Posted on 06/15/2008 7:06:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Shiite government signals a desire for an alliance with the United States. Shouldn't that be welcomed?
THOUGH IT was hardly noticed in Washington, Iraq's Shiite-led government sent a powerful message to Iran and to the Middle East last week. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose coalition is often portrayed as an Iranian client, traveled to Tehran for a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The ayatollah bluntly declared that Iraq's "most important problem" was the continuing presence of U.S. troops. He pressured Mr. Maliki to stop negotiating a package of agreements with the Bush administration that would delineate a "strategic framework" between Iraq and the United States and provide for the deployment of U.S. forces beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of this year.
Mr. Maliki refused. He assured his Iranian hosts that Iraq would not be a launching pad for an American attack on Iran. But he pointedly told a press briefing that negotiations on the strategic partnership would continue. He repeated that commitment on Friday, even after warning that the talks had "reached a dead end." In effect, the Iraqi prime minister was saying that his country does not want to become an Iranian satellite but an independent Arab state that would look to the United States to ensure its security.
This would seem to be an obvious U.S. gain in what, according to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as well as President Bush, is the urgent task of countering Iran's attempt to dominate the Middle East. It means that Iraq, a country with the world's second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Washington Post no less.
ping
And Harry Reid, B.O., and Nancy Pelosi are “deeply saddened” that we’re winning a war that we were so obviously losing. lol
Wow.
Yeah I know. surprising isn’t it?
OK, well then, let's use Kuwait. ;-)
and there is one other often overlooked strong influence working on the Iraqi population, and that is the individual GI who works the streets. From what I have heard from them, they are greeted by the average Iraqi as friend, and for good reason.
Jeez .... The Washington Post just figured that out?
Their darling, Obama, would have bugged out of Iraq by early this year if he had had his chance. How could the U.S. have countered the Iranian threats after abandoning Iraq to the military control of Iran?
As things stand right now, post Surge, Iraq is getting stronger by the day and U.S. air power based in Iraq only needs a Presidential order to Shock & Awe Iran's nuclear ambitions into oblivion.
**********
Obama 18 months ago:
Hey Democrats! News Flash!
The US won the war, and then it won the occupation. This means that Iraq is a strategic ally, like Germany and Japan used to be. And we’re still friends with them.
Quit sulking! Join the victory parade! Go with us into the future—don’t cling to the past. Don’t just sit at home and sulk because you didn’t get the defeat you wanted.
He assured his Iranian hosts that Iraq would not be a launching pad for an American attack on Iran.
Iraqi response is by pledging this to Iran!
Our troops must not be asked to continue to suffer and die for the most ungrateful nation and hideous religion in history.
Time to get out and let them enjoy iranian style peace.
Or Minot, N.D. Isn't that where the missile silos are?
One round - one kill! There are many volunteers for that duty.
What-the-hell is wrong with our politicos? This muzzie should be room temperature ............ FRegards
Maliki just stuffed it in his ear and you missed it?
Yeah, let’s just get out A.S.A.P. and let the Iranians have their strategic victory and become boss. Then they can turn all their attention back to Afghanistan./S/
We can’t attack the Iranians from Iraq
but
Iranians can attack Americans from Iran
The enemy has a sanctuary from which to launch attacks to kill Americans.
The people who don’t see a problem with that now
didn’t see it in Vietnam either and look what we got
tagline:
Maliki has assured Iran that he will not permit America to attack Iran from Iraq.
June 8
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq, seeking to soothe Iranian opposition to a long-term American military presence in his country, assured officials during a meeting in Tehran on Sunday that American bases in Iraq would never be used to attack Iran.
Or our ships or our long range bombers. There are options for destroying Iran’s military.
Should we not be reading about a quid pro quo for this deal? What is Iran going to do for Iraq?
And, promises don’t seem to have much weight in the ME.
You are taking the bait that the writer is dangling and missing the real news here. It is obvious to the whole world, including the Iranians, what his ultimate intent is, and that is to sign a long term deal with the U.S. to have bases in his country to protect his country from hostile aggressors (i.e. Iran). He is delivering a message to Iran that he is signing a long term deal with U.S. That is the news that rocked the Iranians, not his diplomatic assurances about how they might be used. He is sticking it in their ear, the fluff that everyone knows is just diplomatic speak about not being used to attack Iran is just that: fluff. His message cleared the sinuses of the Iranians. Believe me, Maliki is very grateful to the Americans and will tell all who will listen. The last few months have been all about Maliki defeating the Iranians and driving them out of Iraq. We have won the war. It is getting close to champagne time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.