We hear it commonly asserted both on the left and the right that a Shia government in Iraq will prove to be a boon for Iran. The reasoning goes like this. The Iraqi majority is Shia. The Iranian mullahs are Shia. Therefore the two are going to become allies.
This argument is bogus. First, Iranians are Persian and Iraqis are Arab. Big difference. Second, there are powerful forces of nationalism and patriotism separating the two camps. Each group is loyal to its own country and not simply to their Shia identity. The proof was in the Iran-Iraq war which lasted for eight long years. The Shia population of Iraq, which makes up 60 percent of the population, did not defect to the Khomeini side. They preferred to fight with Saddam and his secular Baathists against the Shia hordes unleashed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini's appeal to Iraqi Shia to join with Iran fell on deaf ears.
And now the State Department reports that Iran is the biggest terrorist sponsor in the world, actively involved in supporting extremist groups in Iraq, and trying to destabilize the Iraqi government. That would be the predominantly Shia government in Iraq. So why are the Iranians trying to weaken their fellow Shia who are in the ruling seat in Baghdad? The reason is simple. Iran's interest is in expelling the United States from Iraq. What matters to Iran is not that this is a Shia government but that this is a U.S. backed Shia government. That's why Iran is doing its best to cause terrorist mischief in Iraq.
One reason America seems reluctant to back the Shia in Iraq to vanquish the Sunni insurgency is the fear of an Iran-Iraq Shia alliance. But this fear is largely based on a misunderstanding of the religious and political configurations in the Middle East.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. I'm currently taking a class on the History of Islam... and it's really amazing how the Middle Eastern world lacks a sense of unity. I think the main reason for this is found in its history... throughout the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, North Africa and Persia, hundreds of political and religious dynasties were founded, destroyed, relocated and/or invaded. The territory today called "Iraq" has been a part of so many states over time that it's sickening... the Umayyads, the Safavids, and the Ottomans are just a few. The same goes for the rest of the Islamic world. As a result, there's no real sense of unity, nationally or regionally.
If you look at the French, they have occupied the same territory, spoken the same language and maintained the same religion since roughly the tenth century AD. As a result, they have an immensely strong national identity. As time goes on and the EU grows, European nations such as France will also feel a greater sense of European unity.
This is the total opposite of Iraq. Not only is Iraq divided within its own nation, but it is also at odds with the other nations of the region.
Tony Messinger at 12:54PM on May 1st 2007
2. "The proof was in the Iran-Iraq war which lasted for eight long years. The Shia population of Iraq, which makes up 60 percent of the population, did not defect to the Khomeini side. They preferred to fight with Saddam and his secular Baathists against the Shia hordes unleashed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini's appeal to Iraqi Shia to join with Iran fell on deaf ears."
They "preferred" to fight with Saddam? I bet they did prefer to take their chances and fight against Iran than turn on Saddam and face certain death.
mob at 12:56PM on May 1st 2007
3.
Is that why Saudi Arabia openly stated that they would fund the Sunni's if we were to leave and a full-blown civil war were to break out? What reason do they have to do that if not to counter Iran in Iraq. I suppose it is possible they don't understand the various ethnic and religious sensibilities of the region either. In my view religion is increasingly becoming a more important factor than ethnicity to the arabs, especially since we've put Christian boots on their ground twice now.
I've never heard someone advocate supporting death squads in the open before....I know it's been done before, but ballsy of you to come right out and say it. Supporting the Shia will only solidify the Sunni insurgency with al Qaeda even as that alliance seems to be crumbling in recent times. We can't isolate al Qaeda if the Sunni's think we're trying to wipe them out, they'll take any ally they can get if that happens.
Peter at 1:41PM on May 1st 2007
4.
Also, prior to our invasion, the main Arab/Shiite opposition group to Saddam, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the group crushed by Saddam in 1991) was headquartered in Iran. Not to mention the various figures in the Pro-American Iraqi government of today who were harbored their under exile in the past.
That doesn't seem terribly anti-Persian to me.
Peter at 2:08PM on May 1st 2007
5. Our State Department says Iran is the principle supporter of TERROR? I wonder how long after Iran we'll find Saddam's missing WMD's?
lil_turk at 6:01PM on May 1st 2007
6. This is a bit off the subject, but I have noticed the media has recently been chanting about how congress is sending the white house the war funding bill Bush plans on vetoing "four years to the day from Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on an aircraft carrier".
While this attempt at irony is shallow at best, but the really sad part is how the press seems so impressed; they have been breathlessly report it, over and over and over.
Of course in general, the baby boomers are famous for their love of irony. Indeed, they never seem to tire of it. However it does get old after awhile.
Has anyone else noticed this? If so, what are your thoughts regarding it?
Ken Berg at 7:32PM on May 1st 2007
7. There's something VERY powerful that unites the two:
Hatred of Jews.
Steve J. at 1:39AM on May 2nd 2007
8. Although the blog doesn't state its ultimate conclusion, I'm assuming that Dinesh is saying if we back the Shiites 100% then we can quell the sectarian violence in Iraq; Iraq will stay territorily separate from Iran; and we can eventually leave a liberated Shiite friend - Iraq. For several reasons, I do not think that will work.
It is not the same world when we gave Saddam chemical weapons to fight Iran. As the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict shows, the Muslim world will unite together despite their differences to fight what they view as the US-Israel team. It is my understanding that Al Sadr, who is now sheltered in Iran badly wants us to leave so his militia and its death squads can get to work, together with the almost totally Shiite Iraqi army and wipe out the Sunnis. Moreover, Iran is backing the Al Sadr team in Iraq. One reason for this is that Iran has a minority population of Sunnis, and does not want to be flooded with Sunni refugees which increase the size of that minority population. I think to the Iranians, its much simpler to kill or drive out the Sunnis to other Sunni countries. The 2,000,000 Sunni refugees who have already left have gone to Syria and Jordan - not Iran.
I know it would be hard for us to look worse to the Muslim world than we already do, but I think joining in driving the Sunnis out of Iraq would do the trick. This is particularly dangerous to our economic survival as we get our oil primarily from Sunni countries. And, it would not only alienate us from the Sunni nations, it would alienate us even more from the rest of the world, including the European Union, because we would actively be engaging in the ethnic cleansing we so adamantly opposed both morally and militarily in the Balkans.
There has also been a major shift in Saudi Arabia's stance. When Dick visited, unless he was lying again, the King of Saudi Arabia said IF WE WITHDREW that his country would back Al Queda and also bankrupt Iran by flooding the market with cheap oil through radical increase in production. Now, just a few months after Cheney visited the king, the king is now saying we entered Iraq illegally. This leads me to believe that Saudi Arabia has some reason to believe that if we leave, the Iraqi Sunnis have a better chance to survive with Al Queda.
The Iraqi Sunnis believe this also. While America has a great deal to fear from both Iran and Al Queda; to the Iraqi Sunnis, Al Queda is a lifeline. In many ways its similar to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Although Tito was not as brutal as Saddam, they were both heads of governments where national cohesion among sectarian groups depended on one man - and when that man was gone, there was a split along religious lines. Christians and Muslims who used to be next door neighbors in the Balkans were at each others throats, just as Sunnis and Shiites who used to live in mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad no longer live together. The Sunnis have been killed or driven out of the country or into Sunni neighborhoods. In those Sunni neighborhoods, the Iraqi government is not looked at as a stabilizing force, it is looked at as one big death squad supported by us.
Honestly, no matter how shabby I think the history of this war is, we have to look at today and tomorrow. If I honestly believed staying in Iraq would further our security, I would support it. I do not.
First, because of the death toll for both Iraqi sectarian groups and the destruction of an infrastructure that worked under Saddam, 70% of Iraqis want us to leave, and 51% favor killing Americans to make that happen. The Kurds harbor no resentment against us, so that 70% of Iraqis is made up of both Sunnis and Shiites (and we will always be regarded as barbaric invaders by both these groups, no matter how barbaric the Muslims themselves are).
For the above reasons, I simply do not think the surge will work. Al Sadr's power is greater than AL-Maliki's, and when Al Sadr told his deputies to leave parliament, they did. In addition, the Mahdi Army is TEMPORARILY inactive because they lost thousands the last time they confronted our troops - but they remain well stocked with Iranian arms. Al Sadr has already issued his most recent condemnation of our presence in Iraq, and, truthfully, we are the only goverment Iraq has - as the existing government is a mere shell of ministers without real support from either Shiites or Sunnis. There is no functional parliament, there is no unity government, and the Sadrists are no longer friends of the Al-Maliki government, because Al-Maliki turned on Al Sadr.
What Iran wants to do is turn Iraq into a Shiite theocracy ruled along the lines of Iran, and joined together as one nation, even if they still call the two countries different names. It is important to note that the Al-Maliki government has also signed economic and security agreements with Iran.
Like an omelette that is so overcooked it caused a house fire, there are times when things get so screwed up that there is no way to fix them. Just like there is no way to save a blackened omlette, I do not believe there is any way to achieve peace in Iraq as long as we remain. The longer we stay, the more chance there is that both Shiites and Sunnis will turn on us, because, except for Al Maliki, they both want us to leave.
Another concern is the upcoming pre-emptive strike by Israel against the nuclear facilities in Iran. While Muslims will automatically blame us, even if Israel initiates the attack, our chances of getting drawn into what could be WW III are less if we are not still actively engaged in the Iraq War.
These are the reasons I favor phased withdrawal. One thing people who oppose withdrawal fail to note is that every Democratic plan for withdrawal includes leaving behind a remainder force for counter-terrorism. I think it makes sense. As long as we are in the Shiite-Sunni areas of Iraq, we will only continue to foster more hate against us by the entire Muslim world, and I believe peace in Iraq will be an impossibility. If, after we leave, the Shiites and Sunnis continue to battle, that will be their choice, unconnected to our presence.
Strategically, our departure from the Sunni-Shiite areas of Iraq will shift the onus of creating a peaceful Iraq onto the Muslim world and neighboring nations, and they can claim credit or take blame for the success or failure of their efforts.
Which leaves to me, only the unanswered question of where we should leave behind a remainder force, which all Democratic proposals suggest. The Kurdish area of Iraq is the obvious choice. The Kurds are the only subpopulation in Iraq that actually looks at the US as liberators, and they would welcome a force of say 50,000 men and American air bases in their land, in part for their own protection. After all, the Kurds have been beat up by both the Sunnis and Shiites.
For these reasons, I support immediate phased redeployment, leaving behind a much smaller imbedded force in Kurdish Iraq - and allow the Kurds to create their own nation under our protection. The Kurds would welcome that - and neither Iran nor the other sectarian groups in Iraq would be in a position to stop us.
Since our invasion, the world is a much more dangerous place for America, and redeployment would let off some of the steam. Hopefully, we can stay out of any Israeli-Iranian conflict, but, if that proves an impossibility, we will already have an imbedded force and airfields in the Kurdish area. In the meantime, before anything erupts in regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions, we can stop the flow of American blood, and the cost of maintaining bases without actively fighting will also stop the bleeding of our national treasury.
Phil at 3:02AM on May 2nd 2007
9. I just listened to Fouad Ajami (forgive the rough spelling) on Bill Bennett's radio show of 4-30. He has just completed his 7th tour of Iraq. He maintains that the Maliki government is getting more organized and effective since Sadr's representatives have left the legislature (many were thugs and crooks and viewed that way by the Iraqi populace). He also says that the majority of both the Sunnis and Shiites he interviewed want the U.S. to remain (over 1 million Sunnis have fled Iraq to avoid being killed and the remainder want U.S. Protection). Since he is more of an expert than any of us commenting and an Arabic speaker, I trust his judgment.
We have to do something about the problem of Jihadists and no method of dealing with it is foolproof and trouble-free. It would certainly help our efforts if the Left hadn't begun to undermine our country's efforts from Day 1 of the campaign in Afghanistan ("Quagmire, quagmire, quagmire"). Nothing like signaling to our country's enemies that we have a large 5th column at home trying to undermine our efforts. Sheesh.
Margaret at 9:34AM on May 2nd 2007
10. Margaret: We have to do something about the problem of Jihadists and no method of dealing with it is foolproof and trouble-free. It would certainly help our efforts if the Left hadn't begun to undermine our country's efforts from Day 1 of the campaign in Afghanistan ("Quagmire, quagmire, quagmire"). Nothing like signaling to our country's enemies that we have a large 5th column at home trying to undermine our efforts. Sheesh.
Hi Margaret, I certainly agree with the first part. For our national survival, how we ended up in our mess in Iraq is less important than figuring out what to do to ensure a safer America today and in the future. And, the current situation is complex, to say the least.
As far as the left decrying Afghanistan, on Day 1 of our invasion I, a left wing liberal with all left wing liberal friends in the most liberal city in America, San Francisco, APPLAUDED the Afghanistan invasion, as did everyone I know. To this day, I have not opposed the continued presence of our troops there, and the way things are going expect they'll be there for quite awhile. It would be nice, since its purportedly a NATO operation, if the other members of NATO would step up to the plate with a few more troops and a lot more money - but, as usual, they criticize but when it comes to a legitimate fight it seems to ALWAYS be up to us.
Which people on the left are you referring to?
Phil at 10:31AM on May 2nd 2007
11. I agree the left has been pushing the war
button way too much, but that is just until
they get into the White House again. More
precisely that is the reason to push the
war button as much as Hillary does.
Do we forget even some of those on the
left were for going to war. Now it is more
important for them to push the anti war
button as much as possible. They do not
care who dies from us leaving Iraq too
soon as our leaving will be just as bad
as when we left Vietnam. With people who
were hanging on the skids of our chppers
as we hastily left, the enemy pouring in
and many people being butchered.
Why does the liberals want to see all
this bloodshed? Why does the liberal
press ignore the good our troops are doing
and the good results of our being there?
To tell only a part of a story so your
point of view is fostered is to tell a
lie. Something the liberals do all the
time to try to get back into office.
If Bush leaves before the area is
stabilized the people of Iraq will have
been dealt a great wrong. We set them
free to be tossed to the lions of Iran
and the terrorists to kill. Iran does
not care if they kill Sunni or Shiite
as long as they are Iraqi.
The proof is Iran giving weapons to
both their counter part in Iraq
encouraging them to kill Irans enemy,
Iraqi's and also giving weapons and
explosives who kill either side of
the Muslim tree trying to keep what
the liberal press calls a civil war
but a civil war is within a country
not another country trying to topple
another from within. Terrorists kill
both Sunni and Shiite, so shouldn't
that be broadcast? The terroists are
the ones we fight, shouldn't that be
broadcast? Iran is pushing wars in
Lebanon and Iraq, shouldn't that be
broadcast? Iran is sending weapons
and explosive to kill Muslims as
well as the allied forces, shouldn't
that be broadcast? Iran is pushing
the war in Afghanistan against us
and the allies including Afghanistan,
shouldn't that be broadcast?
Instead what is broadcast is the
war against President Bush to further
the movement of the left. Shame on
those who care nothing for all the
innocent men women and children killed
as a result of the liberals tucking
our tails between their legs and
planning to blame everything on Bush
to get into the White House again.
Shame on us if we let them!
William Ehlert at 5:38PM on May 2nd 2007
12. The author has no idea what he is talking about. I have been following the formation of the Iranian-Iraqi alliance for two years (actually an Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi alliance). Not a week goes by where there is either a new economic, security or military agreement between Iraq and either Iran and Syria, or officials from Iraq visit Iran. This is well reported in the foreign press.
Last month, the Middle East North Africa Financial Network, an independent business news network out of Jordan, reported that Iraq purchased $64 million in refinery equipment from Iran. That is $64 million the Iranian have to invest in their nuclear weapons program, or to fund terrorism.
This past week, Iraqi PM Maliki fired several officers in his military for going against the Iranian backed Shai militias that have been killing US soldiers.
Maliki and other Iraqi officials are on record as supporting Iran's nuclear buildup. Many members of the Iraqi government, including Maliki, have ties to Hezbollah.
Again, all this is reported in detail in the foreign press. It has been ignored here in the US.
Michael at 12:17AM on May 3rd 2007
13.
About that list of state sponsors of terrorism....
Why isn't the Iraqi government on it? I think it's a fair question, seeing as a good portion of their parliament support and aid death squads. No doubt Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism but I think the complicity of the Iraqi government in the killing going on there and the attacks on U.S. soldiers by the militias who hold seats in parliament is a bit worse. They aren't even mentioned, for what I would guess....are purely political reasons?
Peter at 3:25PM on May 3rd 2007
14. I wish that you guys would stop calling this police action a war... just to give it some kind of legitimacy. Who do you think that you are kidding?
You are making yourselves look like a bunch of retards.... and that whole 'enhanced interrogation techniques'... that's the same bloody thing.
Why is the entire world disgusted with you... well.. you're stomping on a bunch of 'modern-stone-age-families-with-guns'... and you can't bring yourselves to call torture torture... and you're damned proud of yourselves to boot! IDIOTS.
pboyfloyd at 3:58PM on May 19th 2007