One more justification to be explained away

Iraq pledges closer ties with Iran

Maliki, after arriving in Tehran on Saturday, had said his government would “not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran,” the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.

The three-day visit to Iran is Maliki’s third since taking office in May 2006. Relations between the two nations, enemies during Saddam Hussein’s rule, have flourished since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 enabled Iraq’s long-persecuted Shiite Muslim majority to rise to political power. Like many Shiite politicians, Maliki spent part of the Hussein years in exile in Shiite-ruled Iran.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of helping destabilize Iraq by supplying weapons to Shiite militias, a charge Tehran has denied.

But despite American reservations, ties between the two nations continue to grow, and Iran has signed an agreement to supply electricity to Iraq and build power plants in several Iraqi cities.

I thought Iraq was supposed to be a bulwark against Iranian influence in the region.

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Better relations between Iraq and Iran reduce the chances of a regional war. Maliki also made that statement in the context of negotiating a long-term security agreement with the U.S., in an attempt to reassure Iran about Iraq’s intentions. So I wouldn’t read too much into it.

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 10:35 am

  2. John the Marine wrote:

    Well if it is OK for Obama to talk to the Mullahs, why can’t Maliki? Besides what’s to worry about? I’m sure Iran poses no threat to US interests in the Middle East. However, I do worry that Iraq’s former leader, a ruthless paranoid maniac, isn’t there to keep the peace and promote stronger relations with the West. Just think, if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, our President Hussien could meet with their President Hussien. What a SNL skit that would make!

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 2:22 pm

  3. canuckistani wrote:

    Well, if Obama had spent years in Iran and was a known ally of the Iranian mullahs, and if Maliki had the world’s most powerful navy and air force at his command so that he could negotiate from a position of strength like Obama could, I’d see your point. And while I’d rather eat broken glass than say anything good about Saddam, he did keep Iran from throwing their weight around.

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 3:54 pm

  4. a former european wrote:

    That’s right! And they say Mussolini made the trains run on time. Duce! Duce!

    (Sorry, Canuckistani, that one was just too easy not to tweak you with):)

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 5:25 pm

  5. Davebo wrote:

    Geez, it’s getting harder and harder to install reliable quisling leadership in occupied countries these days.

    I wish we had outsourced this job!

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 5:51 pm

  6. David C. wrote:

    Geez, it’s getting harder and harder to install reliable quisling leadership in occupied countries these days.

    “Quisling” implies that we tried to install leadership that is somehow treasonous to Iraq. That kind of comment is, in my opinon not only idiotic, but is also fair to describe as anti-American.

    It is idiotic because the actions of the Iraqi government demonstrate now, and have in the past, that it is not a puppet of the U.S., and that it acts in accord with Iraqi interests. The term quisling is a completely inappropriate characterization.

    It is anti-American because it implicitly compares the U.S. occupation of Iraq to the Nazi occupation of Norway, as if the U.S. has somehow pursed similar goals and policies. It imputes bad motives to the U.S. in complete denial of the evidence, which is that the U.S. allowed the Iraqi people to choose their government — with full awareness that those choices might not be ideal from the U.S. perspective.

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 6:59 pm

  7. ben wrote:

    I’m wondering what needs to be explained away. Is this Bush’s fault too? And if so, what armchair quarterback strategy should have been employed, that everyone with 3 brain cells to rub together has already told anyone who would listen?

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 8:27 pm

  8. John the Marine wrote:

    Canuckistani,
    I wasn’t intending for my above remarks to be taken 100% seriously. But I do find it ironic that when the Right suggests that the US President meeting unconditionally with Iran’s leadership might not be such a swell idea the Obama cheerleaders go nuts. However, when the democraticly elected President of Iraq meets with the Iranians (after all the two countries are right next to each other) then it is a 5th column in motion. I guess as David C. points out those nasty little client state puppits ought to know their place. I’m sure ole Barrack will keep the little people in line. After all with out strong US leadership those Iraqis might get to thinking its their country.

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 9:19 pm

  9. canuckistani wrote:

    AFE- Yeah, I knew I was leaving a fat one over home plate with that “I wish Saddam was back” comment. My only defense is to point out what JTM has pointed out, that there’s a certain amount of goofing around in this thread, mixed in with the usual jabbing with pointed sticks.

    Posted 09 Jun 2008 at 11:11 pm

  10. Stephen wrote:

    No John, you’re deliberately distorting the point. From many perspectives, it’s certainly fine for the leaders of two neighboring states to meet and talk non-aggression with each other.

    But the point was (and you can tell from that big old ‘headline’ thingie) was that one of Bush-McCain’s justifications for the war was that Iraq would be our new giant sand-based aircraft carrier, a bulwark against Iranian terrorism and extremism and Shi’ism (or was that Sunni’ism?) etc. You know, sort of a Mesopotamian Maginot Line.

    It’s just one more thing that “hasn’t worked out.” One more small nail in the coffin, which, at this point, is all nails.

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 6:33 am

  11. John the Marine wrote:

    No John, you’re deliberately distorting the point.

    Stephen, your incorrect. I’m deliberately making a point, my point, as in I see a certain degree of irony in your premise and also that which you pointed out below.

    From many perspectives, it’s certainly fine for the leaders of two neighboring states to meet and talk non-aggression with each other.

    Now if we are going to keep things straight this is, as far as I can tell, your observation(s) and/or opinion on the why, and the what for used by the current administration (and of course McCain because these days, again in your opinion, McCain = Bush) to justify the war.

    But the point was (and you can tell from that big old ‘headline’ thingie) was that one of Bush-McCain’s justifications for the war was that Iraq would be our new giant sand-based aircraft carrier, a bulwark against Iranian terrorism and extremism and Shi’ism (or was that Sunni’ism?) etc. You know, sort of a Mesopotamian Maginot Line.

    By the way the big ole “Headline Thingie” is your point, which while I respect your views is by no means an end all, end all.

    It’s just one more thing that “hasn’t worked out.” One more small nail in the coffin, which, at this point, is all nails.

    Is it possible that Maliki could establish decent relations with Iran via diplomacy, at least better than the last regime, and have some sort of mutual defense agreement with the US? Furthermore could this type of scenario result in enhanced security for the US and Iraqi?

    Just as an aside I thought this little gem would give away that I was being a little bit playful.

    Just think, if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, our President Hussien could meet with their President Hussien. What a SNL skit that would make!

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 7:34 am

  12. David C. wrote:

    Iraq would be our new giant sand-based aircraft carrier

    It still is, as long as the U.S. military remains there. If we ever do have to take action against Iran, having a large military presence next door will be useful.

    t’s just one more thing that “hasn’t worked out.” One more small nail in the coffin, which, at this point, is all nails.

    Actually things have been looking quite a bit better in Iraq over the past year. It could still disintegrate back into chaos, but it isn’t 2006 any more. The fact that the Iraqi government appears stronger and more capable of acting independently is a postive thing.

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 7:34 am

  13. canuckistani wrote:

    If I had faith that Maliki was acting as the leader of an independant country, I’d be all in favour of his negotiating with Iran. If one suspects, however, that he is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Iran, then the negotiations don’t matter because he will do what he is told anyway. So what’s to lose?

    I will concede that Iraq is more peaceful now than it has been. But I still haven’t seen any evidence of high level inter-faith reconciliation, or that the government can reign in the warlords that compose it. I’m guessing the civil war is on hold until either you guys go home, or it becomes clear that you aren’t going to leave anytime soon. I’ll be curious to see what happens if/when the Iraqi government officially asks you to leave. Will you give up your big sandy CV?

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 11:07 am

  14. David C. wrote:

    If one suspects, however, that he is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Iran, then the negotiations don’t matter because he will do what he is told anyway

    I see no evidence of that. If anything, it appears that he is using Iran as much as they are using him, to improve his own internal position within Iraq.

    But I still haven’t seen any evidence of high level inter-faith reconciliation, or that the government can reign in the warlords that compose it. I’m guessing the civil war is on hold until either you guys go home

    Those are admittedly big question marks. But it seems, at least on the surface, that the central government has been able to work out a series of compromises with the various opposition forces. Also it has clearly improved the size and quality of its own forces to the point where it can conduct some independent operations. But yes, the country as a whole is still a very shaky, cobbled together entity.

    I’ll be curious to see what happens if/when the Iraqi government officially asks you to leave. Will you give up your big sandy CV?

    If that happens we will have to leave. But I don’t think that will occur any time soon, unless there is some kind of dramatic shift in either the composition of the government, or its outlook. I think it is far more likely that we will have at least some level of military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 1:15 pm

  15. John the Marine wrote:

    If I had faith that Maliki was acting as the leader of an independant country, I’d be all in favour of his negotiating with Iran. If one suspects, however, that he is a bought-and-paid-for puppet of Iran, then the negotiations don’t matter because he will do what he is told anyway. So what’s to lose?

    I don’t blame you for being suspicious, I’m suspicious as well. However, there are many ways to view the above talks. You and I have demonstrated that. The problem I have with the post is that the premise of Maliki talking to Iran is a unquestionable disaster and reversal seems a bit far fetched. (Also as stated earlier the good for Obama but bad for Maliki matter.)

    You know maybe Maliki is smarter than either of us think. It is possible that he is using the US to scare Iran and Iran to scare the US and in so doing has (or is attempting to create) created a stronger and more independent position for himself and Iraq.

    Posted 10 Jun 2008 at 2:19 pm

« In with the lolz, out with the rotfl
Graham: McCain’s Policies = Bush’s »