The Iranian Role

Petraeus and Crocker both seem committed to a "blame Iran for problems" approach to their hearings. In this context, it's worth looking at this in the broader context of US-Iranian relations. Iran is adjacent to Iraq. The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran, and the U.S. government has branded Iran a member of the "axis of evil" and suggested that we are aiming to overthrow the Iranian government. Under the circumstances, it would obviously be hugely irresponsible of Iran to just let us consolidate an Iraqi regime that's to our liking.

This is, simply put, a fight the Iranians can't back down from. It's the difference between us worrying about Iranian influence in Iraq (cause for concern) and us worrying about Iranian influence in Canada (panic!). The Iranians, in short, are never going to stop backing different Iraqi factions and trying to advance their interests there. Under the circumstances, there are basically three realistic options we could pursue. One would be to simply leave Iraq and acknowledge that, in practice, it's difficult for any outside actor to manipulate Iraqi events precisely to the outside actor's liking (just aask the United States). Another would be to attempt a rapprochement with Iran on a higher level, which would lay the groundwork for US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq. A third would be to combine the two.

But staying in Iraq in force while also maintaining a hostile relationship with Iran is just a recipe for frustration. As long as our big picture relationship with Iran is this bad, Iran is bound to some extent to be impeding whatever it is we're trying to do in Iraq.

Comments

Somewhat relatedly: according to John McCain, we need to stay in Iraq in order to make sure they can serve as a counter-balance to Iran. Would someone point out to McCain that the reason why, e.g., we sent Rumsfeld to Iraq in the 1980s was to ensure that Iraq would serve as a counter-balance to Iran? And that, in general, this kind of thinking is, well, pre-9/11?

Not to mention that in this Iraq war McCain so loves, we removed that counter-balance and put in a more Iranian-friendly government?

Posted by DAS | April 8, 2008 10:56 AM

Who else are you going to blame? 1) It can't be the fault of any of our pals. 2) China and North Korea are too far away. 3) Can't blame Soviets/Liberals/Hitler. 4) It can't be our fault...

Posted by MattF | April 8, 2008 10:56 AM

Whoa! McCain ran out of time and served up a big open-ended meatball question about Iran for Petraeus to hit out of the park and then Ted Kennedy just stepped and and started asking his questions without giving Petraeus/Crocker to answer! I bet McCain is cursing under his breath.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 8, 2008 10:57 AM

Not to mention that Al-Sadr is actually not Iranian influenced(not to any great degree anyway .. and I mean influenced by the Iranian Govt.) while some of the militias we are backing are Iranian influenced. Go figure!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 10:57 AM

There is a fourth option. War with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. Given the premises of Bush-Cheney administration and McCain, and their definition of the current Iranian regime as an irreconciable enemy of the United States, war becomes their panacea for Iraq.

This will be a disaster, but I am afraid history is replete with this kind of folly, essentially a doubling down on a losing bet, rather than reverse course and admit that the desired outcome is unobtainable (see Imperial Germany in WWI and Imperial Japan in WWII, apt analogies since this is essentially an imperial adventure).

Posted by Rick Kane | April 8, 2008 10:58 AM

Rick Kane beat me to it.

Posted by Bill | April 8, 2008 11:00 AM

Re Matthew's "Iran is bound to some extent to be impeding whatever it is we're trying to do in Iraq."
-----------
Especially if that "whatever" is "establish a base for the invasion and destruction of Iran."

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 11:02 AM

War with Iran is something thousands of conservatives currently ache for. Since the sacks on most Dems are empty they'll eventually get their wish. Scalia and Roberts will herd SCOTUS in whatever direction needed if a war powers fight ensues. Buy stock in Blackwater, KBR and Chevron. Tell that boy of yours too feeble minded for college to hold out for a $100,000 enlistment bonus. That'll buy a lot of scratch off tickets, Budweiser and NASCAR t-shirts. Oh, keep this website handy:

http://www.veterancaskets.com/store/home.php?cat=1

Posted by steve duncan | April 8, 2008 11:04 AM

Uh huh,

But if Iran thinks supporting Hezbollah and Hamas is the right thing to do. And thinks only cowardly corrupt dictators such as those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and their former Shah would even consider refraining from offering that type of support to the Palestinians, then the US' relationship with Iran almost necessarily will be as bad as it is today.

Improving relations with Iran, or tolerating a democratic Iraq without active US occupation and participation in its political process, would require a drastic change in US regional priorities.

Given the US role with respect to Israel, US policy today is not spectacularly inept nor is it a drastic departure from Clinton, Bush I or Reagan, Carter, Ford or Nixon's policies. Something like it is basically what the US has to do.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 8, 2008 11:04 AM

But staying in Iraq in force while also maintaining a hostile relationship with Iran is just a recipe for frustration.

Dead-on. This is one of the many areas where Obama has distinguished himself.

Posted by socctty | April 8, 2008 11:05 AM

This will be a disaster, but I am afraid history is replete with this kind of folly, essentially a doubling down on a losing bet, rather than reverse course and admit that the desired outcome is unobtainable...

"Failure is not an option." These words have presaged nearly every failure. The fact that neither Bush nor McCain will give us a real definition of "success" or "failure" at this point in time tells you everything you need to know about their positions. They just want to hang on and hope for a miracle. (They're probably praying feverishly, which makes me feel sooooooo much more confident.)

Note that Bush tried to define success several times before and each time we failed, so he just stopped defining success and tells us instead that we can't fail. McCain is following in those footsteps.

Posted by LFC | April 8, 2008 11:07 AM

Iran is a twofer. Can blame them for the mess in Iraq and help Israel isolate one of its enemies. Otherwise one could blame the Iraqi government. Or Saddam. Or Syria. Or the liberals. Or the Democrats. Or the liberal media. Or the American people for their lack of resolve, perseverance, sacrifice, and patriotism. (oh, but don't blame the neocon architects and their warhawk supporters. They had the vision after all).

Posted by della Rovere | April 8, 2008 11:10 AM

Lieberman: Iraq is encouraging! Iraq haters, in your face!

Posted by joejoejoe | April 8, 2008 11:11 AM

Petraeus can't be in denial about Maliki's ties to Iran and that we just basically allowed him to use the Iraqi military to pick a fight with a rival Iranian-backed leader. Doesn't blaming Iran make us complicit? But is McCain in denial about this?

Posted by Podger | April 8, 2008 11:15 AM

The flip side of this coin is our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration continues to amble about with their heads up their posteriors, willfully ignorant of what the Saudis have wrought in Iraq, and elsewhere:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

How many fanatical young Iranians have scurried across the Iraq border, strapped themselves with explosives, and blown themselves to smithereens in an effort to murder American soldiers? I'm not aware of a single one. By contrast, by all accounts the Saudis appear to have done so by the hundreds, if not by the thousands.

Likewise, take another look at the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in February 2006. According to the U.S. and Iraqi governments, the attack was perpetrated by a gang of 8 Sunni insurgents, 4 Iraqis, and 4 Saudi Arabians.

Is Iran really the worst meddler (and saboteur) in Iraq?

Posted by Bill in Chicago | April 8, 2008 11:15 AM

Petraeus and Crocker both seem committed to a "blame Iran for problems" approach to their hearings.

Petraeus has been doing this since he got over there. I think he has probably calculated that, given the dismal state of public information in the US and the substantial success within both US parties of the Bush administration's Iran propaganda campaign, this is the best all-purpose excuse to fall back on when things that go wrong. If a Sadrist causes trouble, its because he has some Iranian backing. If a Sunni insurgent blows something up, it's because he got the explosive devices from Iran. If there is shit flowing in the streets of Iraqi cities, it's no doubt because some Quds Force tunnel rats have been sabotaging Iraqi sewers. Next we'll here that Iraq's continuing economic woes are caused by a conspiracy of the Elders of Persia.

In the Petraeus book of Iraq, the Iranians are on all sides at once except the US side, supporting their allies, supporting the enemies of their allies, supporting the enemies of the enemies of their allies, and even supporting the people who would like nothing better than to return to power so they can start to kill Iranians. Petraeus would also apparently have us believe that Iran's strategic objective in Iraq is to create a dangerous, chaotic, war-torn failed state - filled with mad bombers, oil-smuggling gangster warlords and weapons runners, and fanatic anti-Shia terrorists - right along its Western border.

But Petraeus wrote the book on counter-insurgency, right? So he must be a brilliant geostrategic thinker.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 8, 2008 11:42 AM

Is Iran really the worst meddler (and saboteur) in Iraq?

"Oh, Bill. Stop trying to confuse the issue with all that logicalitudiness stuff." --George W. Bush

Posted by LFC | April 8, 2008 11:46 AM

Is Iran really the worst meddler (and saboteur) in Iraq? - Bill in Chicago

If we don't want Iran to be the worst meddler in Iraq, we can solve this problem logically (c.f. above) by bringing in a worse meddler. D'ya think Mary Worth is up to a trip to Iraq?

Posted by DAS | April 8, 2008 12:00 PM

Well, my friend Bill Odom was quoted in the morning paper as saying he often wonders whether Baghdad won't ultimately end up being like Dien Bien Phu...

Damn draft-dodging "Lefty Jew" traitor!!!

Posted by RKU | April 8, 2008 12:16 PM

On the money again Matt. We should definitely co-opt the Iranians--the current situation is dangerous. Petraeus, Crocker and the administration are bound to blame the Iranians--it is just too easy to do, and too convenient for them. Aside for precisely the reasons you list they are going to cause problems and make life uncomfortable until we stop threatening them. There is no doubt that they could make things vastly worse in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) if they chose to--i.e., if we attacked them. Currently us being bogged down on their eastern and western borders is good for them as it means we can't afford to attack them--which is a *good* thing because it would be a lunatic idea. They are also actually doing quite a good job of propping up the Maliki government, etc.

The longer this situation continues without resolution the more likely it will end in tears. The political situation is too conducive to blaming the Mesopotamian woes on Iran which could propel whichever president towards military action.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 8, 2008 12:44 PM

MY - Under the circumstances, there are basically three realistic options we could pursue. One would be to simply leave Iraq and acknowledge that, in practice, it's difficult for any outside actor to manipulate Iraqi events precisely to the outside actor's liking (just aask the United States). Another would be to attempt a rapprochement with Iran on a higher level, which would lay the groundwork for US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq. A third would be to combine the two.

Three other realistic options exist:

1. Play payback for Iran killing US troops with their weapons and weapons training assistance. A convoy of Revolutionary Guard was blown up inside Iraq - it was thought that there was a good possibility US Spec Ops working with Iranian armed resistance did the job. Escalate that.

2. Limited air strikes.

3. All-out American air war, taking out the entire Iranian air force, entire navy, what nuke targets we can hit, key bridges, rail, wrecked, refinery knocked out, and enough bombing to knock out electricity in the country for 6 months-2 years. Revolutionaly Guard centers cluster bombed, forces trying to move to the border picked off in exposed areas..No land invasion, no occupation. with Israel taking out Syria at the same time and bottling up Hez in Southern Lebanon until the supply line from Syria is severed, then hit Hez.
(Would require Turkey to assent to it, even pitch in, and would require a major precipitating event like Iran hitting our Navy or land forces with missiles, or killing a bunch of sailors/soldiers in a kidnap operation...)

Posted by chris ford | April 8, 2008 12:45 PM

Im not gonna lie but Ahmadinejad punked David Ignatius of the Washington Post here and he was absolutely right on his points too if you view it objectively:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=590

Posted by Timothy Simmons | April 8, 2008 12:53 PM

Yep, our friend "Chris Ford" must really be happy now that the major obstacle of Admiral William "Lefty Jew" Fallon has been removed from the scene...

Posted by RKU | April 8, 2008 12:55 PM

A-jad wants us to pursue things like revenge and limited air strikes. He knows we don't have the manpower and resources to march into Tehran and control it and hold Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. If we invaded and left nothing, the anarchic power vacuum would be worse that the mullahs for our security. The more we ramp up reasons for Iranians to fear for their lives and to wrap themselves in the flag vis-a-vis the US, the better off A-jad is. He can't deliver on his promises of putting Iranian oil profits on the average Iranian's kitchen table, so fiery nationalism is his path to success. Do conservatives still not know how dictators stay in power? Do they not realize that dictators learn from the success and failures of other dictators?

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 1:15 PM

A-jad wants us to pursue things like revenge and limited air strikes. [...] The more we ramp up reasons for Iranians to fear for their lives and to wrap themselves in the flag vis-a-vis the US, the better off A-jad is. [...] Do conservatives still not know how dictators stay in power? Do they not realize that dictators learn from the success and failures of other dictators? - Reality Man

I don't think even Bush & CO is that stupid, or if they are that stupid, it ain't by accident. By definition, conservatives want to maintain the status quo -- which includes A-jad being an A-hole, etc. Also, Bush & CO is lousy with Team Bers who thought arming Iran (and using the proceeds to also arm drug runners, er, the contras) was a good idea.

At the very least, Bush & CO has a proven track record of propping up dictators and terrorists (and letting other terrorists get away ... how convenient, as the Church Lady would say) -- so some of Bush & CO's supporters no doubt support Bush & CO because their bread is buttered on the side of continual war and thus Bush & CO has every incentive to do things to the benefit of dictators, etc. (even if they can spin it as being tough on said dictators) -- do c.f. Ike's farewell speech (even if his foreign policy team laid the groundwork for our current mess by installing the Shah in the first place).

Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the "oh noes, Iran is teh worst enemy we have" crowd, both in the US and in Israel, was being egged on by Iranian agents. At the very least, our sabre rattling benefits certain factions in Iran to which some in our government (who claim to be pro-Israeli but, beyond having duped a bunch of my fellow tribesmen into agreeing with that assessment, really are not) have had ties. Not fully mucking out the Augean Stables of Iran/Contra has turned out to have left alone a dangerous infiltration into our government (and possibly in Israel's government) which needs to be removed for good: something's rotten, but it ain't in the state of Denmark. Thank you GHWB for preventing the muck-raking from happening by pardoning the Iran/Contra figures!

Posted by DAS | April 8, 2008 3:54 PM

essentially a doubling down on a losing bet

You mean "double or nothing," not "double down." Doubling down increases your odds of winning.

Posted by croatoan | April 8, 2008 4:20 PM

As long as our big picture relationship with Iran is this bad, Iran is bound to some extent to be impeding whatever it is we're trying to do in Iraq.

I'm not so sure. Iran is supporting the same people and groups (on the Shiite side) as the US. It seems to me that they have the same objective in Iraq as the US: a weak central government and a fractured society, amenable to foreign and (oil) corporate meddling. Iran is not impeding that outcome but helping to bring it about.

Al-Sadr by contrast wants a strong central government, and is punished for it by receiving less aid from Teheran than his rivals while also facing US hostility.

Posted by Hans B | April 8, 2008 6:40 PM

No, Hans. Iran supports Badr and Dawa for one reason and one reason only - they are Shia. Iran also supports Sadr for the same reason, despite him being an Iraqi nationalist that would keep Iran more at arms length than the other two.

The only thing Iran wants to be sure of is that the Sunnis don't get back into power in Iraq - at least not as the sole dominant power. Iran would accept a Sadr-engineered Sunni-Shia coalition. Iran will accept anybody they can deal with. They just can't deal with the Saddam crowd.

Iran's also not interested in turning Iraqi oil over to foreign oil companies. I'm sure they'd like a say in how Iraqi oil is priced or distributed (I'm sure they'd like access to any gasoline refineries and other stuff they have too little of.) But they don't want US oil companies running Iraq.

All the evidence is that Sadr is now getting enhanced levels of Iranian support as they see that he has more "street cred" than Maliki, Badr and Dawa. The whole business last week of the Iranian general brokering the ceasefire was a clear demonstration that Iran is willing to back Sadr as well as the other groups - and perhaps Sadr more these days.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM

Iran is a big, important, traditional regional power that we can't invade, or even stage limited airstrikes against, without causing a catastrophe. We should, as we probably could have long ago, develop a dialog based on our mutual interests.

They're not going away and, minus some kind of advanced hysteria-driven meltdown in Washington, neither are we.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 9, 2008 12:38 PM

The Iranian regime has been attacking the western interests since 1979. Can't you see it? Or you think it is me fabricating it? US Embassy hostage crisis of 1979. Supporting terrorism in Lebanon and Palestinian territories since 1979. Arming and sheltering terrorists. Hosting infamous terror suspects like Afghanistan's Hekmatyar. No body is doing the blame game here. It's about facts.

Posted by Winston | April 10, 2008 7:01 PM