READER COMMENTS: "Iraqi troops capture Mahdi Army military leader"

Posted by Cerberus at December 10, 2009 1:15 AM ET:

Great article as always.

I recall that "facilitator with direct links to leadership in Iran" has usually followed up by "has been released by the US.". Any reason to believe this will turn out differently?

Posted by Neo at December 10, 2009 1:12 PM ET:

For years the government of Iraq has done many things to signal a willingness to accommodate Iran. They have freed captured Iranian operatives, they have sent envoys both official and unofficial, and they have attempted to boost economic ties. For all its attempts and overtures toward accommodating Iran, the Iraqi government has gained absolutely nothing.

It should be evident by now that the only Iraqi government that Iran will accept is a Hezbollah led government under the direct control of Iran. Iraqi Shiites would not be allowed independent governance, per se, but would instead govern as vassals to the Hezbollah party in Iran. At the same time the Shiite religious center in Karbala would be greatly diminished and subjugated to Qom, its religious authorities dispersed and diluted, if not directly disposed of.

If Iraqi Shiites want to be self governed in either a religious or secular state, they will inevitably have to fight Iranian proxies for control over Iraq. Even the mildest attempts at accommodating Iran have met an unyielding hard line, the latest attempts being no more successful than earlier attempts.

The idea of having a religious state still resonates with much of the Iraqi Shiite population, but the understanding has always been that the political movement would be Iraqi and based in Karbala. The religious political parties in Iraq still are pretty slow to recognize reality, but they aren't entirely blind to the fact that Iran is not offering self governance. The current Iran political leadership is not going to offer self governance in the future either.

There is no love lost between the Iraqi religious parties and the United States. The Iraqi's are as anxious to lose meddling outsiders as anyone in a similar situation. However undesirable it may be, a continued relationship with the United States is their only real chance at political independence in the face of Iranian domination. Many Iraqi's realize this. The problem is, the Americans are a fickle political partner, and have been repeatedly proven to be unreliable over the long term. There is always the potential of the Americans pulling the rug from underneath any international partner. So Iraqi's will continue to play the double game and attempt to appease both sides.

In the end, appeasing Iran is bit like appeasing a crocodile. Offer a crocodile a limb and he will always try to take you under. It's in his nature to do so. Iraq is like a baby hippo, once he grows large enough the local crocodiles will leave it alone, any sign of weakness though, and even a hippo will be devoured.

Posted by Alex at December 11, 2009 12:08 AM ET:

Neo,

I've definitely seen what you mean, but I have a slightly different take:

Nouri al-Maliki tried to make nice with Iran from 2006 to the present. Through all of 2004 to 2006, when Iraq had a sovereign government, things were a complete mess. It was an open secret that Iran was behind much of the Shi'ite led violence. Maliki sees this, and then sees that the US does not have the political will to confront Iran, and he sees that the ISF is still in its infancy--so he appeases.

Fast forward to December 2009. Iyad Allawi, an opposition candidate to Maliki, has made taking a harder line with Iran part of his campaign platform. I do not think that appeasement is a permanent standpoint. In a direct confrontation, Iran would defeat Iraq militarily--only assuming that nobody else gets involved. My opinion is that a direct confrontation would end disastrously for Iran, as I could see Kuwait and Jordan coming to Iraq's aid--say nothing of the United States, and say nothing of whether or not Iranian commanders would even follow their orders when they read the writing on the wall.

Remember, Iraq fought Iran for eight years with a majority Shi'ite army. Saddam's leadership was Sunni, but his army was not. Religious affiliation may mean a lot in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but it isn't the be-all end-all in Iraq.

Posted by David M at December 11, 2009 11:19 AM ET:

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 12/11/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

Posted by Freedom Now at December 12, 2009 7:57 AM ET:

Neo and Alex,

I agree with you both. Alex's perspective doesnt necessarily contradict Neo at all. Neo never wrote that the government is just as inclined to appease Iranian incitement of violence in Iraq as they have been in the past.

At the very least we can say that since "Operation Charge of the Knights" Maliki has definitely shown a harder stance towards Iran's proxies. Despite whatever extent (more, less or in equal amounts) that the Iraqi government appeases the Mullahs, the fact is that they still continue to do so, but perhaps to a lesser degree.

Iraq suffers from the same problem that the US does. They harbor a strong contigent of "dissenters" who sympathize with the aims of our enemies. (I am not saying that they ally themselves to our enemies, but rather they have some similar goals). These parties hinder the unity of our people and our military/political goals. I wish our Iraqi allies the best of luck and hope that one day we come to terms with each other so that we recognize our kinship as comrades in arms.

Posted by Neo at December 12, 2009 1:12 PM ET:

"Alex's perspective doesn't necessarily contradict Neo at all."�

First, I think we are both trying to get at the reasons behind the Iraqi governments accommodation and appeasement of Iran. I see too many news outlets and pundits that try to treat Iraq's Shiite population as some sort of monolithic block, whose sympathies ultimately lie with Iran. There is no denying that there are, in varying degrees, sympathies for Iran among the Shiite religious parties, but politically the Shiites are anything but a monolithic block. This does have a large direct influence on the current Iraqi government. It would also be a gross oversimplification to say any Shiite party has direct control over Iraqi policy. Iraqi government policy has to serve a number of competing interests both internal and external.

The politics of the Shiite parties is complicated and nuanced, rather than monolithic. There has always been a definite split between those that supported Qom and those that supported Karbala. Those that supported Qom essentially accepted their place in the Iranian revolutionary modal. Those that supported Karbala have had a much more complicated path. Many of these also had sympathies for Iran but wanted to assert themselves independently. Many outright distrusted the Iranians. It does seem that Iran has no use for independent minded Iraqi's. Whatever their original sympathies toward Iran, those Iraqis that support Karbala, or in any way the US allied Iraqi government, have found themselves targeted by the Iranians.

It is perhaps ironic that by pursuing a hard line stance the Iranians have cut themselves off from potential allies within Iraq. Than again, it is not surprising considering the Iranian revolutionary ideology, which tends to be absolutist and spurns compromise of any sort, not to mention their tendencies to be reflexive and paranoid.

Here, I only touch upon the politics of the Iraqi religious parties. I don't even get into internal politics of the Iraqi government and it's relationships with the Shiite religious parties, which is a topic unto itself. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in any sense, but there definitely is much to be explored on the subject of Iraqi politics. The problem is, I don't find many experts taking on the subject. Sadly, I get the feeling that many professionals get into the business to be US policy critics, first and last, and have little interest in getting into the domestic politics of the countries involved.

Posted by phuket villas at December 14, 2009 1:10 AM ET:

I think Iraq must fight agains Iran, because Iran will destroy all their enemy using nuke.