| "The United States is being played," agrees Kenneth Katzman, Middle East specialist for the Congressional Research Service."The US military is being played by the Hakims in this internecine struggle."While looking into my last blog, Lisa (xoxo) sent me a link to an article she found about the real dynamics of the war in Iraq.It is perhaps the most informative article I have read to date on what is really going on inside the many groups vying for power and in some cases simply for life in Iraq and how Iran fits in.The article is: Is Iran Winning the War in Iraq?By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation.Posted February 26, 2008.LINK 1 Washington?s decision to topple Saddam?s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.In October, as part of its ongoing effort to isolate and sanction Iran, the Bush Administration announced sanctions against several Iranian banks, companies and individuals linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its special operations unit, the Quds (Jerusalem) Force, for their "support for terrorism."The White House launched a worldwide effort to persuade other countries not to do business with the designees, including Iran?s Bank Melli."Bank Melli provides banking services to the IRGC and the Qods Force," said the Treasury Department."Entities owned or controlled by the IRGC or the Qods Force use Bank Melli for a variety of financial services."Buried deep in the State and Treasury Department documents compiled in support of the sanctions -- unnoticed by the media -- is the address of a Bank Melli branch in a country occupied by US troops: "Location: No. 111-27, Alley 929 District, Arasat Street, Baghdad, Iraq."That?s right; the bank that is used by the IRGC is located in Iraq.The US plan, and I use the term loosely, for occupation in Iraq is chock full of paradoxes and contradictions.The article outlined 2 broad ones.The first paradox, at once startling and ironic, is that Washington?s decision to topple Saddam?s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.As a result, the ayatollahs in Tehran have adroitly checkmated (a word derived from the Persian shah mat, "the king is dead") US efforts to install a compliant, pro-American regime in Baghdad as the anchor of Washington?s interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.Now a proxy conflict between the United States and Iran is playing out on Iraq?s complex chessboard.Depending on the course that US-Iranian relations take over the rest of Bush?s tenure and the start of the next administration in Washington, Tehran has two options.If US-Iran ties improve, Tehran may try, at least in the short term, to broker a deal to stabilize Iraq, albeit one that fortifies the Shiite-led government in a way that accommodates Iran?s regional interests.Or, if relations with the United States worsen, Iran can use its allies and agents in Iraq to end the relative calm and send the country tumbling back into all-out civil war.We are seeing in the last few days what can happen if the Shiite groups in IraqIraq, and they are not the Shiite group we support.want to change the landscape.The Sadrists have stood down since the surge began, but they are not the only Shiite group in The second paradox is that despite Iran?s enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis -- even most Iraqi Shiites -- are not pro-Iran.On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the US occupation and Iran?s support for religious parties in Iraq.In recent months, this nationalism has begun to express itself in many ways, from the national outpouring of support for the country?s victorious soccer team last summer to the potent anger provoked by efforts to privatize Iraq?s oil industry, by the Blackwater security firm?s shooting of civilians in a Baghdad traffic circle and by suggestions in Washington that Iraq ought to be partitioned into three ministates.In addition, many Iraqi Shiites, like Iraqi Sunnis, harbor bitter feelings against their Persian neighbor left over from the bloody 1980-88 war, which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead."There is such a thing as Iraqi nationalism, and the default position tends to be one of hostility toward Iran," says Freeman."Removing the US occupation as the focus of nationalism will almost certainly lead to a renewal of that nationalism?s focus on Iran."The US supports the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and its disciplined Badr Corps militia, and it is also Iran?s closest Iraqi ally.Many of the members of the Badr Corps were trained by Iran, not Al Qaeda as John McCain suggested.Sadr?s Army is the most nationalist, but when the surge started Sadr went to Iran.and stayed there for the most part since the beginning of the surge.He had stayed clear of Iranian support, but has been pushed into their arms by the Let?s not forget the Sunni "Awakening" where the US is paying Sunni tribes to fight Al Qaeda.The Shiites are very opposed to our arming and funding the Sunnis that they see as part of the old Saddam regime.This also feeds into Iran?s hand, pushing Sadr to go to Iran for support.Can you say the next Hezbollah?Complicated?Yes!Convoluted?Yes!Does the US military have a place keeping the cork in the bottle?If so, there needs to be more of a realization that Iran will always play of key role in Iraq, and that there is more than one bottle to cork.So, despite Dick "SO" Cheney?s continued drum beat for war against Iran, in my opinion our embracing Iran would allow the US to have a place at the table in the long run in the Persian Gulf.Peace, J A few videos for your viewing pleasure from Tribute to U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald:Phil Donahue: "Shut up and Sing"Iraq war haunts Americans at home And one funny:McCain on EconomicsReal Hillary Bosnia footage |
|
Webhosting