Recently juan cole has put up some summaries of better Iran/Iraq relations. Oil swapping. Military training and agreements. Minor stuff.. http://www.juancole.com/ It's taken from middleeast newspapers, for what that's worth. So how do people feel about this? It somewhat makes sense - shiites wielding power would definitely build better ties with iran. But how do american iran-haters feel about this? It does strike me as a bit odd that we invade to get rid of enemy A, and Iraqis flock to enemy B for assistance. But is that too simpleminded? Is that a bad thing? Is there anything funny 'bout Iran/Iraq peace love and understanding?
This doesn't come as a surprise. One of the best outcomes we could have hoped for was a democracy led by a Shiite government supported by Al Sistani. Of course that government will be friendly with Iran as they are cut from the same cloth. The irony comes in when you consider that one of the best US outcomes from all of this provides Iran the victory over Iraq that they sought in the 1980s where we backed Iraq, but this time Iran's objectives have been met through the US investment of money and blood. The name you will see pop up again and again when it comes to Iraq/Iran relations is "Chalabi."
If the US allowed Iraq to be really free to choose its own path, its own alliances, its own ways to deal with its problems, things would get much better for Iraq. But the problem is that the US is investing very heavily to prevent Iraqis enjoying that freedom, even as it otherwise supposedly wants to encourage a democratic government in that country. The same contradiction between what the US wants in terms of "end results" and what the US would prefer to advocate procedurally, is evident in its policy towards Iran. The US wants to claim it is standing for democracy, while insisting that Iran must dismantle its nuclear program and deciding for Iranians whether they need a civilian nucelar energy program. It is like me saying I want democracy in America, and that democracy must produce leaders who want to dismantle the US nuclear arsenal completely, dismantle the US nuclear energy program completely, and cease any form of even scientific research in these areas! I don't know how that message sells in America, but in Iran, it does not sound like the US favors democracy in Iran! The seeds of this inconsistency, of course, lay ultimately with what happened in American politics. How a group of people who did not want the US to be "fair and balanced" with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, postulated that Israel cannot make peace until the region is democratized. Tactically, that stood for: back off on pressuring Israel. They took this tactical message and made into a theory for foreign policy that the US should pursue. It found supporters who didn't give a hoot about Israel, but were attracted by the fact that the US would now have another major foreign agenda to pursue, pouring money to industries and bringing the spot light to individuals that were being sidelined after the end of the cold war. This alliance cemented itself further by attracting grass routes support among Christian evangelicals with their bible prophesies. The new bible that brought all of them together became known as the Project for a New American Century. A project to take the US on a crusade in the name of democracy, but in reality for the purpose of establishing American imperium. Of course, the inconsistencies between the slogans and the agenda are not going to dent the enthusiasm of the neocons. There are no real perfect democracies in this world, and the imperfections of any that emerge showing an unwillingness to tow the American line will become one of the excuses to bash it. Especially if those imperfections can be exaggerated and even lied about to the nth degree. From all this, a select group of people in America, and for a while Israel, will benefit. The rest of America, the rest of the world, certainly the Middle East, and even one day Isarel, will pay the price.
Apparently you aren't familiar with the posts of Iranian Monitor. They are either posts of pictures of model airplanes or they turn into rants about the "Likudniks" and how American foreign policy is driven by them.
Oddly, considering past posts, that's almost a love poem to Sharon... But it is an interesting perspective. There are rabid iran-haters who always remind us of the $$$ Iran pays to violent palestinian causes and terrorists. They have a valid argument. But would closer ties between Iraq and Iran would logically lead to even more $$$ to violent palestinian causes? Or are Iraqis gonna be too poor - constantly paying for reconstruction of their own country, and not donating to martyrs?
Let me try to explain... First Concept: Iran is infallable and destined once again to be the World Power they were sometime back in the 6th century or so. (At the very least, it should be the center of the world's Muslims....not these heathen Saudi's). Based on the above, anything Iran does is OK - even if it involves terrorism or attempting to get develop nuclear weapons. Second principle: The US is currently the worlds' only superpower. Therefore if the US apposes Iran, it must be due to some third party influence....like...THE JEWS. Yes, it must be. Iran is perfect...US is a democracy...the only reason they would appose Iranian rule of the entire middle east is... ISRAEL and their damn meddling intermediaries the Likudniks. P.S. The possibility that the US apposes Iran because the are a terrorist-supporting theocracy who attacked our embassy and kidnapped US citizens never enters Ken's mind. Does this help ?
My post was not about Israel. It was about the neocons. The ideological foundation of American foreign policy today were laid out by these folks. To understand even the apparent anamolies and inconsistencies such as the case of Iraq, you have to be familiar with the history the went behind their theories. Incidentally, I have never said the Likudniks run American foreign policy. One way to exemplify their role is to recall, as well as the limitations in their influence, is to see who put the "axis of evil" terminology in Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech -- and then see what happened to him when he got too excited claiming credit for it. Anyway, here are is a pic of Iraq's defense minister meeting Iran's defense minister in Tehran.
The first two paragraphs of your first post made sense and were on topic. Then you mention Israel or Israeli six times, and neo-cons or some pronoun or any reference at all to neo-cons four times. Your post wasn't about Israel at all?
See you guys missed something big here. The US is hoping for Iran and Iraq to become buddy buddy, this way it will piss off the Sunni's in Iraq who will then turn their attention to killing Iranians and Iraqi Shia. This will destabilize Iran and the Israel (oops I mean the US) will have control over the region. Many Thanks to my overseer for allowing me to post his thoughts on the web as my own.
Jay, Lets be fair. First, the region that the US has gotten itself involved in has been for almost all of history within Iran's sphere. The Americans just didn't know much about this region; even their preoccupation with the Middle East post the creation of Israel was to the history relevant to the region closer to the Mediteranian. On the other hand, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Caucausus and Central Asia, were ruled by Iran under successive dynasties for many centuries. Iraq was still a major battle ground between Iran and the Ottoman empire throughout much of the 16th-19th centuries. Afghanistan ceded from Iranian rule in the 18th century, and that secession was only confirmed officially after the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-1857. The Caucasus, on the other hand, including Georgia, Yerevan (Armenia), and northern Azerbaijan were Iranian territories until the wars of between Russia and Iran in the 19th century. Second, I fully recognize the US having an interest in limiting Iran's infuence in the region. But a part of that interest is born out of America's alliance with Israel. More importantly, the ideological foundation of a foreign policy that to me is ultimately self-defeating and counter productive, is found in the ideas of a group of "pro-Israeli" thinkers who you would not agree with on many things, but feel you need to defend just because many of them happen to be Jewish. As someone who genuinely wants democratization of the region, and who contrary to popular perceptions here, is not anti-Israeli, I think the tactics and the policies of the Likudniks (which were then taken over by people who really don't give a hoot about the Jews among right wing Republicans), at the end is not going to help anyone. Not Israel. Not the region. Not the US. Not the world As I mentioned, only a select group of people. Otherwise, without the dynamics unleashed by what is happening, and with a different set of policies, you would find President Khatami to be exactly the kind of leader the Middle East needed. A democratic leader who was not going to turn a blind eye on Israel's wrongdoing to appease America, is certainly not going to bow to unreaosnable US demands, but who is not anti-Semetic by any stretch of imagination. And who spoke very highly of the very things that were really good about America.
jackistheman, If it makes you feel better, you are right. Despite what I explained (quoting it agian below), there was no relevance:
You said "Israel" or "Israeli" six times. Not "Pro-Israeli neocon idelogues who were Americans." I never said that the US was evenhanded when it comes to the Arab-Israeli issue. In fact, all I said about Israel was noting how many times you mentioned it in your post, then asked what it had to do with Iraqi and Iranian leaders meeting in Tehran.
My response is found in the post previous to yours. I was trying to quote my response again, but instead pressed the wrong botton and the last post was edited.
The reason that Israel is ever brought up in these discussions is very simple and I am surprised why jacky-boy is sticking to his original comment so whole-heartedly! There is little doubt (and Israel admits this too) that Israel sees Iran as it's greatest threat. The reasons are numerous and irrelevant to the current discussion, however often Iran tops the agenda for Israel. There is also little doubt of Aipac's influence in American politics. However I would go one step further and add the fact that right wing Christian groups also seem to have similar goals hence there is what seems to be an alliance of convenience between these two old foes. Add the neocons who also have similar goals (as well as the need for a bogeyman in the shape of terrorists [not saying that the threat is not real however yet again the discussion is beyond the scope of this thread] to fill the void left after "the Commies"). Hence the outcome is an animocity towards Iran long before Iran has done anything! Even prior to the war on Iraq when Saddam's cruelty and refusal to follow UN resolutions, the question was often asked as to why Iraq is being targetted when Israel has broken far more UN resolutions despite the fact that so much anti-Israeli [cruelty] resolutions are "opposed" by the US. Effectively, put simply, Israel sees Iran as a threat and uses whatever influence it has with the US to put pressure on them. There are far worse regimes in Africa or even South America, but these are effectively ignored and the target has been set as the Middle East. There are perhaps oil reasons as well as added incentives. That is why unfortunately Israel is always mentioned when US relations with Iran are discussed.
Jews and Christians are most definitely not "old foes" within the American context, dating back four centuries.
Wow, this is interesting, Israel breaking more UN resolutions than Iraq or Iran. Gee, can you be more specific. I have one resolution that Israel broke - survive, when all UN wants to do is make sure more jews die. I hope Israel breaks all UN resolutions because the are worthless just like the damn organization itself
If you look at the basis of the belief in the religions you come to the conclusion as to why they differ. Jews (to my knowledge) were told of the coming of a Messiah and Christians believe that Messiah to have been Jesus. However not all Jews followed Jesus and his beliefs and refused to "convert". The Jewish leaders were in fact indirectly responsible for the death of Jesus. These are historical facts and hence the most feverent Chrisitians hold to the view that Jews killed Jesus. Hence in particular, when discussing right wing Christians, this would hold true. A situation would arise between Christians and Muslims due to the fact that Christians believe that Jesus was the last messenger from God and meant to be the last sacrifice, hence they do not accept Mohammed. Such religious beliefs transcend international borders and although in more developed societies acceptance of another's belief are considered most important and unfortunately often due to political correctness, such things are not mentioned. This is so far that as an example many "high ranking Christians" refuse to consider Muslims as following a completely wrong path since Jesus was the last Messiah. However in closed circles the more right wing religious followers continue to make such remarks. I cannot judge how things are in America, however there is no doubt that Christianity and Judaism are old foes dating to almost 2 millennia.
Well, to Jews, Jesus was just another man. If you knew more history you would also know that there were many men prior to Jesus who performed miracles and who claimed to be Messiahs and they were just ordinary men. So to Jews Jesus was just another person who claimed he was the Messiah. So to blame Jews for Jesus' death is just a scapegoat for most hardcore rightwing Christians. Most Christians understand that Mary Magdalene, Jesus, all 12 Apostles (except one) were Jews and it's stupid to blame Jews for anything that happened to Jesus, who was executed by Romans
Who got the Romans to curicfy Jesus the Irish or the jews? The jews to their credit were sneaking bastards and still are I like that. They get the US to attack iraq for them, and now want us to do the same to Iran. Smart very smart.
The Messiah is a direct descendant of King David who will re-establish the throne of David. There have been claimants to the throne ever since the Babylonians ended the Davidic dynasty. דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים "David, King of Israel, (i.e. the House of David) lives and endures"