The Iran Factor

One of several respects in which I think our dialogue on Iraq has gone astray is that "Iran is causing problems in Iraq" has come to be coded as a kind of right-wing talking point. The extent to which it's true is contested, but the general sense is that insofar as it's true this makes the hawkish stance on Iraq more persuasive. I think that's the wrong way to look at it.

Bush and McCain have committed us to strategic objectives in the Persian Gulf region that include having a hostile relationship with Iran, and creating an Iraqi state that will be an ally of the United States in our regional policies. This isn't really an acceptable outcome for Iran. America doesn't want an Iranian-allied Iraq, but an Iranian-allied Canada would be unacceptable on a whole more profound level. In response to this dynamic, I think it would be coherent to say that we should basically just leave Iraq and not worry too much about it. It would also be coherent to say that we should make a stronger effort at a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran that would make our goals in Iraq compatible. But neither of those are options available to the hawks. Given that, the main alternative would be to deny that Iran is actually capable of frustrating our objectives in Iraq.

But according to the administration, they are capable of doing so -- they're behind all sorts of malfeasance that, we're told, is responsible for our casualty trends heading in the wrong direction. At the same time, accepting even the most alarmist accounts of Iranian involvement in Iraq, the Iranians are investing many fewer resources in Iraq than is, say, the United States. And though the U.S.A. has more resources to expend, the Iraqi theater is also much more significant to Iran than it is to the United States. Maybe it's really true that the surge was working (or at least that Iran thought it was working) and so Iran turned the faucet up a bit more and now suddenly it's not working. That would seem to augur very poorly for the future of our mission there since surely the Iranians aren't at a point of maximum commitment yet, and we're actually past our maximum point currently and attempting to de-surge our forces to a more sustainable level.

Comments

"Bush and McCain have committed us to strategic objectives in the Persian Gulf region that include having a hostile relationship with Iran"

Since when has having "a hostile relationship with Iran" been a strategic objective of Bush or McCain? Their objectives with respect to Iran are for Iran to stop sponsoring terrorism in the region, to stop arming and training 'special groups' in Iraq, and to refrain from enriching uranium.

Posted by Fred | May 1, 2008 2:34 PM

Would anyone in the military or administration publicly concede we're past our maximum point of capability, expenditures or involvment? Wouldn't they say "Whatever is needed" is what we'll do? If Iran's alleged meddling dictated 500,000 troops and 20 billion a week in money we'd be told that's what would happen. Taxes, a draft, whatever. I don't think a concession that we're tapped out and need a respite would be forthcoming. Yes, some in the military have said as much before various committees. However, if told to shut the hell up and toe the party line they'd do it.

Posted by steve duncan | May 1, 2008 2:38 PM

I remember this line very well, from a 2005 piece:

"U.S. Highly suspicious of a large U.S. presence on its borders, concerned about Washington's rhetoric, and fearing its appetite for regime change, Tehran holds in reserve the option of far greater interference to produce far greater instability."
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3395&l=1

Iran has had a little knob to control the flames in Iraq for a while now. They are far more effective at it than we are, and can probably keep this game up about 10x longer than we can.

Posted by Dan | May 1, 2008 2:43 PM

Matt: well put. I've had similar thoughts myself. Sure, Tehran is not a very savory regime, and all sensible people would prefer they not obtain nuclear weapons. But still, Iran's got, like, a fifth of America's population and about a fiftieth of its economic clout. So, if they become somewhat more influential over an additional couple hundred thousand miles of territory, we shouldn't lose sleep. And we certainly shouldn't spend hundreds of billions of additional dollars and thousands more lives trying to stop it.

I mean, if countering Iran's influence could be done for free, I'd sign up now.

Posted by Jasper | May 1, 2008 2:47 PM

One alternative, somewhat far-fetched view is that put forth by Stratfor - their Iraq calls have been terrible but their historical knowledge is very sharp - which says that the US likes to engage in "stalling wars" that use up only a tiny fraction of our resources, while keeping our enemy(s) very busy trying to deal with us.

Posted by Dan | May 1, 2008 2:52 PM

Yes, Dan, Iraq is but a tiny, tiny, small, inconsequential "stalling war". A blip on our national screen. Fuhgedaboutit!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a flesh wound is all Iraq is, really.

Posted by steve duncan | May 1, 2008 3:04 PM

Bush and McCain have committed us to strategic objectives in the Persian Gulf region that include having a hostile relationship with Iran, and creating an Iraqi state that will be an ally of the United States in our regional policies. This isn't really an acceptable outcome for Iran...I think it would be coherent to say that we should basically just leave Iraq and not worry too much about it. It would also be coherent to say that we should make a stronger effort at a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran that would make our goals in Iraq compatible.

But our real goals in Iraq are to keep the oil revenues out of the hands of the Iranian government. Iran wants the additional cash to help build economic and military strength to counter the US presence in the region. The US wants to turn Iraq into a Kuwait-like state which sits on its oil money and is generally favorable to the US. It's almost impossible to make those two goals compatible.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 3:12 PM

Great Xerxes's ghost! This is painfully contorted and exaggeratedly subtle piece of reasoning, Matt.

As with so many of your comments on the Middle East, you decline to take actual positions on most of the key factual, moral and prudential contentions and counter-contentions, and try to glide over them with sublime neutrality. And so here you make a high-flying acrobatic effort to get to your preferred conclusion regarding Iraq without taking into account a myriad of possible factors that surely bear on what our Iraq policy ought to be. You implication that the conclusion follows no matter what premises we might later fit into the slots is entirely unconvincing.

Unless you are willing to take some position on (i) what "our objectives in Iraq" either are or ought to be, and (ii) what Iran is or is not actually doing in Iraq, and how what they are doing bears causally on our objectives, it is simply impossible to derive the sort of conclusion you wish to derive in any convincing way.

This seems to be your argument:

"Iran might be doing some stuff, or they might not be doing some stuff. If they are doing whatever stuff they might be doing, it probably has no serious bearing on the stuff we are doing in Iraq. We can conclude this without specifying the stuff that might be involved. And if they are not doing whatever stuff some might say they are doing, then it certainly has no serious bearing on the stuff we are doing in Iraq. If it has no bearing on what we are doing, then we should leave, because as long as Iran isn't doing any stuff we can accomplish our legitimate Iraq-related objectives, whatever those might happen to be, without actually being in Iraq. On the other hand, if the Iranians are doing some stuff that is having an impact on what we are doing, then that proves we should leave, because even though I have no idea what said stuff might be, we can intuit that the Iranians have not yet reached their maximum level of commitment in doing it. So it is only going to get worse, and there is no way we can accomplish our unnamed objectives in the face of all that committed unnamed stuff."

Surely you can see the vacuity of this reasoning, Matt. It could be applied to almost any topic at all, to derive almost any conclusion one wishes.

This tendency to retreat into schematic, content-poor generalities is a maddening feature of your book, by the way.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 1, 2008 3:25 PM

It's kind of mind-boggling to watch both Iran and the U.S. align behind Maliki/Badr Brigades/ISCR against the Sadrists. Could there be a "better" outcome, by anyone's logic, "left" or "right"? The best case scenario that's plausible for us, as anyone minimally conversant with the history of IR can see, would be an Iraq as a kind of buffer state--one not viewed by Iran with notable suspicion or hostility but one willing to allow Western/international oil interests to keep pumping oil out of the ground on terms that don't vastly strengthen Iran's hand in the oil markets. Were it not for the continuing lack of an Iraqi national accord and a visible path away from the imminent danger of genocidal anarchy, I would ask why we can't just declare victory on the above terms and go home.

Posted by elle loco | May 1, 2008 3:33 PM

Dan Kervick, your posting is pure sophistry. The reality that Matt refers to is that if Iran chooses to meddle in Iraq, it can do so almost effortlessly and with vast effectiveness; and our only practical recourse to stopping them is to engage Iran in full-scale war. But that's probably what you want, so whatever. Just don't patronize or try to BS us with phony "analyses" that elide YOUR point.

Posted by elle loco | May 1, 2008 3:42 PM

Excellent post, Dan. I'd be interested to know what Matt thinks the administration's principle goal in Iraq (a) is now, and (b) was when we first invaded.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 3:42 PM

More importantly, why the hell aren't we engaged in discussions with Iran? A war would not be a zero-sum game between us and them, it would be a negative sum game among us, Iran and Iraq. why not leverage our mutual desire to limit the influence of Sadrists and prop up Iraq's central government as the starting point?

Posted by szr | May 1, 2008 3:42 PM

Quite honestly, since we felt entitled to invade Iraq when we didn't like its government, we really have no grounds to tell any other state that they shouldn't "meddle" in Iraq.

Our meddling dwarfs the Iranian meddling by several orders of magnitude.

In addition, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [to which the US is a signatory] and is under absolutely no obligation to defer to the US, the UN Security Council, or anyone else if they make demands that exceed the limits of that treaty.

That idiot Kagan was out the other day talking about what our goals in Iraq are or should be, and among those goals was for Iraq to be a democratic and representative state and for Iraq to be a US ally against Iran. Considering the fact that it is very likely that those goals are mutually contradictory, I think that faced with a democratic Iraq that favored a rapprochement with Iran, we would topple that democratic government and replace it with a strongman.

Posted by Brian | May 1, 2008 3:44 PM

The best case scenario that's plausible for us, as anyone minimally conversant with the history of IR can see, would be an Iraq as a kind of buffer state--one not viewed by Iran with notable suspicion or hostility but one willing to allow Western/international oil interests to keep pumping oil out of the ground on terms that don't vastly strengthen Iran's hand in the oil markets.

Elle, I think this is exactly right, and is the driving motivation behind the administration's continued commitment to the war.

Were it not for the continuing lack of an Iraqi national accord and a visible path away from the imminent danger of genocidal anarchy, I would ask why we can't just declare victory on the above terms and go home.

Well, because Iran would probably then manage to set up a puppet state in Iraq, giving them an enormous amount of capital from the Iraqi oilfields. It would be very difficult to constrain them from becoming a nuclear power in such a circumstance.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 3:58 PM

The Iranian situation will probably work itself out in the 2009 elections. Ahmadinejad will lose to Rafsanjani's candidate (we don't know who that is yet). And Rafsanjani already has enough control to pick the next Supreme Leader. Rafsanjani may be a manipulative bastard, but he's shrewd enough to know that he'll make more money working with the Americans (he's already the richest person in Iran and didn't get that way by being stupid). A change in leadership in both America and Iran is all we need to bring a peace between America and Iran. And the Iranian people will go along because they are already the most pro-American people in the Middle East.

Posted by fostert | May 1, 2008 5:00 PM

Dan Kervick, your posting is pure sophistry. The reality that Matt refers to is that if Iran chooses to meddle in Iraq, it can do so almost effortlessly and with vast effectiveness; and our only practical recourse to stopping them is to engage Iran in full-scale war. But that's probably what you want, so whatever. Just don't patronize or try to BS us with phony "analyses" that elide YOUR point.

Well, elle loco, my point is certainly not that we should have a war with Iran. I have argued for several years now that the US should re-open diplomatic relations with Iran, and begin a major diplomatic effort to resolve several outstanding disputes, and begin building a mutually beneficial relationship with that country. I believe Iran is a large, increasingly powerful emerging country that should simply be reckoned with; that the US should drop its regime change ambitions; and that the US is passing up a golden opportunity to build an important new relationship in the most strategic spot in the world, anchored in a substantial number of shared interest. I believe the US should be a seeking a new security framework for the Persian Gulf region, based on a balance of power, rather than lining ourselves up on one side of an Israeli and Saudi-lead anti-Iran containment regime. I also think that despite a number of obnoxious features of the Iranian regime, Iran actually has a more democratic and broad-based government than any of its neighbors, including several that are US allies.

I have also argued that a lot of that so-called Iranian "meddling" in Iraq is, in fact, a good thing that will help stabilize the country. I also believe that a substantial number of US claims of Iranian meddling are pure horseshit, and part of a paint by numbers wartime propaganda strategy which basically takes this line: "If it's in Iraq, and it's broke, then either Iran broke it or Al Qaeda broke it." A most recent example of this nonsense came with the recent Basra events. Iran has been supporting the Iraqi government for some time, and made its support even clearer this weak, but Petraeus and company wanted us to believe Iran is actually trying to topple the government, destabilize Iraq, and thereby potentially pave the way for a resurgence of Sunni Arab power in the country. That's ludicrous.

I believe the US has now lined up a permanent military and political presence in Iraq, and that unfortunately it doesn't matter much which of the three major candidates are elected. That presence is pretty well dug in by now and is going to stay, and the entire debate seems to be over the precise nature of the drawdowns and the redeployments, but not about the continuation of the presence itself. This is unfortunate, because there was a real chance in following the 2006 elections to get out of Iraq altogether, but Congress rolled over, and now its too late. I believe the Iraq war is little but a standard imperial expansion into another country, aimed at giving the US a major strategic and economic asset in the heart of oil country; and that that war also qualifies as an atrocity-filled war crime. And although it I don't think it much matters which candidate is elected as far as our presence in Iraq goes; it does make a substantial difference in regard to our Iran policy, and our policy in the rest of the region. Both McCain and Clinton have signaled they will pursue hardline policies toward Iran, and Middle East policies roughly continuous with what we have seen during the Bush administration, but with Obama there are at least several suggestions of an alternative approach.

My complaint is that Matt is unwilling to commit himself to substantive views and positions on most of these issue. Basically he's triangulating and waffling like crazy, preparing to blow whatever way the wind takes us on Iran, and trying to defend his Iraq views in a way that is absurdly disconnected from every other issue. It really is quite silly to argue that nothing Iran does vis-a-vis Iraq has anything at all to do with whether the US is in Iraq, and in what capacity, or to state with supreme confidence that the achievement of "our objectives" has nothing at all to do with whether we stay in Iraq, given that he has shown himself to be consistently unwilling to make a clear statement about what our Middle East objectives should be.

For example, some people have stated they believe Iran is a rather crazy, revolutionary, expansionist rogue state, bent on nuclear weapons-fueled regional hegemony, which includes fomenting destabilization and revolutionary takeovers of its neighbors, most of which happen to be sitting on 40% of the world's oil. They therefore believe we must be there to contain and deter Iran, and protect our allies. Hillary Clinton has stated that one reason for keeping a residual force in Iraq is to deter Iran. Now I don't think this is the case. But if I did think it was the case, I would be a fool to argue that the best way to deter Iran would be to impressively withdraw all of our forces from their doorstep in Iraq.

My point in all this is that Matt cannot defend a coherent position on Iraq if he refuses to step up and take a side on the factual claims and strategic issues concerning the Iraqi neighborhood.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 1, 2008 5:06 PM

The Iranian situation will probably work itself out in the 2009 elections. Ahmadinejad will lose to Rafsanjani's candidate (we don't know who that is yet). Rafsanjani may be a manipulative bastard, but he's shrewd enough to know that he'll make more money working with the Americans

Let's all hope so.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 5:15 PM

Relative to Apartheid Israel- Iran is the Duchy of Algernon. So long as our government allows Joe Lieberman and his merry zionists to entangle us with that scrofulous little hellhole - one bilion Muslims will have it in for us, and the rest of the civilized world will want less and less to deal with us. Talking about Iran is THEIR wicked and odious AGENDA.

Posted by Trevor | May 1, 2008 6:47 PM

There was this song in the South Park movie: "Blame Canada!". The hawks have a theme song: "Blame Iran!".

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 1, 2008 7:08 PM

All this simply means is that we must invade and occupy Iran. We may have to initiate hostilities with some strategic bombing sorties aimed at possible nuclear facilities which will then quickly escalate into an all out military conflict, but after that we won't have to worry about any further invasions. Not because the region will be pacified, of course, but because our army will simply disintegrate. McCain for prez!

Posted by Jack | May 1, 2008 7:30 PM

but an Iranian-allied Canada would be unacceptable on a whole more profound level.

Well, we're not quite that pissed off just yet. But if you elect Mad Dog McCain, all bets are off. We prefer dealing with rational people, and thus far the Persians have a significant lead.

Posted by Crazy Canuck | May 1, 2008 7:57 PM

Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. But the U.S. can not turn Iraq into a friendly state if the natural disposition is something else. According to Nir Rosen, Shi'ites composed about 60% of the Iraqi population before the Bush invasion, and now, because of death and flight of Sunnis, are over 80%. Therefore, any democratically-elected government in Iraqi, henceforth and into the distant future, will be naturally allied to Iran and not to the West -- as the present government is. To break this stalemate, the only solution for Bush, the only face-saving for Bush, is to change the government in Iran. Consequently Iran is being made into the villain, and lots of press has been given to stories of Iranian arms and money being sent to troublemakers in Iraq -- although the truth appears to be that Iranian arms are no less evenly distributed in Iraq than weapons from other countries, including the U.S. And of course Iran is very likely to avoid creating any real reason to be attacked, given that the status quo already favors them in Iraq's future. A purely military problem for America is that Iran cannot be invaded, even if the U.S. military were not depleted and overextended -- Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with mountainous areas. The only option is bombing, to destroy Iran's infrastructure -- and while the Iranians fear this, the humanitarian disaster would bring world horror and approbation upon the U.S., reenforce the Iraqi Shi'ites' distrust and hatred of the U.S., further alienate Europe, Russia and possibly China from the U.S., and (unless there had been a clear or invented provocation by the Iranians) cause a political upheaval in the U.S. On the other hand, bombing only a "little" won't change the Iranians, and indeed it would probably harden their moral resolve (though a little bombing campaign might feed the frenzy for Republican voters in the U.S. -- a motive which unfortunately cannot be discounted in this cynical and intellectually corrupt U.S. Administration.) But again the Iraqi government is unlikely to be made more friendly to the U.S., by any violence visited upon Iran. (This may be one reason why Kagan contended in his dripscreed the other day that Arab Shi'ites don't trust Persian Shi'ites, etc.: any silly propaganda to make you think the Iraqi Shi'ites will choose to end-up in the West's corner, instead.) Given all these things, the only real way to U.S. "victory" is to occupy Iraq until Iran elects "moderates," -- or for many more generations, until interior psychological mechanisms drive the Shi'ites, both Iraqi and Iranian, into something analogous to the Western Enlightenment. Indeed the U.S. rightwing logic had already locked itself into the strategic need for a Muslim "Reformation" by late in 2003. So the current U.S. strategy is actually based upon a pipe-dream -- and it is highly unlikely, for at least three reasons: one, it would take a very long time and through an exotic religious excursion; two, the United States isn't up to the task intellectually (e.g., parse any neocon argument, such as the aforementioned dipscript;) and most importantly, three, it is psychologically unrealistic: occupation is more likely to cause resentment and a twisted cultural logic, not true agreement with the occupiers. To conclude: as Jack Murtha once said, "There IS no plan."

Posted by Lee A. Arnold | May 1, 2008 8:52 PM

Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. But the U.S. can not turn Iraq into a friendly state if the natural disposition is something else. According to Nir Rosen, Shi'ites composed about 60% of the Iraqi population before the Bush invasion, and now, because of death and flight of Sunnis, are over 80%. Therefore, any democratically-elected government in Iraqi, henceforth and into the distant future, will be naturally allied to Iran and not to the West -- as the present government is. To break this stalemate, the only solution for Bush, the only face-saving for Bush, is to change the government in Iran. Consequently Iran is being made into the villain, and lots of press has been given to stories of Iranian arms and money being sent to troublemakers in Iraq -- although the truth appears to be that Iranian arms are no less evenly distributed in Iraq than weapons from other countries, including the U.S. And of course Iran is very likely to avoid creating any real reason to be attacked, given that the status quo already favors them in Iraq's future. A purely military problem for America is that Iran cannot be invaded, even if the U.S. military were not depleted and overextended -- Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with mountainous areas. The only option is bombing, to destroy Iran's infrastructure -- and while the Iranians fear this, the humanitarian disaster would bring world horror and approbation upon the U.S., reenforce the Iraqi Shi'ites' distrust and hatred of the U.S., further alienate Europe, Russia and possibly China from the U.S., and (unless there had been a clear or invented provocation by the Iranians) cause a political upheaval in the U.S. On the other hand, bombing only a "little" won't change the Iranians, and indeed it would probably harden their moral resolve (though a little bombing campaign might feed the frenzy for Republican voters in the U.S. -- a motive which unfortunately cannot be discounted in this cynical and intellectually corrupt U.S. Administration.) But again the Iraqi government is unlikely to be made more friendly to the U.S., by any violence visited upon Iran. (This may be one reason why Kagan contended in his dripscreed the other day that Arab Shi'ites don't trust Persian Shi'ites, etc.: any silly propaganda to make you think the Iraqi Shi'ites will choose to end-up in the West's corner, instead.) Given all these things, the only real way to U.S. "victory" is to occupy Iraq until Iran elects "moderates," -- or for many more generations, until interior psychological mechanisms drive the Shi'ites, both Iraqi and Iranian, into something analogous to the Western Enlightenment. Indeed the U.S. rightwing logic had already locked itself into the strategic need for a Muslim "Reformation" by late in 2003. So the current U.S. strategy is actually based upon a pipe-dream -- and it is highly unlikely, for at least three reasons: one, it would take a very long time and through an exotic religious excursion; two, the United States isn't up to the task intellectually (e.g., parse any neocon argument, such as the aforementioned dipscript;) and most importantly, three, it is psychologically unrealistic: occupation is more likely to cause resentment and a twisted cultural logic, not true agreement with the occupiers. To conclude: as Jack Murtha once said, "There IS no plan."

Posted by Lee A. Arnold | May 1, 2008 8:52 PM

Funny how people forget Rumsfeld's exact words:

"Link Iran to Iraq!"

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Memos_reveal_Rumsfelds_concern_with_marketing_1101.html

And there's a very easy answer to why the US hasn't and CAN'T open talks with Iran: ISRAEL. Any politician who talks with Iran will be flayed alive by AIPAC.

You simpletons think US foreign policy is in the hands of the US, huh? LOL!

Posted by liz | May 1, 2008 9:46 PM

Matt, you surely don't imagine that we should be thinking coherently about this do you. What kind of a stupid idea is that. Any old fool can succeed in their objectives then they do that

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 1, 2008 9:56 PM

If Iran's activities in Iraq are terrorist activities then so were our activities in Afganistan back in the 80s...

Oh, but I forgot, what we did was for "freedom", "democracy" -- it had nothing to do with our interests.

But the evil Iranians are actining on behalf of the devil.

What the Iranians are doing is terrorism because anyone who doesn't fall in line with us is a terrorist.

Posted by Matt | May 1, 2008 11:35 PM

If Iran's activities in Iraq are terrorist activities then so were our activities in Afganistan back in the 80s...

Oh, but I forgot, what we did was for "freedom", "democracy" -- it had nothing to do with our interests.

But the evil Iranians are actining on behalf of the devil.

What the Iranians are doing is terrorism because anyone who doesn't fall in line with us is a terrorist.

Posted by Matt | May 1, 2008 11:35 PM

Matt, while still unable to talk coherently about Iran, gets this right.

Iran could, if it wishes, totally destroy our presence in Iraq, and merely by using its Shia allies in Iraq. It does not choose to do so because it would cause more instability in Iraq than Iran believes is desirable - at least absent a direct attack by the US on Iran.

Should the latter happen, all bets are off.

And the latter IS going to happen.

The Iranians would be smart to ratchet up the problem for the US in Iraq NOW rather than wait, which is possibly what they've done with Sadr. I suspect the Iranians are watching the US Presidential elections, and the worse things are for the US in the next few months, the better for them, as it may persuade Americans to back pulling out.

However, the problem for Iran is that they should understand that Bush and Cheney aren't leaving Iraq no matter what. And they absolutely intend to attack Iran.

So what Iran is doing in Iraq now really is irrelevant. What matters is what will happen when the Iran war breaks out in the next three to six months.

Dan: "My complaint is that Matt is unwilling to commit himself to substantive views and positions on most of these issue."

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now. Matt simply cannot talk about Iran coherently because he can not and will not answer my two questions - because if he does, it will blow his cover as a "liberal internationalist" and reveal him to be as much a hawk on Iran as he was on Iraq - or at least scared to take a position on Iran in case he is proved wrong like he was on Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 2, 2008 1:19 AM

What is wrong with the world when realpolitik, which in this case means opening diplomatic relations with Iran and negotiating on shared interests, is seen as naive yet idiocy, such as refusing to recognize we are backing basically the same side in Iraq and our efforts to strengthen Iran's proxies in Iraq make Iran stronger, is seen as strong?

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2008 7:08 AM

Dan Kervick, clearly I am obliged, with your forbearance, to withdraw my allegation misconstruing you as a logic-chopping variety of concern troll. And I think we probably agree that Matt--in one of the few recurring problematic themes I find on this blog--is rather too cavalier in his views about what we should do, or rather cease doing, in Iraq, and on behalf of the Iraqi people whose lives in their millions we have fairly irretrievably (so far as can be seen from here) turned upside down.

On the other hand, given your views on Iran, I would think you would agree that, Bush administration propaganda notwithstanding, what exact degree of Iranian meddling, arms smuggling, etc., is going on in Iraq is largely beside the point and in whatever case is not remotely an adequate casus belli, however enraging and cynical it may be.

As to our plausible future in the region, I refer you to my posting prior to my diatribe against you. I am part of that large, quiet, and unsexy faction which rejects the notion that we can just evacuate Iraq and leave it to its own devices but also sees that America's practical objectives there lie deep in the zone of minimizing grievous and, in the short to medium term irreparable, strategic self-injury.

Posted by elle loco | May 2, 2008 9:57 AM

Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. But the U.S. can not turn Iraq into a friendly state if the natural disposition is something else.

Given that these two sentences taken together nullify each other so utterly that they probably don't even exist any more (a sort of rhetorical matter/anti-matter interaction), I'm not particularly inspired to read the rest of the comment.

Posted by DMonteith | May 2, 2008 9:57 AM

DMonteith, nonsense. I jumped from the way the war was sold, to the Bushies' current public-relations problems in continuing the occupation.

But even in an objective or positive sense, you are likely to be incorrect. For example, it could be a good moral idea, whether objectively or in context, to free a people from a dictator, (and one in particular that you helped to arm!) even if those people don't end up friendly to you.

Indeed I expect the Bushies in private communications have been waving the "Where's the gratitude?" banner -- but since prior U.S. actions/inactions resulted in getting a lot of Shi'ites killed, what the Bushies may be starting to hear in response is, "Close the door on your way out."

Posted by Lee A. Arnold | May 2, 2008 10:34 AM

After reading your article and the comments, I just want say that there is a complete disconnect with what is factually going on and what is sheer spin. Anyone remember the "weapons of mass destruction" They have done it again. I apologise if this is annoying anyone, but why doesn't someone bother to actually go out there and get some facts. Admittedly its pretty hard as the place is so unstable you can't go anywhere without being embedded in which case you will get more of the same, or risk freelancing it and probably get kidnapped. Mind you I am sure the Iranians would take you around and give you protection. With them you would probably even talk to the people in power-a different view? So the facts are all nicely sewn up so that you can't get at them.

What happened to the reporter of yesteryear who used to be investigative? I reckon just one of those would blow this whole story open.

If anyone is really interested let me know, maybe I can help. If you are not be prepared for the coming war.

Posted by Mohammad Nazemi | May 2, 2008 12:10 PM

You are so out of it.
"Bush and McCain have committed us to strategic objectives in the Persian Gulf region that include having a hostile relationship with Iran"

At what point in the last 28 years has our "relationship" with Iran not been hostile? The regime in Iran would not have a purpose without the Great Satan as its eternal enemy. And about their actions in Iraq, who contests this? Have you looked into this at all? We have recovered countless Iranian weapons and know for a fact that the Revolutionary Guards have special groups involved in plotting and carrying out attacks against our soldiers. Do some research. I know you all think everything is a conspiracy, but if you actually look into things a little bit, some things are provable. As for "improving" our "relationship," Crocker has met with the Iranian ambassador to Iraq three times (to my knowledge), and each time pressed them to stop their support for insurgents in Iraq. The ambassador denied any support. There we stand. What is their to talk about? We know what they want: nuclear weapons and as much dominance they can get in Iraq. We also know that these two things fundamentally oppose our interests and the interest of the Iraqis, who by and large do not want their nation dominated by Iran. So how do you see this changing?

Posted by Duane | May 2, 2008 1:50 PM

In the first place, we need to dispense with the panic mongering--no one in their right mind is seriously advocating starting a war with Iran, and only those lost in Darkest Conspiracytheoryland imagine it as a reasonable possibility.

Second, while Duane is certainly right about the last 28 years, there is in fact rather a lot to talk about, starting with Iran's need for international legitimacy and some security from attack, ours for the sort of resolution in Iraq well-described above by elle loco, and our mutual interests in a stable Greater Persian Gulf region.

Finally, Mohammid Nazemi makes an excellent point. This blog is chock full of people making grandiose statements about what the Iraqi people want and are like, how they feel about Iran, about the US, and similar pontification about the Iranians. Most of this is based on perfectly absurd polling done by Western media outfits.

According to some of the best and most experienced reporters and a lot of our military and diplomatic people in daily contact with Iraqis, Iraqis don't like foreign troops rampaging around (what a surprise!), but they also don't want to be abandoned before their own security forces can manage things. And according to genuine experts like Timothy Garton Ash, we are probably more popular among Iranians than we have ever been. He reports that some there jokingly refer to George W. Bush as "the thirteenth Imam" because of his role in helping establish the first legitimate Shi'ite-dominated democracy in the world.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 2, 2008 3:35 PM

Timothy Garton Ash is a "genuine expert" on Iran?

Posted by El Cid | May 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Ash is a genuine expert on social/political movements in dictatorships. His in-depth work in Iran is available in the New York Review of Books. Highly recommended, as is his unmatched reporting from the inside on the Polish revolution during the '80's.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 2, 2008 4:14 PM