<p>ID: Get the triology,
Dr. Strangelove
On The Beach
7 Days in May</p>
<p>Speaking of “Iraqi miliary” allegedly surging to Bahgdad:</p>
<p>The ex-CIA think-tank analyst who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday estimated that in the entire country there are 5000 Iraqi soldiers and police who are both trained and loyal to the Green Zone government.</p>
<p>“Branch office of the Iranian embassy.”</p>
<p>The Iraq Foreign Ministry is larging a formal protest against the rogue U.S. hostage-taking. So much for “cooperation”.</p>
<p>“The Prime Minister (who we claim “really means it this time”) cancelled his scheduled press conference.”</p>
<p>He couldn’t hold it and risk being questioned about the hostage-taking (or kidnapping - it is likely both.)</p>
<p>Tomorrow will be Day Three of the hostage operation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess that means that Iranian TV should have their own version of Nightline on the air within a couple of weeks.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>I have beenlurking for a long time on these threads and I have read alot of very insightful posts by you. I even found myself agreeing with you on many things. This is why I choose to adress the following question to you.</p>
<p>I have often argued for Iran, the way you are, and I am equally appalled that American soldiers could arrest Iranians in Iraq for alledgedly terrorist or crimminal reasons. Whenever discussing these kinds of issue with friends, I always become speechless when they mention the terrorists, weapons, money, and training that Iran sends into Iraq. Given another of these arguments occur, what should be the best way to explain this supposed Iranian sponsoring of terror-vis a vis- this arrest and US-Iranian policy in general? Thank you in advance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Iran is sending all that. So is Saudi Arabia. Iran tends to support Shiite “militias”. The Saudis tend to support Sunni “insurgents”. We don’t hear much about “tracking networks into Saudi Arabia”, though. Quite the contrary, our Iraq policy appears to be doing the Saudi’s bidding. We could have had a stable government in place within months after the invasion</p>
<p>Our foreign policy has the seeming ability to conveniently overlook major Saudi support for terrorism while demonizing Iran. Or, the abililty to do business with Pakistan – a major terrorism exporter with nuclear weapons capability – while demonizing Iran for exactly the same reasons.</p>
<p>The issue is not sainthood. None of our Middle East allies will ever be confused with freedom, liberty, and justice for all. Kissinger and Nixon probably didn’t much like the Chinese goverment, either. But, the saw it as being in our national interest to:</p>
<p>a) forge a relationship with a major developing country</p>
<p>b) create tension within the Communist block by forging that relationship. (Very unnerving to the Soviets)</p>
<p>The issue is pragmatism and there are strong political parallels between Iran and Kissinger/Nixon’s China. What bothers me the most is that we missed an incredible opportunity to forge a relationship with Iran when we spend billions in support of one of their prime goals (toppling Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions for a friendly Shiite goverment in Iraq). IMO, we totally blew that window of opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that the Iranians were probably arrested for good reason. However, it just highlights the untenable position of the US in Iraq. We have inserted ourselves into a full-blown civil war and regional rivalries in a way that is guaranteed to make at least one enemy for every “friend”.</p>
<p>One country’s “terror sponsorship” is another’s polititcal survival. To me that is very, very sad, as I don’t condone the use for violence by anyone. But I do seek to understand it for what it is.</p>
<p>The Iranians didn’t set up a torture school and send graduates to dozens of nations around the world. The Iranians didn’t sponsor death squads and terror networks in Argentina, Chile, Brazill, Nicaraqua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Uruguay, Paraquay, or export torture equipment to Iran, Pakistan, Philippines, Egypt, Ethiopia, Thailand, Peru, Indonesia, and Papua-New Guinea. Iran didn’t invade Viet Nam, or Granada (in fact, since 1979 they haven’t invaded ANYONE.) They didn’t sponsor the use of chemical weapons in a war which killed half a million people, or take actions through their “one-party system” that killed half a million children under age 5, and more than half a million others. </p>
<p>Does Iran train folks to take potshots at Americans in Iraq? I would assume they DO - as the U.S. says, “if you don’t attack the enemy abroad, you’ll have to defend yourself against them at home.” In the case of Iran, Iraq is awfully close, and the U.S. has already repeatedly indicated its intentions. When you’ve already been attacked with chemical weapons approved by the United States (the Rumsfeld handshake), and have cemeteries with a million dead as a result, you understand the stakes you have in the country next door. </p>
<p>It’s very difficult to see these things from inside our one-party state, and I doubt there is much you can do to try to explain it. Folks in other countries understand much more fully what is really going on.</p>
<p>The consular office in Irbil had been there well before the U.S. invasion; to suggest that it was set up to promote “terror” is downright ridiculous. Needless to say, I’m sure the people who worked there did not have U.S. interests in mind. But then the U.S. military operations in Iraq supply weapons that the U.S. Embassy KNOWS gets into the hands of Shiite “terrorists”, and through the Iraqi military, we train them in their use.</p>
<p>I am not very informed on this issue, interestddad, so please have patience with me. </p>
<p>You feel that after toppling Saddam’s government the US would have succeeded had it plugged up Sunni terror, as opposed to not really plugging up Sunni or Shiite terror?</p>
<p>But my question about Iran still stands. America has done the Persian nation many injustices, but how should we as a country look at what Iran is doing now and effectively respond?</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p>“Our foreign policy has the seeming ability to conveniently overlook major Saudi support for terrorism while demonizing Iran”</p>
<p>Should we then demonize both? or not demonize either of them?</p>
<p>Thank you for answering my questions. I have only recently begun following current events and I am looking to learn as much as I can.</p>
<p>O, so I think I am beginning to understand. Iranians feel wronged by America for their support of the Shah and Iraq during Iraq-Iran war. Now 20 years later Iran is getting back at America by exporting terrorism.</p>
<p>So, Mini, can you offer some insight as to what America can do to stop the terrorism coming from Iran. You seem to be against America arresting Iranian nationals for alledgedly engaging in terror. So what do you feel would be the best option for America.</p>
<p>And also, when did state-sponsor of terrorism from Iran begin?</p>
<p>“Now 20 years later Iran is getting back at America by exporting terrorism.”</p>
<p>You miss the point. Has nothing to do with “getting back”; it has everything to do with survival. (Iran didn’t invade Iraq.)</p>
<p>So Iran is genuinely scared about America attacking their country so they are trying to stop that by attacking America in Iraq?</p>
<p>So what should America do, concerning Iran’s terror and/or nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Talk…talk…and talk some more. Prove to them that they have less reason to be very scared. Prove to them that nuclear weapons are not key to their very survival. Apologize for the Rumsfeld handshake, and investigate Reagan’s roll in the chemical weapons attack. Send Jimmy Carter and have him get down on his knees on Iranian National TV and apologize for toasting the Shah for his commitment to human rights, and beg forgiveness for running a torture school in Georgia. Then have him visit the graves of those he tortured. </p>
<p>Most of that will never happen. But the U.S. can start by getting out of Iraq (leave whatever operations remain to the Coalition of the Very Small.)</p>
<p>I understand. You feel that this will stop Iranian export of terror? Whabout dealing with Iranian terrorists on the ground in Iraq. Do you feel there is any merit in that.</p>
<p>I just read somewhere that the detained Iranians did not have diplomatic passports and that the building, athoguh was in the process of becoming a consulate office, was not yet one? Does that in any way change your opinion about that American operation?</p>
<p>No. And, in fact, Madame Secretary Mendaciousness this morning said that the kidnapping and hostage-taking was approved by the President “months ago” (and hence had nothing to do with current “terror” operations.) </p>
<p>The operation was approved by neither the Iraqi government, nor the Kurdish regional government (which is where Irbil is). Some partnership.</p>
<p>Why does it not change your opinion. </p>
<p>To me it seems that if they engaged in terrorist activities, did not hold diplomatic passports, had no diplomatic immunity then it would make sense to arrest them since that removes just a few more terrorists from the scenes and if this had been planned months ago then they must have monitored the activities of these men. But this is the opinion of someone who does not understand the complexities of the conflict. Would you care to elaborate on what I said, since that seems to be the common man’s initial response to an action like this.</p>
<p>whistler4145, I’m not as knowledgeable about Iran as mini, but it might be a helpful exercise to imagine if the Iranian government had raided an American consulate and arrested a bunch of people. Would you take their word about why they arrested those people? Would you feel that they were justified in their actions?</p>
<p>Obviously I would be upset, but what I have trouble understanding, and remember I really do not understadn the complexities of this situation, is:</p>
<p>Iran exports terror</p>
<p>Americans and Iraqis die</p>
<p>America tries plugging up terror</p>
<p>America takes hostage men without diplomatic passports, diplomatic immunity, working ina non-consular office</p>
<p>These men alledgedly connected to the terror that Iranians are exporting</p>
<p>This was my line of thought, my logic. Obviously it is simplified because I do not take into account that Iranians fear America, accoridng to Mini, and thats why they are trying to kill americans. But my point is, and this is a very uneducated point, that america is simply doing what it can to stop the killing of their soldiers and of iraqis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe there was an opportunity to put a functional governing structure in place immediately after the toppling of Sadaam Huissein. Not a democracy. Not a government that the Saudis would have liked. Not a government that would have fit the comic book image of democracy, apple pie, and freedom for all that Bush and the neocons tried to sell. But, a government that would have allowed us to get the hell out of dodge and focus our efforts on economic reconstruction.</p>
<p>The fundamental flaw in our strategy was that we wanted to topple Saddam’s Sunni/Bathist dictatorship, but we were unwilling to allow majority Shiite rule.</p>
<p>The moral authority in the post-invasion period lay with Shiite cleric Allatohlah Sistani…a powerful figure who acted with considerable restraint and was a moderating influence. While he did not want to be directly involved in an Iraqi government, he pulled the strings. IMO, had the United States worked with Sistani (acknowledging the Shi’ite majority and the reality that all middle east governments are intertwined with Islam), we could have put a government in place. Furthermore, I believe that we could have had some influence with Sistani and Iran to ensure a modicum of moderation. After all, a post-Saddam Iraq desperately needed the economic reconstruction we could offer. </p>
<p>Would there have been ethnic cleansing of Sunni/Bathists? Yes. There’s ethnic cleansing in Iraq today…on a scale that rivals well known historic examples. 100,000 Iraqis a month are being driven from their homes.</p>
<p>Would such a government have had ties with Iran? Yes. Although probably not as strong as some might imagine. There are long-standing differences between Shiite Arabs and Shiite Persians.</p>
<p>Was there an opportunity to leverage our support of a Shiite government in Iraq into an improved relationship with Iran, which has strong moderate elements? Yes.</p>
<p>Instead, we cut the Shiites off at the knees in Iraq and satanized Iran, essentially pushing them away from moderation out of plan old fear of our intentions.</p>
<p>The simple fact of the matter. If we were not prepared to accept and work with a Shiite Islamic government in Iraq, we should not have toppled Saddam. The only reason there hadn’t already been a Shiite Islamic government in Iraq is because of Sadaam’s brutality and genocide of the Shiites in his own country. The Sunnis are minority. In the real world, they cannot govern Iraq without repressing “the will of the people”.</p>
<p>What concerns me is that both Iran and Iraq have long traditions of large eductated middle class populations that would tend towards moderation and relations with the US, not unlike the US/Chinese relations that exist despite a huge difference in political philosophies. I think we have done an abysmal job of dealing with Iraq and Iran in ways that allow these groups to be effective. For example, when there is a moderate government in Iran, we should stop the sabre rattling and sanctions and help that moderate government produce the kind of economic gains that will keep them in power.</p>
<p>For example, by screwing around in Iraq and NOT capitalizing on Sistani’s authority, we allowed Al Sadr to consolidate considerable power both within the government and with his militias. It is no longer clear that Sistani has the power to control Al Sadr. Much of the fighting in the south has been between Al Sadr’s Shiite factions and more moderate Shiite factions for control of the region. It is just pure folly to think that this “surge” is going to disarm Al Sadr’s militias. Bush is peddling Alice in Wonderland stuff.</p>
<p>Regarding Iran. Look at the map:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg[/url]”>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg</a></p>
![http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg[/url]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Working clockwise, Iran’s neighbors are:</p>
<p>Saudi Arabia. Sunni Arab. Major enemy of Iran. Major US military support. May be developing nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Iraq: Shiite Arab. Invaded Iran using WMD. 100,000+ US troops.</p>
<p>Turkey: Major US ally.</p>
<p>Turkmenistan: ???</p>
<p>Afghanistan: Major US military presence.</p>
<p>Pakistan: Sunni Persian. Long standing conflicts with Iran. US ally. Nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Add Israel’s nuclear weapons into the mix.</p>
<p>If I were a defense policy expert in Iran, I think there would be legitimate reason for concern. Especially considering that the US has been extremely belligerent, both is words (Axis of Evil) and deeds (international sanctions). From an Iranian viewpoint, does the President of the United States act like he wants a positive relationship with Iran? Or, does he act and talk like he’s trying to surround Iran militarily? Can the Iranians predict positive intentions from the US?</p>