Iran Warns of New 'War' As It Boosts Ties With Syria, Iraq and Lebanon

Newsweek ^ | 18 Apr 2018 | Tom O'Connor

[blueplum]

Iran's supreme leader warned top officials Wednesday that their country was facing threats of espionage and subversion from foreign foes who sought to undermine the Islamic Republic and its increasingly large sphere of influence in the Middle East. {snip}

Iran has also shored up its relations with neighboring Iraq, where a 2003 U.S. invasion installed a Shiite Muslim government much friendlier to Iran and spurred a Sunni Muslim insurgency that ultimately helped to form ISIS... With ISIS largely defeated, these paramilitary fighters were made official members of the country's armed forces and they have threatened to expel the U.S. military by force.

Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami arrived Wednesday in Baghdad for a two-day visit he said was mainly aimed at "enhancing defense and military cooperation between Iran and Iraq," according to The National. The visit came as Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi carefully balanced the interests of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. ahead of next month's elections.

[blueplum]

not exactly the future we expected to see for Iraq

[Cronos]

this entire cycle of death was started by Bush Senior being a sucker to the Saudis and starting Gulf War one. No gulf war one, no 9/11, no al-qaeda fighting the USA (they’d be focused on Saddam and Ghaddafi and Assad and Mubarak) and no Islamic state

[momincombatboots]

Seriously? Totally expected. Oil producers are united in our destruction, well they are now that we are in Syria. Even more so, the islamic oil producers.
Now, I propose they return every taxpayer penny we spent there in light, sweet crude.

[Clutch Martin]

Nouveau Axis

[neefer]

no Islamic state

There would have been radical Islam regardless of what Bush Sr. did or didn't do. The PFLP started hijacking planes in the 70s.

[Cronos]

you are mixing three things up:

1. Radical Islam -- there's been radical Islam since the 7th century - look at the great jihadis like Timur-e-Lang (killed 5% of humanity, committed genocide of the Eastern Church), Mohmud of Ghor, Ghazni and their successors who killed about 100 million Hindus over 500 years.
   
   radical islam was always there, but it was kept in check by secular monsters like Saddy, Gaddafi, Mubarak
   
   
2. 'regardless of what Bush Sr did' - no, Bush senior tossed oil on the fire. He sent American boys to die to protect the Saudis (the Saudi king said "I snap my fingers and my blue-eyed American slaves fight and die for me") and Kuwaitis who used the money to spread Wahabbiism globally -- look at how Mohammaden communities from Indonesia to Islington are radicalized by Saudi money and teachings. Also, Saddy was going to squeeze the Sauds and Qataris more to fight anotehr war with Iran -- so two for the price of one
   
   
3. the PFLP were marxist-Leninst terrorists

[jdsteel]

”I snap my fingers and my blue-eyed American slaves fight and die for me"

I can say that Hillary’s loss is thanks to me. Doesn’t make it so.

For all of Bush II’s faults, he tried to give the ME a chance for self rule with a democratically elected government. It didn’t work out so well. So now we know that there are 3 choices. 1) Death, fighting and radical Islam 2) A dictatorship with a strongman to keep things in check 3) Scorched earth warfare.

[Cronos]

You can say that, but however the USA was suckered by the Sauds and Kuwaitis to fight and die for them.

Gulf war 1 was a mistake.

Bush II's path was more or less set due to Gulf War 1

During GW 1 the USA, Uk etc. sent troops that were on Saudi soil -- and this angered and angersjihadis who say no infidel troops should set foot on the "holy soil" of Saudia.

[SunkenCiv]

The American “Inability To Understand” Jihadis — It has hamstrung our foreign policy for decades
Frontpagemagazine | April 20, 2018 | Robert Spencer

Posted on 04/20/2018 5:30:41 AM PDT by SJackson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3648950/posts

[SunkenCiv]

After Saddam was wiped, Iran's mullahcracy should have been next. And it'll be a pleasure to hear the news that Putin's been snuffed -- I hope there's a video, I'd like to watch it again and again.

The Three Amigos

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan meet in Sochi, Russia November 22, 2017. (photo credit: SPUTNIK/MIKHAIL METZEL/KREMLIN VIA REUTERS)

[jdsteel]

Gulf war 1 was a mistake. Bush II's path was more or less set due to Gulf War 1 During GW 1 the USA, Uk etc. sent troops that were on Saudi soil -- and this angered and angersjihadis who say no infidel troops should set foot on the "holy soil" of Saudia.

The fact that there is truth to your points it does NOT mean that Gulf war 1 or 2 were a mistake, or that we would have been better off had we not engaged. The US was still very dependent on foreign oil. Thankfully much less so now. And we were not the only ones. The choice to leave Saddam run roughshod over the ME would have had very bad potential consequences. The folks that cried "it's all about oil" were not 100% correct but oil was and is a vital, global resource. We took it on ourselves to ensure the free flow of oil at market prices because it was in our interest to do so AND we had the ability to do it.

Now, once we are 100% energy independent I become much, much less interested in helping the ME in any way, especially now that we've seen how we were rewarded by our unselfish and altruistic attempt to introduce Democracy into Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Cronos]

What would have been the bad consequences of Saddam keeping Kuwait in 1991 in your opinion?

[Cronos]

What would have been the bad consequences of Saddam keeping Kuwait in 1991 in your opinion?

[jdsteel]

What would have been the bad consequences of Saddam keeping Kuwait in 1991 in your opinion?

Are you serious? Are you too young to have been aware of what was happening at that time?

[Cronos]

I am serious. Saddam was on the US's side fighting against the Ayatollahs 1980-1988.

There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

[jdsteel]

I am serious. Saddam was on the US's side fighting against the Ayatollahs 1980-1988. There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

You may be serious but you are very foolish. Saddam was most assuredly NOT on our side. Yes, we sold them arms to offset the Soviet Unions support of Iran. The phrase used at the time was “I hope they both lose”. Saddam threatened the free flow of oil at market prices. That, as I said, was a vital national and global resource. Your fantasy that there would have been no 9/11, Iranian nuke threat or Islamic State is quite delusional and 100% conjecture.

Even worse than that, you are uninteresting.

[Cronos]

Saddam threatened the flow of oil, but at the same time he was a bulwark against Iran

It's not a fantasy -- look at AlQaeda's turn towards attacking America - it was caused by American troops on Saudi soil

The problem is that you are stuck in the fantasy that GWI was rah-rah good, while it was nothing more than at the behest of the Saudis

[jdsteel]

Well, now you are just slightly more interesting, but still very wrong. Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies for a long time and neither was better than the other. When the Shah was deposed the crazy Imams took over Iran, but Saddam was his own evil. There were no good guys. Their fighting exemplified the wisdom of why post WW2 Western powers carved up the ME to keep them busy fighting and killing each other while still providing oil.

GW was NOT, in my mind, rah rah good. He gave bringing Democracy to the ME a shot rather than just rolling in to destroy and then leave. I don’t think it worked.

The problem wasn’t Bush. The problem wasn’t just Saddam or Iran. The problem is Islam, and that remains a constant no matter who did what.

I’ll tell you what does absolutely no good: imaginary games of “what if”.

[mac_truck]

There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

Interesting take...

[Cronos]

Well, now you are just slightly more interesting, but still very wrong. Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies for a long time and neither was better than the other.

I was referring to the Iran-Iraq war period (1980-1988) - during that time, Iraq was definitely, for the USA, better than Iran

Saddam was his own evil - yes, but to paraphrase "he was our evil ba$tard"

GW was NOT, in my mind, rah rah good. He gave bringing Democracy to the ME a shot rather than just rolling in to destroy and then leave. I don’t think it worked. - my comments above were about GHW - Bush 1's actions.

Gulf War II was almost inevitable after Bush I and Clinton's actions (almost but not quite)

Saddam was all kinds of evil, but remember he was a secular evil - he protected Christians because they didn't give him any trouble. He killed Shias, Kurds, Sunni jihadis etc. anyone who threatened him - and thejihadis hated him, and the Shias and the Iranians hated him

And he squeezed the Sauds and Kuwaitis and Qataris for money, so they didn't have any money to spend on radicalizing Sunnis in Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia etc.

I travelled to Pakistan and Indonesia and other parts of South and South East Asia in the 80s and then later in the early 2000s -- and the contrast among the Mohammadens is huge - earlier they were more or less syncretic, having Sufis etc. They had Christians who were not treated well, but not targeted for murder rape. That changed after Saudi money set up Wahabbi Madrassas

and the Saudis had the ability to spend that money because Saddy wasn't squeezing them.