« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Our Men in Iraq Are Iran's Men, Too
Here's what happened in Iraq while the GOP -- with an assist from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) -- blocked yesterday's debate on the war.
The leader of the dominant Shiite political bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, is an Islamist and sectarian hardliner named Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. al-Hakim's faction, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has been a proxy for Iran since the Iran-Iraq war, and it runs one of the more ruthless Shiite militias in Iraq, known as the Badr Corps -- an organization that in 2005 ran Sunni torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry. If al-Hakim has any particular virtue, it's that he's also been willing to accept American sponsorship as well: way back in 2002 and 2003, he was an influential member of the Iraqi exile community working with the Bush administration, which rewarded him with a seat on the Iraqi Governing Council.
Yesterday, al-Hakim went to Tehran, where he was warmly received by the head of Iran's security council, Ali Larijani. He had a mission -- to publicly urge U.S.-Iranian diplomatic contact. "Negotiations between Iran and the United States are useful for the whole region," he was quoted as saying.
There are two points to be made here. The first, narrower point, is that even those Iraqis the U.S. is allied with want a reduction in the level of hostility between Washington and Tehran. That hostility is increasing by the day: the Iranians are blaming the U.S. for the abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad yesterday, a charge the U.S. denies. The larger point, however, is that the logic of the war is to deliver Iraqi politics into the hands of men who are closer to Tehran than to Washington. Remember that the surge is designed to deliver breathing room for the Iraqi government -- a government in the hands of hardline Shiites like al-Hakim. Indeed, Bush welcomed al-Hakim to Washington in December, and according to Sunday's Washington Post, a faction within the administration considers him more reliable an ally than PM Nouri al-Maliki:
As they put the plan together, officials held heated internal debates over whether Maliki was the right man to head such an effort. Some argued in favor of engineering a new Iraqi government under Maliki's Shiite coalition partner, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and Hakim's political stalking horse, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.
The reason the administration stuck with Maliki? According to an official quoted by the Post, sidelining him in favor of al-Hakim would be "too hard."
It's ironic that we'd get a fuller understanding of who really benefits from the surge by a visit to Tehran by an Iraqi ally of the administration, but there it is. Don't expect that to be debated on the Senate floor any time soon, however.
Comments (5)
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on February 6, 2007 10:55 AM:Why is the Iraq-Iran relationship such a big deal now but wasn't in July 2005? At the time, I didn't think it was in our best interest to have Iraq signing intelligence-sharing agreements with Iran but apparently no one else thought so.
The governments of Iraq and Iran are officially cooperating with each other on security matters, not sneaking around under the nose of the US.
From a 7/18/05 Gulf Times story, "Turning point’ in Iran-Iraq ties" (available online):
"TEHRAN: Iranian President Mohamed Khatami yesterday hailed a “turning point” in relations with Baghdad as Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari made a historic visit to Tehran aimed at strengthening ties after decades of enmity...
Jaafari is heading a large delegation on the visit and is expected to sign a number of deals aimed at aiding his country to meet its growing energy needs.
Among them is an agreement for Iran to share intelligence with Iraq in a bid to re-establish security in the war-torn country, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said.
“One of the sub-commissions we formed is on security co-operation between two sides. Its aim is really to establish a mechanism for intelligence sharing, to prevent infiltrations and to assist us in stabilising the situation,” Zebari said.
The Iraqi foreign minister added: “We found the Iranians to be co-operative and willing to participate in this commission,” adding security was discussed “at length” and was a “top priority” for Iraq..."
From a July MSNBC story (not available online):
"Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Duleimi’s visit to Iran marked a new effort to build ties between Iraq and mainly Shiite Muslim Iran after a Shiite-dominated government came to power in Baghdad this year.
“We’ve come here to open a new page in our relations against the painful page of the past,” al-Duleimi told reporters at a press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Shamkhani.
Shamkhani said Iran and Iraq would form joint committees to work out cooperation on cleaning minefields and “modernizing Iraq’s army.”..."
Kevin Hayden wrote on February 6, 2007 2:16 PM:Bush invited him to the White House so he could look into his soul. And his gut said "this guy is more reliable because he knows the secret sociopath handshake."
Anonymous wrote on February 6, 2007 3:01 PM:"Ran Sunni torture chambers?" Wow, I'll bet our Saudi buddies really appreciate that one.
Most likely outcome of this unbelievably ham-handed attempt to play both sides against the middle is that Sunni and Shia - Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, Turkish and Afghan - are all going to turn on the U.S. at the same time.
Yellow Dog wrote on February 6, 2007 3:02 PM:"Ran Sunni torture chambers?" Wow, I'll bet our Saudi buddies really appreciate that one.
Most likely outcome of this unbelievably ham-handed attempt to play both sides against the middle is that Sunni and Shia - Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, Turkish and Afghan - are all going to turn on the U.S. at the same time.
Mike wrote on February 6, 2007 7:32 PM:The alliance between the current Iraqi government and Iran is old news to those of us who have followed the story in the foreign press. It is a story ignored by the Bush administration, Congress and the American press -- probably because it makes things too complecated.
Our "friend" Maliki is more of a terrorist than Saddam ever was. He protects pro-Iranian death squads that kill Sunnis. He supports Iran's nuclear build-up. He supports, and seemingly has a connection to Hezbollah.
There was a joke circulating in the Arab press some time ago. "Who won the war in Iraq? Iran!"