Posted on 06/18/2014 3:46:53 AM PDT by markomalley
As U.S. leaders signal a willingness to partner with Iran in the fight against Iraqi terrorists, senior military officials in Tehran are warning of repercussions for the United States if it meddles in Iraq.
The head of Iran’s armed forces on Tuesday called the United States “supporters of terrorists” and warned the Obama administration against any intervention in Iraq, where extremist terrorists are seeking to depose the American-backed government.
Iran’s warning came less than a day after senior Obama administration officials expressed optimism about partnering with Tehran and signals that the White House may be misreading Iran’s intentions in Iraq.
The State Department in recent days has taken heat for ignoring its own warning about Iran’s efforts to destabilize Iraq. U.S. official have instead conducted a full court press to convince the nation that Iran and America have a “shared interest” in the region.
Senior Iranian military and political officials do not share this rosy view and are now issuing warnings to U.S. leaders as the violence in Iraq hits new highs.
Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the country’s armed forces, slammed the United States and blamed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for sponsoring terrorist groups in Iraq and the region.
“By any meddling and military intervention in Iraq, the Americans are seeking to attain ungracious goals, at the top of which undermining the elections in Iraq, and the crocodile tears of the Americans should not receive any attention, as they are still the allies of the sponsors and supporters of terrorists in the region,” Firouzabadi was quoted as saying in Tehran on Tuesday by the country’s state-run press.
Clinton’s State Department, the general claimed, “created terrorist groups” and is now “displeased with the results of the recent elections in Iraq and is cancel election results.”
Iranian officials say that they can handle the Iraq terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) without any U.S. assistance.
“The Iraqi army and nation are mighty enough to overcome terrorists of the ISIL,” according to remarks made earlier this week by Iran’s deputy foreign minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who vigorously denied reports that Iranian and U.S. officials are discussing joint tactics in Iraq.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has had no negotiations with the Americans over mutual cooperation in Iraq,” Abdollahian was quoted as saying.
Iranian nuclear negotiators in Vienna also denied that the United States and Iran discussed Iraq at any point.
“In negotiations with the Americans, merely the nuclear issue was discussed,” Seyed Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and its senior negotiator, said on Monday.
Iran’s Firouzabadi also claimed that the ISIL is an Israeli creation meant to distract the region.
“The ISIL is Israel’s cover up for distancing the revolutionary forces from Israeli borders and creating a margin of security for the Zionists, and the Zionist media have also admitted this fact,” he was quoted as saying.
The comments by top Iranian officials have drastically differed from those made by leading Obama administration figures.
Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed his openness to teaming with Iran, telling reporters in a recent interview, “We’re open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform.”
Following a meeting between Kerry and Iranian officials, a senior State Department official told reporters that the United States remains “open to engaging the Iranians,” but would not coordinate militarily with Tehran.
Iran is already gearing up to send assets and potentially troops to Iraq.
“We are ready to help Iraq and if the Iraqi government requests, we will help them; we believe that violence and the terrorist groups should be eliminated from the region,” Iranian First Vice-President Eshaq Jahangiri said over the weekend.
Multiple U.S. reports indicate that Iran has already sent military assets and commanders to Iraq, though it remains unclear how they might interact with the 275 U.S. troops recently deployed there.
Some will see this as a great opportunity to start that war with Iran. Send in some ground troops, fill the gulf with warships and Presto!
This is going to wind up in a huge hostage situation. And Obama laid out the criteria with Bowe.
Mess O Potamia
Call Barry O Bama. BOB can fix anything.
Lol - so the country who loathes America, calls it the great satan, isn’t wanting to team up after all? What a shock. Kerry must be even more stupid than I thought.
Poor Obama..... he just can’t catch a break
If he doesn’t order military action it must be because Iran chased him off. He fled the battlefield in the face of Mullah threats
No way anybody is dumber than scary Kerry.
Mr paper cut purple heart. Mr. Lying to congress about war crimes. Mr throwing fake medals over the fence at the WH and claiming them to be real. . . .
Poor Obama..... he just can’t catch a break
The boy pResident is going to need a new prayer rug.
Obama may be a jerk, but his hesitancy to go into Iraq is a good decision. Bottom line, the US is broke. Jump into another $ 1 trillion per year fight and the biggest threat to the US will be the financial collapse of the dollar from debt. Avoid more debt now and deal with future threats from ISIS later. That is the price of being a great power who is financially broke. It is like watching a brutal bar fight between two customers. You want to do the decent thing and jump in to stop it, but you are deep in debt, unemployed and have no health insurance. The last thing you want is to jump in, get hurt and be stuck with a large hospital bill you cannot afford to pay.
This from our partner in peace? I see American soldiers lives at risk if we allow this "coalition".
Win, lose and draw with the partitioning of Iraq?
Kurds: Huge winner.
Iraq: Maliki and the Shiite majority in the south get a solid Shiite majority across the southern Iraq. (Freedom to screw the Sunni’s that remain with impunity.). Lose oil fields in the north.
Iran: Majority Shia, gets solid ally (proxy) bordering Saudi Arabian (enemy) in southern Iraq partition. Supply line to Syria/Lebanon broken.
Syria (Assad): Huge loser. New hostile neighbor. Lose over land supply line to Iran and future oil pipeline and royalties
Turkey: Has Sunni majority. They get a half baked Somalia next door run by ISIS, but at least it’s Sunni led. As such they will get any future pipeline through thier territory and of coarse and royalties associated with such.
Saudi/Qatar: Sunni fanatics. They are funding ISIS, if you can’t have all of Iraq take what you can.
USA (Obama): A policy victory or loss -pyrrhic.
Pretty good analysis.
Assad’s Syria is either gone or reduced considerably. In my view the next city to fall to ISIS is Allepo.
The US, NATO, and Saudi Arabia have been arming Al Qaeda and the ISIS for three years to overthrow the secular government of Syria, so the Iranians are correct.
someone should have pinned bubble boy to the wall with the question
“If we are going to work ‘together’, then what is Iran’s strategic plan for Iraq, and what is ours? What common outcome do we both desire for Iraq in 6 months? a year? 5 years and beyond? What permanent interests do we share in the region, and how does that affect the interests of our other allies?”
crickets
In a normal world, we would be warning them to not interfere in Iraq.
And....when all is said and done, the muzzy states will pounce on Israel, and then the shit will hit the fan. They have all this figured out. Somehow another there is a commercial air liner lurking out there in the muzzy country to serve as a long range bomber....and remember the head of ISIS said “See you in New York”.
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.