Ironies

Ray Takeyh had a great op-ed last week that I'm just now seeing:

In the past week, a parade of Bush administration officials have offered a new threat and new justification for prolonging America's errant war in Iraq: containing Iran.

The ironic aspect of this is that Iran not only enjoys intimate relations with the Shiite government in Baghdad, but that its objectives in Iraq largely coincide with those of the United States.

Meanwhile, it seems that the Iranians have decided to cut Muqtada loose and fully line up behind the ISCI government. That counts as a form of good news, I'd say, but it also shows how ridiculous the administration's talk of anti-Sadrist operations as somehow crucial to curbing an Iranian takeover are.

Comments

Should the United States transcend its recriminations, it would appreciate that it has many interests in common with Iran in Iraq.

American cooperation with Iran might be best for the American, Iranian, and Iraqi people. But America's leaders consider Iran an obstacle and even a rival to their military dominance of the gulf oil trade. And the American leaders' allied dictators in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, and the other gulf states all consider Iranian influence a revolutionary threat to their regimes. And Israel ... well, you know. I feel sorry for our poor Obama, having to inherit this mess.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 20, 2008 9:21 AM

al-Sadr might be the unique Iraqi politician with a shot at unifying Iraq. So "good news" for the Maliki-US alliance; possibly not quite so good for the Iraqis.

Posted by della Rovere | April 20, 2008 9:22 AM

Iran's backing the current gov't? Great! Can we go home now?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 20, 2008 9:25 AM

Any US diplomatic strategy over Iraq is going to have ironies and problems, given that what the US wants to do in the Middle East as a whole is overwhelmingly opposed by civil society in all the Arab and Islamic countries, but that particular pieces of that agenda obviously find some favour with some ruling factions and some wider groupings.

Posted by otto | April 20, 2008 9:32 AM

"Iran's backing the current gov't? Great! Can we go home now?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 20, 2008 9:25 AM"

No, since the US and Iran can never be on the same side because cats and dogs might start getting along and Krauthammer's little world will implode into a little ball. That means we must now declare war on the Iraqi government. Viva la revolution!

Posted by Reality Man | April 20, 2008 9:38 AM

The presumption that Sadr has been "cut loose" by Iran is highly premature. In fact, it's little more than speculation.

The fact that Mahdi Army personnel have "melted away" in Basra is simply the standard response Sadr's militia has always used - the standard guerrilla response: fight, then melt away. It was the same method he used twice in 2004 when confronting US troops in Najaf and elsewhere.

As for the Iranian ambassador speaking out in favor of the Basra operation, they can hardly be so uninformed - compared to the US - that they do not know that the majority of poor Shia in Iraq - which is to say, the majority of Shia period - favor Sadr over ISCI and Dawa. Therefore it is likely that, having provided Sadr with some cover last week, they now bolster their other allies in Iraq, the ISCI and Dawa.

Iran has been playing both sides of the Shia since Day One. I see no evidence that has changed as of yet.

In any event, we will see what happens when the US and Maliki do not stop their attacks on the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. If Sadr declares open war on the government, then we will see exactly how much capability he has to influence matters. He has given the government it's "last warning" in his words. I do not expect the government to believe it and therefore he will either have to put up or shut up.

In the meantime, read this if you think the operation in Basra was in any way an effective operation by the Iraqi government forces:

Battle to retake Basra was 'complete disaster'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/20/wiraq120.xml

Money Quotes:

The British-trained Iraqi Army's attempt to retake Basra from militiamen was an "unmitigated disaster at every level", British commanders have disclosed.

In the first operation, it is understood that one Iraqi brigade became a "busted flush" after 1,200 of its soldiers deserted.

At one stage during the battle, stories were circulating at the British headquarters that Iraqi troops were demanding food and water from coalition forces at gunpoint. "It was an unmitigated disaster at every level," an officer said.

Gen Mohan Furayji, the Iraqi commander who was in charge of troops during the operation, was described by a senior British staff officer as a "dangerous lunatic" who "ignored" advice.

One officer said the Iraqi army's 14th Division had only 26 per cent of the equipment necessary to take part in combat operations.

He said: "There were literally thousands of troops arriving in Basra from all over Iraq. But they had no idea why they were there or what they were supposed to do. It was madness and to cap it all they had insufficient supplies of food, water and ammunition.

"One of the newly formed brigades was ordered into battle and suffered around 1,200 desertions within the first couple of hours - it was painful to watch.

"They had to be pulled out because they were a busted flush. The Iraqi police were next to useless. There were supposed to be 1,300 ready to deploy into the city, but they refused to do so. The situation deteriorated to the extent where we [the British Army] were forced to stage a major resupply operation in order to stave off disaster.

"The net effect of all of this is that the British Army will be forced to remain here for many months longer."

He said that a British liaison team was sent to the Iraqi army headquarters during the battle. "They were greeted by a group of Iraqi generals sitting around a large desk, shouting into their mobiles without a map in sight. Chaos ruled."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 20, 2008 9:53 AM

" . . . it also shows how ridiculous the administration's talk of anti-Sadrist operations as somehow crucial to curbing an Iranian takeover are."

Oh stop it with the logic, already!

Posted by Joel | April 20, 2008 9:59 AM

If the Iranian government has a history of playing one Shiite group of against another, any "abandonment" of Sadr is likely to be followed by a reunification of interests down the road when the Iraqi government does something Iran doesn't like.

Posted by Helter | April 20, 2008 10:05 AM

How sad that the American people are treated in the mainstream press to endless repetitions and variations of the obtuse O'Hanlon view of the Iraq-Iran region, while Takeyh's better informed and more perceptive observations are systematically muted.

As an example of continuing Bush-WAPO O'Hanlonism in the major papers, the Times speculates that this recent Iranian condemnation of Sadr represents a change form their earlier policy of "playing Shiite groups against one another." This is a very tendentious, wrong-headed view of the situation. Iran has indeed been supporting both Shia groups to various degrees, and for good reason. Iran's chief interest in Iraq is in preventing any sort of return to power of the Sunni coalition that ruled the country in the Saddam era, and made the country a bitter enemy of Iran. Iran wants good relations with a stable Iraq under majority Shia control. Since ISCI, the Badr Corps, Da'wa and the Sadr organizaion are all powerful Shia groups in Iraq, Iran has tried to maintain good relations with all of them, and offer them support. This policy is, on the one hand ,just a matter of hedging one's bets, since one can't know for sure how the internal Iraqi power struggle will turn out, and the Iranians want to make sure they enjoy good relations with whomever emerges on top. But it is also a matter of strengthening all Shia groups collectively against Sunni revanchism.

But the idea that Iran has been "playing these groups against each other", and is thus actually seeking an unstable civil war-torn Iraq, with Shia elements perpetually divided against each other, fighting and weak, is really an ignorant reading of Iranian interests in the country.

Further evidence of the O'Hanlonist tendency in the Glanz and Rubin article is this:

The combination of the Iranian ambassador’s stance and the retreat of militia fighters in Basra may give fuel to accusations by some American and Sunni Arab officials that Iran has taken a powerful and increasingly open role in Iraqi politics.

Accusations? What, is it some sort of international crime for the neighbor of a dangerously unstable country to take a powerful and open role in the stabilization of that country? This is like saying that the presence of a jar of prescription medicine on my nightstand "may give fuel to accusations" that my physician has taken a powerful and increasingly open role in the treatment of my illness.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 20, 2008 10:14 AM

Back in the 2002-2003 time period that bastion of communard thought the military trade press was reporting quite consistently that Iran was quietly signaling to the US that it wanted to reach an understanding over Afghanistan and Iraq at least. Of course Mr. "PNAC Cheney couldn't allow that to continue, so action was taken to shut down/shut up the Iranian feelers.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 20, 2008 10:25 AM

There's nothing "ironic" about the administration's new justification. It's a lie. "Irony" is not an acceptable euphemism for lying.

Posted by Bloix | April 20, 2008 11:31 AM

Meanwhile, it seems that the Iranians have decided to cut Muqtada loose and fully line up behind the ISCI government.

Gee, it wasn't even two weeks ago that Matthew wrote that Sadr had checkmated Maliki.

It's almost as if Matthew doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to Iraq.

Posted by Al | April 20, 2008 5:55 PM

Matt generally doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the details about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or pretty much most things in foreign policy.

Al, on the other hand, doesn't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING in foreign policy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 20, 2008 8:59 PM

“Iran's backing the current gov't? Great! Can we go home now?”

Great question in this election season, but well, no, unfortunately, we can’t. The neocon enterprise in Iraq was undertaken for two key reasons: to give the Mideast to Israel and to gain control of oil (by no means mutually exclusive). Iraq is, on many levels, Mission Unaccomplished (see http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-washington-needs-to-bomb-iran.html).

Posted by William deB. Mills | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM

“Iran's backing the current gov't? Great! Can we go home now?”

Great question in this election season, but well, no, unfortunately, we can’t. The neocon enterprise in Iraq was undertaken for two key reasons: to give the Mideast to Israel and to gain control of oil (by no means mutually exclusive). Iraq is, on many levels, Mission Unaccomplished (see http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-washington-needs-to-bomb-iran.html).

Posted by William deB. Mills | April 21, 2008 4:01 PM