Iraq looks to Iran, not to Arabs

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#1
Security & Terrorism

Talabani looks to Iran, not to Arabs


By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is taking two trips within a single week. In the first, this weekend, he flew west to Cairo, and said a lot less than he appeared to; in the second, starting Monday, he is flying east to Tehran and will almost certainly say a lot less than he will do.

Over the weekend, Talabani was in Cairo attending the heavily-advertised Arab League conference on national reconciliation in Iraq. Moderate Sunni Muslim nations traditionally close to the United States like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco are alarmed by both the extreme Sunni Islamist insurgency and the relentless rise of Iranian influence among Iraqi's Shiite majority. They want to see the civil war there ended or defused as quickly as possible.

But while the Kurdish Talabani paid lip service Sunday to opening a new political dialogue with the Sunni insurgents, in practice he continued to rule it out.

"I am committed to listen to them, even those who are criminals and on trial," Talabani told a news conference. But then he added, "But of course that does not mean I will accept what they say."

Talabani tried to strike a note of national reconciliation and inclusiveness at the conference, telling it he was "responsible for all Iraqis" and wanted to "listen... even to criminals"

But on the other hand, he seemed to make this offer a dead letter by ruling out any political participation or real power for either former loyalists of ousted president Saddam Hussein's Baath Party or for the Islamist extremists spearheaded by al-Qaida and its Iraqi operational commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He ruled out explicitly any role for them in Iraq's still nascent political democracy.

In following this course of action, Talabani was being consistent to his own Kurdish nationalist background and to the distrust that Iraq's 60 percent majority Shiite Muslims as well as its 15 percent of Kurds in the north have towards the long dominant Sunni minority in central Iraq that has dominated the country's politics and army for the past 85 years since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the region in 1918.
And sure enough, Talabani is following his visit to Cairo by flying east to the Iranian capital Tehran to start a three day visit Monday, the Iranian Fars news agency reported Sunday.

His visit follows remarkably warm and cordial mutual visits by senior Iranian and Iraqi Shiite national leaders to their respective capitals since July.
For while U.S. influence and prestige in Iraq has remorselessly declined, given the continued inability of the woefully under-strength U.S. forces to contain the Sunni insurgency and protect Iraq's Shiites from its wrath, Iran's influence in the neighboring country has quietly and steadily risen at the same time.

British military intelligence assessments now rate Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand, fiercely anti-American charismatic young leader of the Mahdi Army, as the most influential political figure in all of oil rich southern Iraq. The British assessments are that paramilitary gangs and organizations whose only allegiance, if any is to Iran now weld far more power in the south of the county where the Shiite majority lives than the Iraqi government in Baghdad does.

For that reason as well, Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari are paying ever more respectful attention to every signal that comes out of Tehran, even though new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making statements at least as extreme, and even more unpredictable than any ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did in his prime. And Ahmadinejad has vastly more military manpower and resources -- including even the real possibility of several nuclear warheads in the future -- than Saddam ever able to grab.

By contrast, Talabani leads an Iraqi government in crisis. With the December elections -- the first under the recently ratified constitution looming -- the Sunni 20 percent minority in the country is more alienated than ever and the Baathist loyalist-Islamist extremist insurgency within that community is running riot, apparently slaughtering Shiites at will.

The disastrously undermanned U.S. troops in Iraq, at around 150,000 in number, would need between three times to as much as four times the manpower they currently have there to break the back of the Sunni insurgency, U.S., Middle Eastern and many European military analysts privately say. These numbers are not plucked from the air: They are based on analyses of the trained military manpower that were needed to defeat or even stalemate major guerrilla insurgencies through the 20th century.

Also, the continued lack of military effectiveness of the much touted new Iraqi armed forces is now taking center stage in the U.S. political debate. A new article by James Fallows in the November issue of "The Atlantic" magazine paints a devastating picture of an Iraqi army and police force that remains ineffectual and in essentially defenseless against continued Sunni insurgent attacks. Far from taking the pressure off U.S. forces in Iraq and taking over the main burden of counter-insurgency operations from them, the Iraqi armed forces remain almost totally unable to carry out serious combat operations against serious opposition without U.S. protection and support.

Official military testimony given to the Senate Armed Services Committee at the end of September revealed that only a single battalions out of the 119 organized so far in the Iraqi army and security forces is capable of operating fully on their own.

It was not meant to be this way. When U.S. and Iraqi forces launched "Operation Lightning" in Baghdad in May, it was meant to break the back of insurgent operations in the Iraqi capital of five million people. More than 40,000 troops from the new Iraqi army were involved. President George W. Bush at the time publicly expressed confidence it would hammer the insurgency.

Instead, the operation did not even marginally dent insurgent capabilities. As documented in UPI's weekly Iraq Benchmarks column, apart from a few all too short lulls -- usually measured in days, none lasting longer than two weeks -- the number, frequency and casualties inflicted by multiple fatality bomb attacks -- as the large suicide car bombs are known -- in the capital has remorselessly risen since.

The worst month yet was September with 46 such attacks throughout Iraq, a nation only the size of California with half its population. October was almost as bad, 39 such bomb attacks. And November looks set to outstrip both.

Fallows' article in "The Atlantic" brings all these failures and weaknesses of the rapidly raised Iraqi armed forces to the fore in the political debate in Washington. He wrote that currently the insurgents are killing an average of around 10 Iraqi police and soldiers per day. In fact, according to official U.S. and Iraqi figures collated by the Iraq Index Project of the Brookings Institution, a centrist Washington think tank, the rate at which they were being killed in the first 16 days of this month was 5.5 per day. That is not nearly as bad as 10 per day: But it is still bad enough.

Also, not all serious American analysts share Fallows' pessimism about the Iraqi army. Respected military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies believes that in fact much of the training and deploying of the new Iraqi forces is now going much better and there is still real possibility they could become an effective force on a significant scale next year.

However, even the major issue of how effective or ineffective the Iraqi army is going to be may pale compared to the importance of what Talabani did not say publicly in Cairo this weekend and what he might say privately in Tehran this week.



© Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Want to email or reprint this story? Click here for options.



http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051120-060938-7734r

Good going GW Moron! Now, we'll have an Isamic Republic of Iraq right next door to Islamic Republic of Iran!!

Democracy my a$$!!
 

Old-Faraz

Bench Warmer
Mar 19, 2004
1,118
0
#2
Thanks for the article PN jan.

In my last trip to Iran, one of the more outlandish, yet entertaining conspiracy theories that I heard was that IRI leaders are actually Zionists and controlled by them. The origin of this theory seemed to be based on Ganji’s books (aleejenaabaane …..). People postulated that the ultimate master in IRI are indeed Zionists who are trying to push Israel’s interests at all costs. Now, I admit this is a very far-fetched theory. But the evidence that people used was interesting nevertheless:

1- IRI armed the Palestinians. Before they used to throw stoned. After they were armed, Israel has an excuse to go in very aggressively and destroy any possibility of a peaceful solution.

2- The source of the”intelligence” used to justify the Iraqi invasion was a person, Chalabi, who was in contact with both Iran and Israel. He still travels to Iran and is also a favorite of the pro-Israel neocons.

3- The Israeli backed US government seems to take on and eliminate the enemies of IRI one by one.

4- Policies of Iran seem to play into the hands of Israel turning Israel from a pariah state into a victim state.

5- Of course they also refer to the Iran-Contra scandal and also the Israeli attack on Iraqi base during the Iran-Iraq war.

As outlandish as these conspiracy theories are, there is no question that Bush’s policies strengthened the fascist camp within IRI and vice versa.
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#3
Of course Iran has become more arab than arabs. I keep on saying it. Our practice of the arab muslim religion is more extreme than arabs themselves. We have more arab days on mourn more arabs than we do persians.

I know, I know, this is sacrilligious and arabs have already put so much fear in Iranians, brainwashing them since birth that even questioning it is unapprehensible. SAD, SAD, SAD. Ferdoosi, Ferdoosi, Ferdoosi, how can they not understand after the brutality you saw.
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#5
lordofmordor said:
Of course Iran has become more arab than arabs. I keep on saying it. Our practice of the arab muslim religion is more extreme than arabs themselves. We have more arab days on mourn more arabs than we do persians.

I know, I know, this is sacrilligious and arabs have already put so much fear in Iranians, brainwashing them since birth that even questioning it is unapprehensible. SAD, SAD, SAD. Ferdoosi, Ferdoosi, Ferdoosi, how can they not understand after the brutality you saw.
You're missing the point of the article!
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#6
Old-Faraz said:
Thanks for the article PN jan.

In my last trip to Iran, one of the more outlandish, yet entertaining conspiracy theories that I heard was that IRI leaders are actually Zionists and controlled by them. The origin of this theory seemed to be based on Ganji’s books (aleejenaabaane …..). People postulated that the ultimate master in IRI are indeed Zionists who are trying to push Israel’s interests at all costs. Now, I admit this is a very far-fetched theory. But the evidence that people used was interesting nevertheless:

1- IRI armed the Palestinians. Before they used to throw stoned. After they were armed, Israel has an excuse to go in very aggressively and destroy any possibility of a peaceful solution.

2- The source of the”intelligence” used to justify the Iraqi invasion was a person, Chalabi, who was in contact with both Iran and Israel. He still travels to Iran and is also a favorite of the pro-Israel neocons.

3- The Israeli backed US government seems to take on and eliminate the enemies of IRI one by one.

4- Policies of Iran seem to play into the hands of Israel turning Israel from a pariah state into a victim state.

5- Of course they also refer to the Iran-Contra scandal and also the Israeli attack on Iraqi base during the Iran-Iraq war.

As outlandish as these conspiracy theories are, there is no question that Bush’s policies strengthened the fascist camp within IRI and vice versa.
Thought provoking, if outlandish thoughts Old Faraz jon!

In that the current regimes in Tehran, Washington DC, and Tel Aviv keep one another in business there can be no doubt. One is, of course, more apt to look at the political back-scratching as mere convenience of politically and ideologically challenged Mullah Rats, neocon lunatics, and Zionist fundamentalists.

In the absence of any other logical explanation as to why these three would claim to hate each other and yet keep helping each others’ agendas, the one pertaining to their complicity makes a world of sense!


Then again, in the course of human history, we HAVE seen other murderous lunatics who went to war against one anther and yet one could not have existed without the existence of the other!
 
Oct 20, 2002
1,684
0
Long Island, NY
#7
Old-Faraz said:
Thanks for the article PN jan.

In my last trip to Iran, one of the more outlandish, yet entertaining conspiracy theories that I heard was that IRI leaders are actually Zionists and controlled by them. The origin of this theory seemed to be based on Ganji’s books (aleejenaabaane …..). People postulated that the ultimate master in IRI are indeed Zionists who are trying to push Israel’s interests at all costs. Now, I admit this is a very far-fetched theory. But the evidence that people used was interesting nevertheless:

1- IRI armed the Palestinians. Before they used to throw stoned. After they were armed, Israel has an excuse to go in very aggressively and destroy any possibility of a peaceful solution.

2- The source of the”intelligence” used to justify the Iraqi invasion was a person, Chalabi, who was in contact with both Iran and Israel. He still travels to Iran and is also a favorite of the pro-Israel neocons.

3- The Israeli backed US government seems to take on and eliminate the enemies of IRI one by one.

4- Policies of Iran seem to play into the hands of Israel turning Israel from a pariah state into a victim state.

5- Of course they also refer to the Iran-Contra scandal and also the Israeli attack on Iraqi base during the Iran-Iraq war.

As outlandish as these conspiracy theories are, there is no question that Bush’s policies strengthened the fascist camp within IRI and vice versa.
Being someone who's long studied the socioeconomic and political atmosphere of the Middle East and surrounding regions, I have long theorized the basis of Old-Faraz's post. The crux of my belief falls along the line of the question : what better way to cause social, political, and religious unrest in a country which has historically bickered internally over secular/religious grounds then to implement a government that will enforce religion in such harsh and animalistic fashion ?

"True" Islam vs. "IRI" Islam debate aside, this government has managed to throw an entire nation into deep third-world status - with astronomical unemployment rates, poverty, intolerance of religious minorities, etc etc etc which has lead to the same social unrest featured in other "poor" nations around the world. Throw into the mix a leader who is making public comments which not only enforces many outsiders' belief that Islam preaches a caveman-like mentality coupled with a bloodthirsty appetite for war, but, has single-handedly strenghthened an already present argument for military action against Iran.

The end result is what we currently see now, more and more people (including an exponentially growing number of Iranians) not only denouncing Islam, but also going as far as to campaign for military action against Iran.

...who benefits from all this ?

Hint : A group beginning with the letter "Z".
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#8
FR jon,

Actually, more and more the idea sounds like a sane one! I mean, who else could have done more damage to the region than the reactionary, hard-line, rightwing, Islamo fascists of the region itself?

Can you imagine if a government was actually democratically elected, respected all its citizens, kept religion out of politics, and actually raised people’s standard of living in a ME country? What would the people demand next, an independent foreign policy? A say in their own lives? Control of their own economic output?


I think the experience of Dr. Mossadegh showed us how these very same Americans responded just to such an empowering experience!
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#9
Pahlevoon Nayeb said:
FR jon,

Actually, more and more the idea sounds like a sane one! I mean, who else could have done more damage to the region than the reactionary, hard-line, rightwing, Islamo fascists of the region itself?
And why would Zionists or Israelis want to damage the Middle East region that they are part of?
 
Jun 24, 2005
1,442
0
#11
Pahlevoon Nayeb said:
Good going GW Moron! Now, we'll have an Isamic Republic of Iraq right next door to Islamic Republic of Iran!!

Democracy my a$$!!
Great!:-ohno:

Now AN has a twin:-ohno:

Have Mercy..
PB...
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#16
Pahlevoon Nayeb said:
Good going GW Moron! Now, we'll have an Isamic Republic of Iraq right next door to Islamic Republic of Iran!!
Democracy my a$$!!
If it becomes an Islamic republic, it is what the Iraqis have wanted. Sounds quite like democracy to me.

Unless your preference was the Saddam government. No? What would be the third option?
 

Niloufar

Football Legend
Oct 19, 2002
29,626
23
#17
deerouz said:
If it becomes an Islamic republic, it is what the Iraqis have wanted. Sounds quite like democracy to me.

Unless your preference was the Saddam government. No? What would be the third option?
Maybe Jalal Talabani wasnt exactly the one Iraqis wanted to replace Saddam. Talabani is a pro-USA and was appointed by USA in the interim govt. he then took the higher steps to presidency. so he is not really a Nationalist or directly elected by the ppl.
he even distanced himself from the party he was the leader of: Kurdish Independence and all of a sudden rooted for Federalism?!
just bc his bosses in Washington wanted him to..
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#18
Niloufar said:
Maybe Jalal Talabani wasnt exactly the one Iraqis wanted to replace Saddam. Talabani is a pro-USA and was appointed by USA in the interim govt. he then took the higher steps to presidency. so he is not really a Nationalist or directly elected by the ppl.
he even distanced himself from the party he was the leader of: Kurdish Independence and all of a sudden rooted for Federalism?!
just bc his bosses in Washington wanted him to..
Perhaps, or perhaps not. But who do you think the Iraqis wanted to represent them? Talebani is a Kurd leader. Is there any evidence that the people he represents (Kurds) are unhappy about his performance?

Some say that elections are meaningless under occupation. If there was no ocuupation, who would Iraqis elect from their leaders? Anybody other than the current groups? If you think the current government in Iraq is not representative of what Iraqis want, what is the alternative option?
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#19
deerouz said:
Unless your preference was the Saddam government. No? What would be the third option?
A leader born out of an indigenous movement, free of outside imposition of “democracy,” you know, similar to Dr. Mossadegh.

That would have been my preference. It appears yours is exactly what the occupiers have imposed, yes?
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#20
deerouz said:
Perhaps, or perhaps not. But who do you think the Iraqis wanted to represent them? Talebani is a Kurd leader. Is there any evidence that the people he represents (Kurds) are unhappy about his performance?
We don’t know who Iraqis wanted to represent them since Iraqis had “democracy” shoved down their throats.

Is there any evidence that they ARE happy about his performance? Is there any evidence of his performance?

Some say that elections are meaningless under occupation. If there was no ocuupation, who would Iraqis elect from their leaders? Anybody other than the current groups? If you think the current government in Iraq is not representative of what Iraqis want, what is the alternative option?

Asking for an alternative after a country has been invaded against all international laws is rather like asking a rape victim who else she would have preferred to rape her!!