Cross-posted on MyDD here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/20/125710/409
As we head into the fourth year of the Iraqi conflict/disaster, we've heard lots of angles from Republicans and Democrats regarding the situation on the ground. Republican talking points consist of "staying the course", a totally idiotic meme which will get more of our troops killed, and establishing a democracy which will topple all Middle East dictatorships, while forcibly introducing the concept of democracy to peoples who either don't want it or aren't ready to accept it. Democrats argue for a phased redeployment and are willing to let the situation play out on its own using the sensible facts that our troops are caught in a civil war and are being shot at by all sides. Both parties have received a bunch of time to air their views, but very little has been made of the five-hundred pound gorilla next door:
IRAN.
Since the Bush Administration took power, they have totally bungled relations with Iran. President Mohammed Khatami, a moderate by Iranian standards, was elected in 1997 and helped democratize Iran far more than any previous Iranian leader. Although not a saint, he acted as a powerful force to modernize Iran and opened her up to the Western world. Opposed by corrupt mullahs, Khatami survived numerous challenges. He industrialized Iran and gave jobs to many of its incredibly impoverished citizens. Khatami opposed Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" meme fronted by many American conservatives, and proposed a "Dialogue Among Civilizations" to improve relations with the West. In a government controlled largely by mullahs and religious radicals, Khatami was a mover and shaker who stayed in power for eight years in the face of numerous crises stirred up by the conservative elite with the sole intention of removing him from power.
President Bush had a golden opportunity after September 11 to work with the Iranians, and for a few months, he and Khatami shared a back-channel dialogue. Iran and al-Qaeda were enemies due to the Sunni-Shi'ite divide (al-Qaeda is almost exclusively Sunni). On January 29, 2002, Bush made a critical blunder by including Iran in the Axis of Evil speech.
President Bush: "States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an Axis of Evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
David Pollack concedes that the Iranians were "run over by this truck of rhetoric that the Administration had come up with". Relations immediately soured between the two countries and normal Iranians who voted for Khatami interpreted the speech as a sign that Bush wanted to overthrow the moderate regime. From this point, Khatami took a harder line towards the United States. Iran's nuclear plans gained steam, and the EU3 (Britain, France, Germany) were forced to take the role of diplomacy while the Administration continued its rhetoric.
The American invasion of Iraq was the breaking point in American-Iranian relations. With substantial American troop presence in nearby Afghanistan and Iraq, radical conservative elements of the Iranian government successfully undermined Khatami as the Iranian public grew increasingly reactionary. Khatami, saddled with lame-duck status (Iran's president can only serve two terms) lost favor among the public and lent his remaining political capital to his predecessor, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The mullahs and hard-line conservative judiciary endorsed radical Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in opposition to the somewhat conservative Rafsanjani.
Ahmadinejad won the runoff convincingly with a shocking 62% of the vote. His victory was largely attributed to the rural poor who bought radical anti-Americanism and the distribution of oil profits as valid talking points. The relatively progressive voices no longer held a solid voice in Iranian politics. Ahmadinejad rolled back the rights of women, expelled legitimate university scientists, denied the historical fact of the Holocaust, increased Hezbollah's resolve to fight Israel, and rapidly expanded Iran's nuclear program.
How does all this relate to Iraq?
Juan Cole correctly argues that Iran is the "only unambiguous winner in Iraq". Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari agreed with Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons by declaring that every nation has a right to develop them.
Knight Ridder columnist Tom Lasseter wrote an article on May 26 which declares Iran's presence in Shi'ite dominated Southern Iraq as real. American and British military sources corroborated his account. British Lt. Col. David Labouchere stated that the Iranians are setting up training camps across the border for Iraqi Shi'ites to learn guerrilla warfare. An Iraqi aide also said to one of Lasseter's comrades that "we are a branch of Iran".
The British cannot achieve their mission in southern Iraq because the citizens of southern Iraq are opposed to their presence. British Brig. Gen. James Everard is reduced to "watching the dogfight" and is "very reluctant to interfere", looking out firstly for the well-being of his troops (as well he should). General Everard correctly recognized that the Basra militias and the locals are one and the same.
Labouchere agrees with his superior. When he took the action of holding British troops back from a firefight in a Basra suburb, he explained his rationale:
"I look at them and say, `Shall I go and clean it up?' And I think I'm just going to piss them off and drive them away from democracy. Will I have done good for the people of al Majar? Probably not. I will have just radicalized them."
It is patently obvious from honest British military accounts that southern Iraq is run not by the government of Nouri al-Maliki, but by Shi'ite mullahs friendly to Ahmadinejad. Violence in Basra claimed at least 200 people in May, which shows that the Brits have no control over the situation. Southern Iraq's mullahs, who are promoting violent activity, have deep connections to the Badr Organization, which is essentially an arm of the Iranian government.
The Bush Administration incorrectly assumed that American might could overwhelm centuries of pent-up sectarian rage. The opposite is true: American troops are viewed as interlopers by Sunni and Shi'ite, and are caught in the middle of a deteriorating situation where they are getting shot at by both sides. Saddam Hussein's removal created a power vacuum which released an incredible amount of sectarian hatred. Radical Shi'ites feel the urge to harshly retaliate against the Sunnis for the heinous crimes Saddam wrought against the Shi'ite population. In response, the Sunni minority wishes to reclaim its power over Iraq and have allied themselves with unsavory elements of al-Qaeda to fight the Shi'ites.
British officers on the ground recognize the bleak reality, but the Bush Administration is completely blind. There is no place for the Americans in this fight because there is no way they can separate the sides. Our troops are not being supported by the Administration; they are being placed in a situation where they cannot identify a clear enemy and thus cannot successfully follow the rules of engagement.
The sum result: Our invasion of Iraq made a bad situation under Saddam Hussein far worse. All Iraqis will pay the greatest price when a Sunni pro-al Qaeda regime or a pro-Iranian government (much more likely due to sheer numbers) is established.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
http://www.theworld.org/...
http://www.cnn.com/...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
http://www.realcities.com/...
http://www.juancole.com/...
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/...