Pages: 1 2

 

2008-04-21 18:33:51
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France
This has been bothering me for a while now.  So I have some questions.

Here's some links I found (summary style, of course):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12521/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 47,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01083.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o … mp;id=4027

1) What is the level of involvement?  None, weapons only, active cells, active soldiers? 
I believe there's some active involvement, but it's mostly political in nature.

2) Did Iran like Hussein?  I see articles about Hussein supporting the Iranian underground, declaring war, etc.  So I don't think he's a pal.  Also, there's a whole bunch of Irainian operatives who were sent down when Hussein was in power.

3) If Hussein wasn't the golden boy, why does Iran care if he's removed?  Although I lack a great understanding of the complexities of Islamic politics, Hussein was part of the Baath party which wasn't really in favor with Iran, and wasn't really popular with the people.

4) So if Hussein isn't the answer - the current Iraqi leadership spent a great deal of time in Irain & Syria.  So isn't the current leadership better than the old?

5) If involved, (BTW they are), what side are they supporting?  This is prolly one of those "you know there's like 10 sides out there Pug...", but if the leadership is friendly to Iran, are they supporting the new government?  If not, why are they supporting the side they are supporting?

6) Although I already know the answer this one but it seems at least at some level the US and Iran is sort of happy with who's leading the country.  So why haven't we taken the next step and got some help?

7) Is the first goal of Iran to remove the US from Iraq so it can do the work instead?  If so, are we looking at using the current government anyway?  Yep, I'm that naive.

8) Or is it the goal of Iran to kill US troops?  Why?  Are we not doing what they wanted anyway by ousting the Baath party?

These are some honest questions I've been thinking about - in effect, Iranians were involved before the war, during the war and will do so afterwards.  But isn't there some sort of common ground in there somewhere?
2008-04-21 18:41:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

Pug wrote:

This has been bothering me for a while now.  So I have some questions.

Here's some links I found (summary style, of course):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12521/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 47,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01083.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o … mp;id=4027

1) What is the level of involvement?  None, weapons only, active cells, active soldiers? 
I believe there's some active involvement, but it's mostly political in nature.
Training, weapons, safe haven, some Iranian soldiers.

2) Did Iran like Hussein?  I see articles about Hussein supporting the Iranian underground, declaring war, etc.  So I don't think he's a pal.  Also, there's a whole bunch of Irainian operatives who were sent down when Hussein was in power.
No, they didn't like him.

3) If Hussein wasn't the golden boy, why does Iran care if he's removed?  Although I lack a great understanding of the complexities of Islamic politics, Hussein was part of the Baath party which wasn't really in favor with Iran, and wasn't really popular with the people.
Hussein was ostensibly a Sunni. Iran is Shi'a. The rivalry between those two sects makes the Catholic/Protestant schism look like a kindergarten tea party.

4) So if Hussein isn't the answer - the current Iraqi leadership spent a great deal of time in Irain & Syria.  So isn't the current leadership better than the old?
So long as they form a Shi'a dominated government under Iran's thumb.

5) If involved, (BTW they are), what side are they supporting?  This is prolly one of those "you know there's like 10 sides out there Pug...", but if the leadership is friendly to Iran, are they supporting the new government?  If not, why are they supporting the side they are supporting?
They're supporting the Shi'a, predominantly the Sadrists.

6) Although I already know the answer this one but it seems at least at some level the US and Iran is sort of happy with who's leading the country.  So why haven't we taken the next step and got some help?
Iran would be happier if Sadr were leading the country, forming an Islamic "Republic" similar to Iran. Maliki is far too secular for their tastes.

7) Is the first goal of Iran to remove the US from Iraq so it can do the work instead?  If so, are we looking at using the current government anyway?  Yep, I'm that naive.
Honestly, I think Iran's goal is to bog down America in Iraq as much and for as long as possible. The longer we're there, the worse things get with the "arab street".

8) Or is it the goal of Iran to kill US troops?  Why?  Are we not doing what they wanted anyway by ousting the Baath party?
Yes and no. They didn't want the Ba'athists, but then they don't want a pseudo-secular government, either. They want a Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government that is essentially an Iranian proxy state.

These are some honest questions I've been thinking about - in effect, Iranians were involved before the war, during the war and will do so afterwards.  But isn't there some sort of common ground in there somewhere?
Not without alienating the Sunnis and Kurds.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-21 18:49:13
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France
Thanks Feos.  I meant to add:
"I offer this topic against my better judgement"
2008-04-21 18:53:23
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

Oh I'm sure someone on or east of GMT will post something while we're all asleep that will make you facepalm.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-21 19:22:40
san4
The Mas
+311|7112|NYC, a place to live

FEOS wrote:

Oh I'm sure someone on or east of GMT will post something while we're all asleep that will make you facepalm.
NUKEEVERYTHINGTWICE!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!ONEHUNDREDELEVEN!!!!!!!


does that fit the bill?
2008-04-21 19:46:30
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6577|what

You're not East of GMT though, San4.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-04-21 19:49:37
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7146|Eastern PA

FEOS wrote:

5) If involved, (BTW they are), what side are they supporting?  This is prolly one of those "you know there's like 10 sides out there Pug...", but if the leadership is friendly to Iran, are they supporting the new government?  If not, why are they supporting the side they are supporting?
They're supporting the Shi'a, predominantly the Sadrists.

6) Although I already know the answer this one but it seems at least at some level the US and Iran is sort of happy with who's leading the country.  So why haven't we taken the next step and got some help?
Iran would be happier if Sadr were leading the country, forming an Islamic "Republic" similar to Iran. Maliki is far too secular for their tastes.

7) Is the first goal of Iran to remove the US from Iraq so it can do the work instead?  If so, are we looking at using the current government anyway?  Yep, I'm that naive.
Honestly, I think Iran's goal is to bog down America in Iraq as much and for as long as possible. The longer we're there, the worse things get with the "arab street".

8) Or is it the goal of Iran to kill US troops?  Why?  Are we not doing what they wanted anyway by ousting the Baath party?
Yes and no. They didn't want the Ba'athists, but then they don't want a pseudo-secular government, either. They want a Shi'a-dominated Iraqi government that is essentially an Iranian proxy state.
Uh...here's a little background on the party Maliki, the US's "man in Iraq", heads (Dawa)
1983 Kuwait Bombing

In 1983 Dawa simultaneously bombed the American and French embassies in Kuwait and several other domestic and foreign targets in Kuwait. This led to the imprisonment of the "Kuwait 17" in Kuwait, 12 of which were Iraqis in al-Dawa[10]. The bombing of the American embassy was an early instance of suicide bombing in the Middle East, along with the Hezbollah's bombings of the American Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon earlier that year. [11]

Freeing the al-Dawa prisoners in Kuwait was one of the main objectives of a string of kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by Hezbollah over the next several years. (One of the Kuwait 17, Mustafa Badreddin, is a relative and associate of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah.[12]) The Kuwait 17 then played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal: The principals of Iran-Contra offered to sway Kuwait to release the Kuwait 17 as one of several incentives to free American hostages in Lebanon. However, when President Reagan learned of this offer, he allegedly responded "like he had been kicked in the belly." [13] The Kuwait 17 somehow gained freedom, possibly by escaping or by a prisoner exchange with Iran, when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in the prelude to the Persian Gulf War.[14]

Al-Dawa has since insisted that the attacks in Kuwait were perpetrated by agents who had been "hijacked" by Iran.[15] In February 2007, journalists reported that Jamal Jaafar Muhammad, who was elected to the Iraqi parliament in 2005 as part of the SCIRI/Badr faction of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), was also sentenced to death in Kuwait for planning the al-Dawa bombings.[16] Since al-Dawa is also part of the UIA, it is therefore difficult to argue a complete break from these past acts of violence. On the other hand, Muhammad's position could indicate some distance, since he is a former al-Dawa militant who is now in the Badr Organization.
The party ruling Iraq in conjunction with Dawa, SIIC, is basically a clone of the ruling party in Iran. All the leaders were in exile in Iran when it and Dawa were formed. Sadr is less an extension of Iran than either of those parties, though they all share the same religion. The only difference is that Sadr wants the US to leave as well.

In terms of ties to Iran, the current government has far deeper ties to Iran than Sadr.
2008-04-21 19:54:46
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France

Masques wrote:

In terms of ties to Iran, the current government has far deeper ties to Iran than Sadr.
See, that's kind of why I'm confused.  Is Iran supporting Sadr?  If so, given the situation, why?
2008-04-21 20:13:54
chittydog
less busy
+586|7259|Kubra, Damn it!

TheAussieReaper wrote:

You're not East of GMT though, San4.
A lot fewer people might be soon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm
2008-04-22 02:51:00
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6530|eXtreme to the maX
Good post FEOS.
At least someone is sticking up for the rights of the Shia in Southern Iraq. Is anyone surprised its Iran?
Didn't someone say they should rise up and overthrow their brutal oppressor?
Funny it turned out he meant his son

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-22 03:00:43)

Fuck Israel
2008-04-22 03:31:49
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7045|London, England

chittydog wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

You're not East of GMT though, San4.
A lot fewer people might be soon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm
Religious people are trying to get science to prove their shit. These guys have clearly been watching "Ben Steins expelled".
2008-04-22 04:12:07
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7181|Argentina

Pug wrote:

This has been bothering me for a while now.  So I have some questions.

Here's some links I found (summary style, of course):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12521/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 47,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01083.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o … mp;id=4027

1) What is the level of involvement?  None, weapons only, active cells, active soldiers? 
I believe there's some active involvement, but it's mostly political in nature.

2) Did Iran like Hussein?  I see articles about Hussein supporting the Iranian underground, declaring war, etc.  So I don't think he's a pal.  Also, there's a whole bunch of Irainian operatives who were sent down when Hussein was in power.

3) If Hussein wasn't the golden boy, why does Iran care if he's removed?  Although I lack a great understanding of the complexities of Islamic politics, Hussein was part of the Baath party which wasn't really in favor with Iran, and wasn't really popular with the people.

4) So if Hussein isn't the answer - the current Iraqi leadership spent a great deal of time in Irain & Syria.  So isn't the current leadership better than the old?

5) If involved, (BTW they are), what side are they supporting?  This is prolly one of those "you know there's like 10 sides out there Pug...", but if the leadership is friendly to Iran, are they supporting the new government?  If not, why are they supporting the side they are supporting?

6) Although I already know the answer this one but it seems at least at some level the US and Iran is sort of happy with who's leading the country.  So why haven't we taken the next step and got some help?

7) Is the first goal of Iran to remove the US from Iraq so it can do the work instead?  If so, are we looking at using the current government anyway?  Yep, I'm that naive.

8) Or is it the goal of Iran to kill US troops?  Why?  Are we not doing what they wanted anyway by ousting the Baath party?

These are some honest questions I've been thinking about - in effect, Iranians were involved before the war, during the war and will do so afterwards.  But isn't there some sort of common ground in there somewhere?
1-Weapons and soldiers, helping the insurgency.

2-No, they didn't.

3-They didn't like Hussein, he was a Sunni and most of Iran is Sh'ia, but they may think they are next in the line and therefore their involvement.

4-Better not the best.

5-I don't think they are supporting al-Maliki.  They are trying to keep the country unstable, so the US invasion would be seen as a failure.

6-I don't think Iran is happy with this government, they sure want a bigger involvement of Islam in the government.  Don't forget Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader in Iran, he's the marketing guy, the Ayatollah is the real leader.

7-Iran's main goal is to make things harder to the US and get the whole Arab world against America.  If the US fails in Iraq it's a success for them.  Besides, they don't need the US next door.

8-Killin troops is just a part of keeping Iraq unstable, not their main goal.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-22 04:14:55)

2008-04-22 05:23:04
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6943|Πάϊ

FEOS wrote:

Oh I'm sure someone on or east of GMT will post something while we're all asleep that will make you facepalm.
Yep, I wonder where them euros get their crazy ideas from...

btw I agree with your previous post. Let me just add that apart from being "pseudo-secular", the current government is also a US puppet, which is certainly not to their liking.

Last edited by oug (2008-04-22 05:33:51)

ƒ³
2008-04-22 06:11:31
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh I'm sure someone on or east of GMT will post something while we're all asleep that will make you facepalm.
Yep, I wonder where them euros get their crazy ideas from...

btw I agree with your previous post. Let me just add that apart from being "pseudo-secular", the current government is also a US puppet, which is certainly not to their liking.
Well, this is why I'm asking - it doesn't seem to me that the current gov't is a US puppet.  Whether it serves Iran more or the US more is debatable.
2008-04-22 06:41:53
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6943|Πάϊ
Well who put it there? That should answer the question I guess.
ƒ³
2008-04-22 06:52:53
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

Pug wrote:

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh I'm sure someone on or east of GMT will post something while we're all asleep that will make you facepalm.
Yep, I wonder where them euros get their crazy ideas from...

btw I agree with your previous post. Let me just add that apart from being "pseudo-secular", the current government is also a US puppet, which is certainly not to their liking.
Well, this is why I'm asking - it doesn't seem to me that the current gov't is a US puppet.  Whether it serves Iran more or the US more is debatable.
well, I would have hoped that any democratically elected iraqi government would need to serve the Iraqi people first, before considering any other interest. I am afraid though, with Iraq being the strategic foothold of the US in the ME, that's not going to happen any time soon.

The fact of the matter is, Iran is the predominant regional power, and if left alone, Iraq would probably align themselves closer with Iran.
But the US won't allow that. I wonder how pissed they were when the Iranian President visited Iraq, and was greeted friendly.

What this tells me is that the US don't really care about democracy, they want the right regime in power. And from that point of view, the US is not so much different from Iran. Both have strategic interests in the region, and both look to push them through. At the moment, the US has a distinct advantage, because the country is essentially still under occupation, but who knows what the next elections will bring.
2008-04-22 07:15:39
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France

B.Schuss wrote:

What this tells me is that the US don't really care about democracy, they want the right regime in power.
Well yes.  Don't you care who's in power?

What do you think would happen if Iran was given free reign of the region?

Also, as per my point - isn't the current gov't already chummy with Iran anyway?  So they are a 50% puppet and not 75%?
2008-04-22 07:37:07
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

oug wrote:

Well who put it there? That should answer the question I guess.
That would be the Iraqi people, by popular vote.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-22 07:39:56
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6943|Πάϊ

Pug wrote:

So they are a 50% puppet and not 75%?
At this point it would be a surprise to me if they did anything to displease the US.
ƒ³
2008-04-22 07:46:00
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France

oug wrote:

Pug wrote:

So they are a 50% puppet and not 75%?
At this point it would be a surprise to me if they did anything to displease the US.
I agree with that.  I think the whole thing is stupid now.

It seems whacked to me to believe increasing the amount of time the US spends in Iraq isn't going to result in better US-Iraqi relations. Sure, I'm sure the Iraqis want the US out, but what of the long term impact of seeing the US troops help the current gov't?

I do realize that infidels can never win, but just a thought.
2008-04-22 08:17:50
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7146|Eastern PA

Pug wrote:

Masques wrote:

In terms of ties to Iran, the current government has far deeper ties to Iran than Sadr.
See, that's kind of why I'm confused.  Is Iran supporting Sadr?  If so, given the situation, why?
In some form or another probably. I'm guessing it's as a hedge against the ruling coalition.

This is also probably why the US hasn't gone all out against Sadr. Since he's more independent than the ruling coalition and presumably can be brought into the government, the US might be able to use him as a hedge against Dawa in case the situation goes south. Whether or not this is feasible is another question entirely. I happen to believe it's not. The Iraqis and Iran will be there long after we've left the area and we've not shown ourselves to have much knowledge of the intricacies of Mid-Eastern politics.

It's interesting to see how much the US has moderated in it's language regarding Sadr since 2004. 

Overall I think the WOT has been more to Iran's benefit than ours. Two hostile regimes on either side of the country have been disposed of and US influence in the region is on the decline.

Besides, the US and Iran do talk, sabre-rattling aside. If you notice, hostile rhetoric against Iran in recent years has increased during election season...interesting to say the least. Nary a peep otherwise.
2008-04-22 08:59:42
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7146|Eastern PA
I'd like to add that the backdrop to all of this is the US-Israeli relationship. As grim as things may seem in the Middle East now an Iranian-Israeli war is not likely. Even after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran cooperated (most notably during the Iran-Iraq War).

Today there are some 200,000 Iranian Jews in Israel and the largest Jewish population in the ME outside Israel is in Iran. The current hostility is quite the historical aberration, only really increasing in the 1990s.
From 1980 to 1983, Iran purchased more than $500-million worth of Israeli weaponry and spare parts. In a reflection of Israeli attitudes, no less a person than former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin declared that Iran was Israel’s “natural ally.” Under American pressure, Israel grudgingly cut off the flow of weapons in 1984, but contacts between Israel and Iran continued throughout the 1980s.
2008-04-22 10:37:39
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
I just watched Charlie Wilson's war and it is about how he got funding to enable the mujahideen to shoot down russian helos (among other things) and put a stop to russia's siege of Afghanistan.  It ends with the victorious mujahideen retaking their afghanistan, but the US played no part in rebuilding the country or letting the afghans know we paid for their victory.

I'm mentioning it because now we're the agressor, in iraq, and Iran is supporting Iraqis in repelling the great superpower and we're bitching about it.  I might care about Iran helping them but I care more that we shouldn't be there and therefore support the fundamental right Iran has to help their new friend and neighbor.  It is absolutely NO different than us helping the Mujahideen/Taliban.  And we will likely see Sadr take power in Iraq as I've been saying for years..and his won't be a US friendly government, and yes, ALL the effort and deaths we suffered will be in vain...100% failure.  And yes, Saddam was better for Iraq.  This is probably why we're still fighting..to secure some oil, a huge embassy or two, some bases, etc....but we will lose.
2008-04-22 11:05:18
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6966|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

And yes, Saddam was better for Iraq.
I don't agree, but I would be interested in your opinion on whether the current government or a Sadr gov't is better than Saddam in power...from the Iranian prespective.
2008-04-22 11:35:03
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

And yes, Saddam was better for Iraq.
I don't agree, but I would be interested in your opinion on whether the current government or a Sadr gov't is better than Saddam in power...from the Iranian prespective.
Well, under Saddam, there was stability.  Cruelty, but stability.  And for measure, the current governments Iraq has had over the last 4 years they've had "sovereignty" has been just as cruel.

I couldn't say which would be better for Iraq between Maliki or Sadr.  Sadr seems like a little prick hell bent on warfare and hard core sharia law where as Maliki, once free from US influence (if possible) would probably be as bad, but more secular..and then get lynched by some more extreme shias.  I see them both taking heavy influence in their government from Iran and it wouldn't surprise me to see it annexed into Iran..more likely under Sadr than Maliki of course.  that alone makes Saddam's Iraq better...with Saddam gone, the balance that was in the region is now spoiled. I would imagine Syria coming in closer to Iran too...then soon, all that area will be a huge Persian enclave, and unstoppable..then they'd take over Saudi Arabia...bam, pow...corner the fuel market of the world..and real warfare would begin worldwide.

But I go ahead of myself.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard