'Meddling' in Iraq's affairs

[zakur]

From an Article on Salon.com:

Meanwhile, a top Iranian official said his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in foreign policy a day after al-Hakim called for such talks.

[...]

"To resolve Iraqi issues and help establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to (talks with the United States)," Larijani said after a closed meeting of the parliament Thursday.

Larijani said Khalilzad had invited Iran for talks on Iraq.

Washington repeatedly has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq, allegations the Iranians have denied.

Pot, meet kettle.

Meanwhile, Sunni leaders in Iraq are telling the U.S. to stop meddling in Iraq's affairs:

Sunni Arab political leaders on Friday denounced an agreement between the United States and Iran to hold face-to-face talks about solutions to the unrest in Iraq, saying the conversations would amount to meddling by foreign nations in Iraq's domestic affairs.

The Iraqi Consensus Front, the country's main Sunni political bloc, issued a statement calling the agreement "an obvious unjustified interference" and asserted that it was not obligated to comply with any results of the negotiations.

[...]

"The Iraqis in the current government should have these talks with the Iranians and discuss the level of intervention of Iran," Naseer al-Ani, a member of the Sunni Arab bloc, said in a telephone interview. "It's not up to the American ambassador to talk to Iran about Iraq."

So who really is meddling here? The U.S., Iran, or both? Or perhaps there is "good" meddling and there is "bad meddling," and what the U.S. is doing is the former and what Iran is doing is the latter. Or perhaps the distinction is not good vs. bad, but justified vs. unjustified?

In the U.S.'s case, national security was the primary reason for invading Iraq (invading can be considered "meddling," right?). Cannot Iran, which is much closer geographically, use the same reason to justify their "meddling"? Can we really expect them to sit idly by and not try to exert their own influence over what is going on in Iraq?

Of course, most would prefer that if they are going to exert their own influence in Iraq it would not take the form of supplying IEDs to "insurgents," but that is a claim for which the Bush administration has no proof.

 

[Ziggurat]

In the U.S.'s case, national security was the primary reason for invading Iraq (invading can be considered "meddling," right?). Cannot Iran, which is much closer geographically, use the same reason to justify their "meddling"?

Iran is claiming that they aren't involved in Iraq in any way beyond political, so whether or not they could justify further intervention is irrelevant since they aren't making any such claims. So I don't quite see your point, even to the limited extent that I might ever care about how Iran justifies its actions versus what those actions actually are.

Of course, most would prefer that if they are going to exert their own influence in Iraq it would not take the form of supplying IEDs to "insurgents," but that is a claim for which the Bush administration has no proof.

"No proof" and "no evidence" aren't the same thing. We do have evidence Iran has been supplying IEDs, something the story seems to only reluctantly admit. Do you think that Iran is NOT doing so?

 

[Mycroft]

Or perhaps there is "good" meddling and there is "bad meddling," and what the U.S. is doing is the former and what Iran is doing is the latter.

This seems to be the case to me. Our "meddling" is trying to help them set up a stable democracy that allows everyone to live together in peace while simultaneously trying to rebuild their infrastructure so they can get basic services back online and encourage the flow of commerce so that everyone can earn a living, Irans "meddling" is to resist all that while nudging them towards a shia theocracy.

Or do you see things differently?

 

[geni]

This seems to be the case to me. Our "meddling" is trying to help them set up a stable democracy that allows everyone to live together in peace while simultaneously trying to rebuild their infrastructure so they can get basic services back online and encourage the flow of commerce so that everyone can earn a living, Irans "meddling" is to resist all that while nudging them towards a shia theocracy.

Or do you see things differently?

Iran has a kurdish minority. A shia theocracy is likely to push the kurds into outright warfare wich Iran doesn't wan't.

At the present time I suspect that the US leadership wants Iraq to stop being a problem and isn't too fussy as to how.

Iran wants Iraq to continue tying up US troops and if it has to stabalise wants it to be as weak as posible.

 

[Mycroft]

Iran has a kurdish minority. A shia theocracy is likely to push the kurds into outright warfare wich Iran doesn't wan't.

At the present time I suspect that the US leadership wants Iraq to stop being a problem and isn't too fussy as to how.

Iran wants Iraq to continue tying up US troops and if it has to stabalise wants it to be as weak as posible.

Doesn't that still make our "meddling" better and preferable to Iranian "meddling"?

 

[geni]

Doesn't that still make our "meddling" better and preferable to Iranian "meddling"?

Define better.

Neither are really there because they care about the iraqi people.

The US is there because it would be political suicide for the rebulicans to admint that they screwed up and now they are going to leave the iraqis to their fate

Iran is there for national security reasons.

 

[Ziggurat]

The US is there because it would be political suicide for the rebulicans to admint that they screwed up and now they are going to leave the iraqis to their fate

Iran is there for national security reasons.

Are you claiming we're NOT there for national security reasons at this point? Because I'm afraid that that's quite definitively false.

Disagree all you want to about the wisdom of going in, but it's done. We went in, we made local allies (noteably the Kurds), and we made promises to those allies (that we'd help them form a stable Iraq). If we left, we would be abandoning allies, and the message that sends is it's not worth taking a risk to side with the Americans because they'll abandon you if things get tough. That's an INCREDIBLY bad thing to do for our own national security. So you had better believe we're in there for national security reasons, REGARDLESS of what you thought about our initial decision to go in.

As for Iran, you're wrong there too: they aren't involved for NATIONAL security reasons, they're involved for REGIME security reasons. Those can be (and in this case are) very different things for totalitarian governments.

 

[geni]

Are you claiming we're NOT there for national security reasons at this point? Because I'm afraid that that's quite definitively false.

Disagree all you want to about the wisdom of going in, but it's done. We went in, we made local allies (noteably the Kurds), and we made promises to those allies (that we'd help them form a stable Iraq).

Nobody cares about the kurds and a stable iraq isn't what the kurds most want.

If we left, we would be abandoning allies, and the message that sends is it's not worth taking a risk to side with the Americans because they'll abandon you if things get tough. That's an INCREDIBLY bad thing to do for our own national security. So you had better believe we're in there for national security reasons, REGARDLESS of what you thought about our initial decision to go in.

Who would you be sending that message to? The shia? They figured that one out after GW1. In any case they would probably win a civil war,

The Kurds? Everyone dislikes the kurds so no one is going to mind too much if you dump them. The Kurds are stong enough to look after themselves unless/untill turkey invades.

The Sunnis? They already hate the US so I doubt much differnce will be made.

As for Iran, you're wrong there too: they aren't involved for NATIONAL security reasons, they're involved for REGIME security reasons. Those can be (and in this case are) very different things for totalitarian governments.

The results of the last Iranian elections make it fairly clear that the Iranian goverment has popular support.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody cares about the kurds and a stable iraq isn't what the kurds most want.

We care about the kurds. And you totally missed my point: if you're a potential ally of the US, it doesn't matter if you care about the kurds per se, it matters if you see that we're not willing to stick by the kurds. As to what they MOST want, sure, a stable Iraq isn't it, but they know they can't get what they most want right now, so a stable Iraq is the next best thing, and that IS what they're working towards, and what they need if they're going to get out of this without having to wade through a lot more fighting.

Who would you be sending that message to?

Any potential allies anywhere, as well as our enemies. For example, if Pakistan faces a rebellion in Waziristan, are they going to crack down on it or will they cave to jihadi demands? How much they can trust in our support could be a key ingredient in that balancing equation. What we do in Iraq gets watched by a lot more people than just the Iraqis. And our enemies pay attention too - few people saw Somalia as being connected to terrorism and the middle east, but when we pulled out, jihadis all over the world took notice, and believed it a sign of our weakness, and were encouraged in the notion that they could defeat us.

The results of the last Iranian elections make it fairly clear that the Iranian goverment has popular support.

Hardly. Turnout was low (and still inflated), and the only candidates on the ballot were those approved by the Guardian council - which means that nobody who actually opposes the mullahs or their policies can ever get on the ballot in the first place. The mullahs are good at putting on a show, and apparently you bought it. But the Iranian people don't like the government at all - the population of Iran is probably one of the most pro-American muslim populations in the world. And why would they support the mullahs? The economy has been stagnant since they took over, their harsh fundamentalism is widely unpopular among the youth culture, most of the country doesn't remember the Shah and those that do realize things haven't improved since then, and corruption is visibly rampant. Stories about mullahs in Tehran being unable to hail a taxi don't come from nowhere. The mullahs don't have popular support at all, nor do they need it: all they need is the support of the guys with the guns, and so far they've managed to keep them happy enough.

 

[Crazytree]

med·dle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mdl)
intr.v. med·dled, med·dling, med·dles

1. To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere. See Synonyms at interfere.
2. To handle something idly or ignorantly; tamper.

 

[geni]

We care about the kurds.

Evidence?

And you totally missed my point: if you're a potential ally of the US, it doesn't matter if you care about the kurds per se, it matters if you see that we're not willing to stick by the kurds. As to what they MOST want, sure, a stable Iraq isn't it, but they know they can't get what they most want right now, so a stable Iraq is the next best thing, and that IS what they're working towards, and what they need if they're going to get out of this without having to wade through a lot more fighting.

Nah an unstable iraq suits them quite nicely as long as it is the right kind of unstable Iraq.

Any potential allies anywhere, as well as our enemies. For example, if Pakistan faces a rebellion in Waziristan, are they going to crack down on it or will they cave to jihadi demands? How much they can trust in our support could be a key ingredient in that balancing equation.

No Musharraf will see them as a threat and take whatever actions are needed to suppess them. He can't cave in because their demarnds include his removal. Musharraf as with most secular dictators knows that the jihadists are a threat to him. In any case he can just look ar President Taya for an obvios example of how supporting the US doesn't help.

What we do in Iraq gets watched by a lot more people than just the Iraqis. And our enemies pay attention too - few people saw Somalia as being connected to terrorism and the middle east, but when we pulled out, jihadis all over the world took notice, and believed it a sign of our weakness, and were encouraged in the notion that they could defeat us.

Doubtful. After their afgan adventures the Jihadists decided they could deal with one super power so why not another.

Hardly. Turnout was low (and still inflated), and the only candidates on the ballot were those approved by the Guardian council - which means that nobody who actually opposes the mullahs or their policies can ever get on the ballot in the first place.

However the relative liberals in the election lost.

The mullahs are good at putting on a show, and apparently you bought it. But the Iranian people don't like the government at all - the population of Iran is probably one of the most pro-American muslim populations in the world.

Evidence?

Stories about mullahs in Tehran being unable to hail a taxi don't come from nowhere.

Evidence?

The mullahs don't have popular support at all, nor do they need it: all they need is the support of the guys with the guns, and so far they've managed to keep them happy enough.

Please this is Iran.They have women with guns as well:

 

[Ziggurat]

Evidence?

Are you serious? Why do you think we maintained, at quite some financial cost, a no-fly zone over northern Iraq during the 1990's? Who do you think kept Saddam from crushing the autonomy the Kurds enjoyed during that period, and the prosperity that came with it? You honestly think we don't care about them at all?

No Musharraf will see them as a threat and take whatever actions are needed to suppess them. He can't cave in because their demarnds include his removal. Musharraf as with most secular dictators knows that the jihadists are a threat to him. In any case he can just look ar President Taya for an obvios example of how supporting the US doesn't help.

Sure, Musharraf already has his back to the wall. But do you honestly think he can stay in power, let alone stay alive, if the military doesn't back him up? You think the other military leaders aren't weighing the various risks and advantages against each other? You don't think they'd be willing to sell out Musharraf if they felt the tide turning against them?

Doubtful. After their afgan adventures the Jihadists decided they could deal with one super power so why not another.

I don't know why you say that's doubtful when they've been very explicit and open about Somalia being a model for how to defeat the US.

However the relative liberals in the election lost.

"Relative liberal" is a meaningless label for anyone the mullahs let run, though it's curious that Ahmadinejad is not an actual mullah himself, and that both his rivals were. But the reason Ahmadinejad won probably has less to do with any love of his politics than with anger and disappointment with the past record of Rafsanjani and Khatami, neither of whom managed any singificant improvements in Iran. Ahmadinejad isn't likely to do any better, though, and isn't likely to win much lasting affection. Here's an interesting run-down on some of the internal politics from Amir Taheri, and Iranian expat:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17941

Evidence?

How about evidence that they support the mullahs? And why on earth would they? The mullahs are one of the worst human rights violators on the planet, they've had enormous numbers of political prisoners since day one, they engage in more torturing and extrajudicial killings than even the Shah did (you know, the one who was supposedly so oppressive that the people all rose up in revolt against him), they've even subverted their own religion to selfish political and economic goals - on what basis would the majority of Iranians possibly support them?

Please this is Iran.They have women with guns as well:

So they've got women thugs too - am I supposed to be impressed with how progressive they are in their oppression of the population? What, for example, do you think massive numbers of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps paramilitaries for? To repel foreign invaders? Hardly. No, these people are armed to ensure that the REST of the population doesn't rise up. And it works.

 

[zakur]

"No proof" and "no evidence" aren't the same thing. We do have evidence Iran has been supplying IEDs, something the story seems to only reluctantly admit. Do you think that Iran is NOT doing so?

The evidence is that certain IED components may be coming from Iran. The claim the Bush administration is making is that the government of Iran is supplying these components to the insurgents. You do understand the difference, don't you?

The insurgents also use AK-47s and SKS assault rifles. Are we also going to claim that the governments of Russia and China are supplying the insurgents? Or better yet, let's just say the government of Finland is supplying the insurgents, while we're at it. The vehicle of choice for insurgents is the Toyota pickup, so let's throw a little blame Japan's way, as well.

But there are serious questions re: this Tehran-supplying-IED-components claim. Specifically, 1) Iran-connected Shiites now dominate the U.S.-backed government in Iraq, 2) IED attacks have been coming primarily from the Sunni insurgency, and 3) Iran would have nothing to gain from helping its U.S.-supported allies in Iraq attack coalition forces with IEDs. When asked to explain these apparent contradictions, Scott McClellan completely dodged the questions, as usual.

 

[Ziggurat]

The evidence is that certain IED components may be coming from Iran. The claim the Bush administration is making is that the government of Iran is supplying these components to the insurgents. You do understand the difference, don't you?

I do indeed understand the difference. It is certainly POSSIBLE that people in Iran are making such devices and smuggling them into Iraq without knowlege or approval of the mullahs. Do you think that's actually the case?

The insurgents also use AK-47s and SKS assault rifles. Are we also going to claim that the governments of Russia and China are supplying the insurgents?

How silly. First off, AK-47's get manufactured in many more places than just Russia and China. Secondly, the country is already awash with them - there's no need for smugglers to bring them into the country. Thirdly, if you DID find evidence of AK-47's being smuggled in, THEN you could talk about the implications thereof, but without that evidence, well, the question is irrelevant to begin with.

Same goes for your Toyota comparison: there's a legal market in cars, and no way to monitor the INTERNAL flow from the illegal market to the illegal market INSIDE Iraq. Last time I checked, there was no legal market for IED's: these aren't legitimate-use weapons of which a few are being illegally repurposed. Really, if you want to make comparisons, at least try to be serious about it.

But there are serious questions re: this Tehran-supplying-IED-components claim. Specifically, 1) Iran-connected Shiites now dominate the U.S.-backed government in Iraq, 2) IED attacks have been coming primarily from the Sunni insurgency, and 3) Iran would have nothing to gain from helping its U.S.-supported allies in Iraq attack coalition forces with IEDs. When asked to explain these apparent contradictions, Scott McClellan completely dodged the questions, as usual.

First off, the Shias are not monolithic, and the ones that Iran would prefer to be in charge are NOT in charge. Second, why on earth wouldn't Iran be willing to play two sides at once? They may help Sunni terrorists try to spark a civil war, but given the population AND weapons imbalance, if civil war actually breaks out, it's still the Shia who would win. Would Iran be willing to spark a civil war in Iraq? Why not? It sure isn't out of any great love or humanitarian concern for their fellow Shia - the way they treat their own citizens is proof enough of the absurdity of that notion. They're infinitely more interested in power - and they could probably exert that power much more readilly in a fractured Iraq, where the Shia are pitted against the Sunnis and radical Shia leaders like Mooky Sadr (bought off with Iranian money and weapons) would gain influence relative to the much more moderate Sistani. How well or how badly McClellan fields questions about this is really kind of irrelevant to the situation on the ground.