Barack Obama has just handed Iraq over to Tehran

[k98nights]

Barack Obama has just handed Iraq over to Tehran

By Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi

Monday, November 22, 2010

The Obama administration’s Iraq policy is in chaos. Seven months after Iraq’s national elections, the United States has publicly denied taking sides in the wrangling over who will be prime minister. Privately, however, the US is backing the incumbent, Nuri al-Maliki.

The United States has applied tremendous diplomatic pressure on Iraq’s Arab neighbors to get them to accept another Maliki term in office. Most have refused. Initially, the US backed Maliki in order to keep the Sadrist bloc from gaining a share of power. But that has now backfired, since the Sadrists are the only group other than Maliki’s coalition of Shiite parties that supports the incumbent.

One unsettling consequence of Washington’s diplomacy is that it has reinforced Iran’s role in Iraq, because Maliki is Iran’s preferred candidate to become prime minister. Thus, at the very moment that the United States is leading a global campaign to isolate Iran over its nuclear program, it is also strengthening Iran’s regional position.

The US-Iranian dispute is not limited to the nuclear issue. American efforts to re-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have faced adamant opposition from Iran, which maintains its 30-year-old policy of opposing any effort to promote peace in the Middle East. Iran exerts significant influence on both state and non-state actors whose support is indispensible to any long-term peace in the region.

First among these is Syria. Post-election Iraq was an obvious opening for the US to place a wedge between Iran and Syria. While Iran promotes the Shiite religious parties in Iraq, Syria’s interests in Iraq tilt toward secular nationalism, as represented by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s coalition, which actually defeated Maliki in the parliamentary elections that were held earlier this year. Indeed, Syria has supported Allawi for the past seven years. Yet, in the wake of intense American and Iranian diplomatic pressure in favor of Maliki, Syria has apparently shifted its support toward him accordingly.

The impact of this American misstep has already been felt, emboldening Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his provocative recent visit to Lebanon, which included a public appearance in Hizbullah-controlled areas near Israel’s northern border.

The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, have so far resisted US pressure to endorse Maliki. They cannot forget that Maliki was in charge during the time when ethnic cleansing of Baghdad’s Sunni Muslims was taking place. They regard Iran – and thus Maliki’s closeness to Tehran – as an existential threat. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, in particular, perceive Iran as inciting unrest among their own substantial Shiite populations.

Iraq’s political elites have resisted Maliki’s desire for a second term for two reasons. First, they are weary of renewed Iranian attempts to destabilize Iraq. Security forces recently intercepted suicide bombers entering Iraqi Kurdistan from Iran, with, Kurdish leaders believe, the support and training of Iranian intelligence.

Second, Maliki’s tenure has been worrying to those who believe in democracy and the peaceable transfer of power in Iraq. The incumbent prime minister has created security forces – some of which have reportedly acted as death squads – that are answerable directly to him, thus bypassing the constitutional chain of command. He has also replaced career army and security officers with cronies.

Last March, as rumors circulated that he was losing the election, Maliki asserted that state security would be threatened if he lost, and noted his responsibility to maintain order. When he did lose, he demanded a recount of the vote, not as a candidate, but in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The fact that Maliki, despite his incumbency, has been unable to secure a second term seven months after the elections attests to the widespread opposition to his continued rule among Iraq’s political class.

There is only one way to explain the Obama administration’s decision to exert such diplomatic pressure in favor of Iran’s favorite in Iraq: President Barack Obama is fulfilling his pledge during his presidential election campaign to disengage from Iraq during his first term.

In this, Obama is following the example of President George W. Bush, who let the US electoral agenda, rather than American – not to mention Iraqi – national interests, dictate Iraq policy. The Bush administration insisted that Iraq achieve various “milestones” – elections for which the country was not ready and the completion of a Constitution in six weeks – simply to create the appearance of substantive achievements ahead of the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term elections.

Similarly, the Obama administration is trying to force what it perceives as the easiest path to a new government in Iraq – even if it is pro-Iranian – not because this is in the US national interest, but to enable it to head for the exits more quickly in advance of the president’s re-election campaign in 2012.

The Obama administration’s policy in Iraq is now strengthening Iran regionally at the expense of America’s Arab allies, undermining America’s own efforts to forge a Middle East peace, and weakening Iraq’s nascent democracy. It is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes for US national security interests in this vital region.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=121743#ixzz15xXlghRc

(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

[FishMan1969]

http://www.dailystar...3#axzz15xVVbRCG

O what are you up to?

[vibo]

Obama seems to mess up most everything he put his hands on. I would never want his job!

[Mammaw]

Fish, was the Red a must? That REALLY bothers the eyes, and for those who are color blind...

Thanks K98 for the Post...all of them. I am reading the post today, as it has been a few days since I was here. I see where some say they STILL haven't decided on the PM...for SURE. Bummer, what the heck... I am telling everyone it is just ANY DAY...and that it JUST HAS TO BE IN 2010....Hummmm....well, why do I let myself fall into these ...holes? I am glad I paid two months rent here. Hope M steps on it or they get him out of the way so that A can get 'er done. As far as O...we wont even go there.!

[DmsC]

If the newspaper wasn't from Lebanon I might take this article seriously. I'm sure that they report too that the people throwing rocks at Isreali soldiers are Did nothing to provoke attacks. Just saying.

[Dinar329]

Obama seems to mess up most everything he put his hands on. I would never want his job!

Hopefully he'll be the rare case of a sitting president that doesn't get re-elected!

[gjames_54]

Barack Obama has just handed Iraq over to Tehran

By Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi

Monday, November 22, 2010

The Obama administration’s Iraq policy is in chaos. Seven months after Iraq’s national elections, the United States has publicly denied taking sides in the wrangling over who will be prime minister. Privately, however, the US is backing the incumbent, Nuri al-Maliki.

The United States has applied tremendous diplomatic pressure on Iraq’s Arab neighbors to get them to accept another Maliki term in office. Most have refused. Initially, the US backed Maliki in order to keep the Sadrist bloc from gaining a share of power. But that has now backfired, since the Sadrists are the only group other than Maliki’s coalition of Shiite parties that supports the incumbent.

One unsettling consequence of Washington’s diplomacy is that it has reinforced Iran’s role in Iraq, because Maliki is Iran’s preferred candidate to become prime minister. Thus, at the very moment that the United States is leading a global campaign to isolate Iran over its nuclear program, it is also strengthening Iran’s regional position.

The US-Iranian dispute is not limited to the nuclear issue. American efforts to re-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have faced adamant opposition from Iran, which maintains its 30-year-old policy of opposing any effort to promote peace in the Middle East. Iran exerts significant influence on both state and non-state actors whose support is indispensible to any long-term peace in the region.

First among these is Syria. Post-election Iraq was an obvious opening for the US to place a wedge between Iran and Syria. While Iran promotes the Shiite religious parties in Iraq, Syria’s interests in Iraq tilt toward secular nationalism, as represented by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s coalition, which actually defeated Maliki in the parliamentary elections that were held earlier this year. Indeed, Syria has supported Allawi for the past seven years. Yet, in the wake of intense American and Iranian diplomatic pressure in favor of Maliki, Syria has apparently shifted its support toward him accordingly.

The impact of this American misstep has already been felt, emboldening Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his provocative recent visit to Lebanon, which included a public appearance in Hizbullah-controlled areas near Israel’s northern border.

The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, have so far resisted US pressure to endorse Maliki. They cannot forget that Maliki was in charge during the time when ethnic cleansing of Baghdad’s Sunni Muslims was taking place. They regard Iran – and thus Maliki’s closeness to Tehran – as an existential threat. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, in particular, perceive Iran as inciting unrest among their own substantial Shiite populations.

Iraq’s political elites have resisted Maliki’s desire for a second term for two reasons. First, they are weary of renewed Iranian attempts to destabilize Iraq. Security forces recently intercepted suicide bombers entering Iraqi Kurdistan from Iran, with, Kurdish leaders believe, the support and training of Iranian intelligence.

Second, Maliki’s tenure has been worrying to those who believe in democracy and the peaceable transfer of power in Iraq. The incumbent prime minister has created security forces – some of which have reportedly acted as death squads – that are answerable directly to him, thus bypassing the constitutional chain of command. He has also replaced career army and security officers with cronies.

Last March, as rumors circulated that he was losing the election, Maliki asserted that state security would be threatened if he lost, and noted his responsibility to maintain order. When he did lose, he demanded a recount of the vote, not as a candidate, but in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The fact that Maliki, despite his incumbency, has been unable to secure a second term seven months after the elections attests to the widespread opposition to his continued rule among Iraq’s political class.

There is only one way to explain the Obama administration’s decision to exert such diplomatic pressure in favor of Iran’s favorite in Iraq: President Barack Obama is fulfilling his pledge during his presidential election campaign to disengage from Iraq during his first term.

In this, Obama is following the example of President George W. Bush, who let the US electoral agenda, rather than American – not to mention Iraqi – national interests, dictate Iraq policy. The Bush administration insisted that Iraq achieve various “milestones” – elections for which the country was not ready and the completion of a Constitution in six weeks – simply to create the appearance of substantive achievements ahead of the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term elections.

Similarly, the Obama administration is trying to force what it perceives as the easiest path to a new government in Iraq – even if it is pro-Iranian – not because this is in the US national interest, but to enable it to head for the exits more quickly in advance of the president’s re-election campaign in 2012.

The Obama administration’s policy in Iraq is now strengthening Iran regionally at the expense of America’s Arab allies, undermining America’s own efforts to forge a Middle East peace, and weakening Iraq’s nascent democracy. It is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes for US national security interests in this vital region.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=121743#ixzz15xXlghRc

(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

Not important...What's going on with the dinar and the GOI???

Edited November 21, 2010 by gjames_54

[tampa1000]

Leave it to Obama and we soon won't have the good old USA!!! Soon China will own us!!! God help us.....

[Dinar Team]

US still control Iraq...

[bikertrash]

Can you believe" YOUR PRESIDENT" did that

[que1]

Leave it to Obama and we soon won't have the good old USA!!! Soon China will own us!!! God help us.....

Don't blame Obama...those unlimited terms by our Congress created the environment where big businesses gave America's industries and know how to China all in the name of "bigger profits". Now why should you think China's exposure to capitalism and our way of life would be contained within their borders? By the way, China already owns the US because we gave it to them and now we expect them to play nice and be grateful!

[Hawaii K]

Iran loved the fact, that the USA invaded and is currently occupying Iraq.

America destroying Saddam, effectively got rid of of Iran's number one

Enemy in Saddam.

So, a inspired Iran is to be expected.Persians have never forgotten

that they once ruled the world, and long for the glory of the past.

The good news is that, with pretty much permanent bases and FOB's

in Iraq, even after the drawdown of Americans, there will still be a

contingent of 50,000 American Military Personnel, with Brigade Ready

Team in Kuwait standing by make for a formidable wall of defense, if

Iran gets frisky.

Iran's Governing body is crazy but they are not stupid. This means

more stability for the people of Iraq, and the perfect climate for the

economy and the Dinar to grow.