Skip to comments.Report: As U.S. moves out, Iran moving into Iraq
Posted on 11/15/2010 10:44:19 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Iran has significantly expanded its intervention and is ready to transform Iraq into a proxy, a report said.The Center for New Politics and Policy asserted that Iran was filling the vacuum left by the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. In a report titled "Iraq's Shi'a Leadership Crisis and the Iranian End Game," the Washington-based center said Iran was using both Shi'ite and Sunni militias to destabilize Iraq to prevent the emergence of a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...
I’m the last one to claim any sort of advanced predictive powers, but...this is pretty much exactly what I thought would happen.
Now what...? Does Iran end up with its own VietNam in 3 years? No...not with the proximity.
Please forgive me if I say: what a stinky, dirtbag part of the world.
Truth is we should have done Iran instead of Iraq.
Oh well, “Hindsight is 20-20”
I did too. The moment we began a nation building program there. That was the whole intent of the war. MONEY for buddies and not the elimination of a military threat. That threat now will be bigger than ever. Iran goes in and takes over all the new shinny military the USA FOOLISHLY sold, gave away, loaned, etc to Iraq and trained. Put one Charamatic Radical Islamic Cleric in place in Iraq and the sheeple will be begging Iran to take over.
Totally agree, Carter had his chance.
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq via Tehran.
Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
Nonsense. The same idiots that said Sadr was the key power there too, most likely
Fighting an ideology intent on destroying our Country and our way of life will require swift and extreme measures.
Attempting to win Hearts & Minds and relying on politically correct decisions is no way to win any war.
This cancer needs to be eradicated, or at least contained.
A true distribution of retribution, ten fold, would be a good start!
If only our leaders would listen. War is for war and absolute act of elimination of an enemy. It requires destruction so severe it renders them benign for decades to come. The M.E. culture sees our policies as weaknesses to exploit. Scrap our post WW2 P.C. Rules of Engagement NOW.
Now what...? Does Iran end up with its own VietNam in 3 years? No...not with the proximity.
Bear defecates in forest.
Very intelligent answer!
I feel the same about Iran. Before we withdraw from the Middle East we should take 'em out.
When a vacuum is created...something always fills it
You did notice this part where the report was wrong?
The report said Iraq was likely to resolve its eight-month-old political stalemate by forming a non-Shi’ite government coalition led by Iyad Alawi, once deemed the most likely successor of then-President Saddam Hussein. Teheran was expected to pressure lame duck Prime Minister Nour Al Maliki to resign.
“The key to Iran’s short-term success is removing Nouri Al Maliki as prime minister and coopting Iyad Alawi in a leadership role that minimizes his ability to threaten Iran’s strategic interests,” the report said.
[On Nov. 11, Iraqi parliamentarians agreed to support Al Maliki for another four-year term. Parliamentarians said Sunni groups would ensure that Al Maliki would achieve a majority for the proposed government.]
I see.I did not and thanks for pointing that out. It is greatly appreciated.
The author of this piece is tremendously stupid.
They are not just moving in, they have been invited in - by the Obama administration. Ahmadinejad and Obama are two hands on the same body, better get used to it.
If you go back to the 1990s and look at the various characters from Iraq (Ahmed Chalabi, for example) who were involved in lobbying the Clinton and Bush II administrations to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist government, it’s not outlandish to suggest that the U.S. government basically had a bunch of Iranian moles dictating its Iraq policy.
If Iran (98% Shia) ends up controlling Iraq the Sunni wont be happy.