situated. This would be intolerable combined with Iranian Oil production added to this as well. It would be seen as a direct threat to the other Oil producing states in the Middle East and there ability to dominate that area of business.
Supposition isn’t an answer. Kurdish North seems to be pretty much ruled as well as the South in some parts, the fact they don’t always answer to central authority is obviously something that will have to be worked out.
But again, I get this presumption that you think Iraq’s failed, so we might as well just dump it into the nearest neighbours lap.
Again, supposition, you don’t know which way the conflict will turn. The Iranians are not the only power to impose any kind of order, besides, what makes you think they’d even come to a prospect of bringing in their troops to impose it?
That’s a hefty assumption there BrainGlutton, so, in your view, people in Iraq will be better off when the Coalition leaves, because all the checks and balances there will still continue right? I don’t know what will happen when the Coalition leaves, but what I do know, if that we left before we behind a government with the ability to at least contain violence, there would be a large scale Afghan style civil war. And I doubt then anyone would want to be in the area, let alone the Iranians.
Still thought of himself as American I bet though? Just to show, you might have two opposing ideologies of how a country should be run, but still adhere to a nationalist notion that you’re ‘American’ or ‘Lebanese’ I don’t see Lebanese factions wanting to set themselves up as independent states. With the exception of Kurds, the same applies to Iraq.
An “American” who wants to see the United States divided and does his best to accomplish that end?
And Iraqis whose highest loyalty is to sect or tribe? So where does Iraq nationalism come in?
It would seem that US supporters of the Iraq mission want a united Iraq a lot more than does a significant portion of the indigenous population of that area.
