Petraeus Testimony Should Twist Some Democratic Knickers

This only happened three weeks before the Basra battle. Go figure.

Iran joined militias in battle for Basra
Sarah Baxter and Marie Colvin Times on Line

IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.

Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.

Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.

Dr Daniel Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said: “There is no question that Petraeus will be tough on Iran. It is one thing to withdraw troops when there is purely sectarian fighting but it is another thing if it leaves the Iranians to move in.”

US defence chiefs are concerned that the troop surge has overstretched the military. Admiral Mike McMullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, warned that the army and marines were at risk of crossing an “invisible red line” if the burden on forces remained. He said deployments of 15 months had to be reduced to a year “as fast as possible”.

Petraeus is likely to announce that combat tours will be reduced from 15 months to 12 months.

The number of US troops in Iraq is set to fall from 160,000 to 140,000 by July, but Petraeus is expected to recommend an indefinite pause in further troop cuts.

Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric, has called for 1m people to march on Baghdad on Wednesday – the fifth anniversary of the fall of the capital – when Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, will be briefing Congress.

A senior Iraqi official who met Petraeus last week said, “It will be difficult to show that the situation is improving.” Another Iraqi source described the US general as “furious” that al-Maliki moved against the militias into Basra without consultation and had to rely on US forces to bail him out.

Abu Ahmed, a senior military commander with the Awakening, the Sunni tribal movement cooperating with US forces, said progress was largely the result of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army ceasefire.

“When the Mahdi Army decides to resume its activities, neither the American troops nor the Iraqi government will be able to stop it,” he said.

Additional reporting: Hala Jaber

Iran and Iraq Getting Together.

Nation building is best left to the nations that want to build themselves. Nations by definition are self identified. When a nation is dictated to by another it becomes something quite different again. Iraq is going to go its own way. That was the goal and Iraq is doing it.

The United States may have seen the apogee of its influence over Iraqi affairs, but unfortunately, it had not reached the height of its responsibility. Here is a hint of things to come. Does anyone doubt that there is a large portion of Iraq that is sympathetic and supportive towards Iran?

______________________

Iran leader's Iraq visit eclipses US, Arab ties
Sun Mar 2, 2008 Reuters

By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

A line of senior Iraqi political leaders welcomed Ahmadinejad when he arrived at Talabani's palatial home.

Bush has visited Iraq several times, his administration keen to reduce Iranian influence in the world's top oil-exporting region.

But that goal been made harder by a reluctance from Iraq's mainly Sunni Arab neighbours to send high-level diplomatic representation, or even to visit, despite U.S. encouragement.

"To Iraq's neighbours, Ahmadinejad's visit underlines that a non-Arab country has kept its embassies open since the fall of Saddam and its leader visits Iraq," Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi told Reuters.

Many Arab diplomats have stayed away after a suicide car bomber attacked the Jordanian embassy in August 2003, killing 17 people. Militants have killed several other diplomats, including an Egyptian who had been sent to head Cairo's mission in 2005.

"Not a single Arab country has an embassy in Iraq and not one of their leaders has visited, despite Iraq being an Arab country," Abbawi said.

Several Arab nations have missions in Iraq, but none has ambassadors permanently in the country.

Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

Bush's last visit in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours.

Washington says Tehran supplies weapons and training to Shi'ite militias in Iraq, a charge Tehran denies. Analysts say Iran seeks a stable Iraq but at the same time wants to make life difficult for occupying U.S. forces.

Ahmadinejad, whose government is at odds with Washington over Tehran's nuclear programme, has repeatedly called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, blaming them for violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis since the 2003 invasion.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they will play no role in Ahmadinejad's visit and that the U.S. military will not be involved in protecting him as he travels around unless it is asked for help.

When Ahmadinejad flew into Baghdad, his plane was controlled by Iraqi air controllers. But from his plane, Ahmadinejad would probably have seen the rows of American armoured vehicles and helicopters at a giant U.S. military base next to the airport.

(Editing by Paul Tait and Samia Nakhoul)

Europe Needs to Take Lead in Resolving Iranian Nuclear Issue

For most of American history, wise leaders rejected the concept of preemptive wars. In fact, during the Cold War, hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on a deterrence that insured the certain knowledge that no enemy could survive a nuclear attack on the United States of America or any of its allies. It was a strategy built on confidence and strength. It created a system of universal respect for American authority. It demonstrated strength and wisdom.

Recent events have not been kind to the world view of American strength and wisdom. Few look at the Iraq war and come to the conclusion that it strengthened America and was a good idea, well conceived, and well executed. The world is a more dangerous place with a less confident view of America.

Iran offers an opportunity to correct some of that damage. That correction will not be made by a rash preemptive military attack on Iran. It must come from a joint American and European effort. The irresponsible Russians and agnostic Chinese will not be helpful unless the EU takes bold and effective diplomatic and economic action against Iran. That action will send a signal to the Russians and Chinese that will not be missed by them.

American military strength and resolve can guarantee the certain end of history for Iran, if she develops and uses a nuclear weapon. That ultimate threat of action by America, with meaningful European economic sanctions is sufficient to deter Iran. It requires the balanced coordination of effort by wise and confident leaders.

09 November 2007

Iran's Nuclear Program Focus of European Leaders' U.S. Visits

French, German leaders join Bush in effort to end impasse with Iran

By David McKeeby
USINFO Staff Writer

Washington -– Growing international concern over Iran's controversial nuclear program is likely to dominate the agenda as German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrives at the Bush family ranch in Crawford, Texas, November 9, as it did for French President Nicolas Sarkozy's first official visit to Washington earlier in the week.

"It is unacceptable that Iran should have at any point a nuclear weapon," Sarkozy told reporters in a November 7 joint appearance with President Bush in Mount Vernon , Virginia. "But Iran is entitled to the energy of the future, which is civilian nuclear energy," he added, a point on which Bush agreed.

The Iranian government claims that its nuclear enrichment activities are geared toward developing civil nuclear power plants. But the regime's continued refusal to allow United Nations' nuclear inspectors full access to all facilities lead many, including the United States, to suspect that Tehran secretly is seeking nuclear weapons.

"I firmly believe we can solve this problem diplomatically and will continue to work to do so," Bush told Germany's RTL and N-TV November 6. "That's going to be an important topic with the chancellor."

France and Germany are active diplomatic participants in the "P5 +1," which also includes China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The group is working together to convince Tehran to suspend its nuclear program and return to the negotiating table.

The United Nations Security Council already has approved two rounds of economic sanctions against the Iranian government, and currently is considering a third, to add pressure for a diplomatic solution to the ongoing nuclear standoff. (See related article.)

"Iran deserves a better fate than isolation," Sarkozy said.

The United States announced new sanctions of its own October 25, blocking U.S. businesses and financial institutions from doing business with Iranian-owned banks and enterprises linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. (See related article.)

Bush has discussed Washington's latest move with Sarkozy and Merkel and urged them to consider imposing additional sanctions as well.

All the Iranians need to do, Bush said November 6 in the interview with the German broadcast outlets, "is suspend their enrichment program and then there will be a dialogue and a way forward." The choice is for the Iranian government to make, he added.

NEW LEADERS, NEW RELATIONS, ENDURING TIES

Merkel's Crawford visit, her sixth official trip to the United States, follows Bush's visit to the chancellor's home district in northern Germany in June while attending the G8 Summit of industrialized nations, hosted by the Merkel in Heiligendamm.

"It's not very formal," Bush said in the November 6 interview about talks at the ranch, "but it will be conducive to a conversation amongst friends."

Observers note that Merkel's visit, like Sarkozy's will be a marked change from Bush's meetings with their predecessors, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and France's Jacques Chirac, who were critics of military operations in Iraq.

"I never really felt that a disagreement over Iraq should yield a rupture in relations, I mean, I fully understand why people disagree with my decision," Bush told a reporter from France's TF 1 November 7.

"I value the relationship a lot," Bush later added, "And the United States and France have had a long history."

In democracies, Bush said November 6 at a White House state dinner to welcome Sarkozy, differences among individual leaders in policies and in personalities never should mask the enduring bond of shared values.

"French and American troops are helping to defend a young democracy in Afghanistan. Our two nations support the democratic government of Lebanon," Bush said. "We agree that reconciliation and democracy in Iraq are vital to the future of the Middle East. And our two nations condemn violations of human rights in Darfur [Sudan], in Burma and around the world."

"I wish to reconquer the heart of America," Sarkozy replied in his toast to Bush. "France and the United States are allies, have been allies, and will continue to be allies, and have been so forever."

Other topics on the agenda in talks with French and German leaders, say Bush administration officials, include NATO operations in Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, human rights abuses in Burma and Darfur, climate change, and the future status of Kosovo.

Transcripts and video links of Bush and Sarkozy's toasts and press conference, as well as Bush's interviews with TF 1 and RTL and N-TV, are available on the White House Web site.

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Split on Iran

The dilemma on Iran is that no matter what we do, it could end badly, and to do nothing may be worse. In either case let's not fool ourselves with wishful thinking.

Americans split on Iran action: poll
Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:09pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are concerned about Iran's nuclear program but split on whether the United States should take military action to shut it down if diplomatic efforts fail, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll released on Monday.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said the United States should use economic sanctions and diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program and 18 percent favored military action, the poll found.

However, 46 percent said military action should be taken either now or if diplomacy fails while 45 percent ruled out a military strike altogether, USA Today said.

Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse taking military steps, the poll said.

President George W. Bush has suggested a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three. Bush last week imposed sanctions on Iran's military and its financial sector, hoping to increase pressure on Tehran to stop uranium enrichment and curb what the U.S. government says are terrorist activities.

Iran has so far refused to heed United Nations demands to halt nuclear work that has both civilian and military uses.

Three of four Americans polled said they were concerned the United States "will not do enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons," USA Today said.

An equal number also said they were concerned that the United States will be too quick to use military force against Iran.

The telephone survey of 1,024 adults was taken Friday through Sunday. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Bush not seeing the big picture, again.

Habu said...
Gonzo needs to go.

One of Bushes failures is his blind eye , tin ear to threats to his administration. It's an inability to understand the difference between being loyal to an appointee/friend and his responsibility to move the country forward by using his political capital wisely.
Now what little political capital he has is being eroded by an AG who is more Muppett than AG.
I guess it's too late for him to learn that he doesn't have to ride over the cliff with every screw up in his administration.
Loyalty is a great thing but the President has an entire superpower country to lead and can ill afford to squander his power. Gonzo must go.

Thu Apr 19, 11:10:00 PM EDT

The Generals Decline the Invitation.

It seems as if some retired generals are following advice learned early in their military experience, "never volunteer for anything."

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A01

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.

Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.

In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."

In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman, would not discuss contacts with candidates but confirmed that officials are considering a newly empowered czar.

"The White House is looking at a number of options on how to structure the Iraq and Afghanistan office in light of Meghan O'Sullivan's departure and the completion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan strategic reviews," he said. He added that "No decisions have been made" and "a list of candidates has not been narrowed down."

The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."

Other variations are under consideration. House Democrats have put a provision in their version of a war spending bill that would designate a coordinator to oversee all assistance to Iraq. That person, who would report directly to the president, would require Senate confirmation; the White House said it opposes the proposal because Rice already has an aid coordinator.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

Another day in paradise and an exploding chador.

Iraq Female Suicide Bomber Kills at Least 15 in Diyala Province

The woman has been reported to be totally dressed and covered in black, the pious holy cloak called a chador, because she was a very devout, modest Islamic woman, doing the bidding of allah the most merciful. She will always be warmly remembered for her piety in the service of the religion of peace. There was some collateral damage on her stairway to heaven.

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- A female suicide bomber killed at least 15 people when she blew herself up in a crowd of police recruits in the eastern Iraqi province of Diyala.

The bomber targeted the recruits at a police station in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Baghdad, state television said. About 20 people were injured in the attack, the Associated Press reported.

A civil conflict largely between rival Shiite and Sunni Muslim groups rages in Iraq four years after the March 2003 U.S.- led ousting of Saddam Hussein.

Four U.S. soldiers died and another was hurt yesterday, the military said today in e-mailed statements.

Three of the soldiers were killed and one was wounded by two roadside bombs while on patrol in the southeast of Baghdad. The fourth soldier died in action in the western province of al- Anbar. Two U.S. helicopters came under attack from small-arms fire today over central Baghdad and both safely returned to base, the military said.

Since February, as many as 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers have been conducting a crackdown with Iraqi units in Baghdad and al-Anbar. The third of five U.S. brigades to be deployed as part of Operation Fardh al-Qanoon, Arabic for ``imposing law,'' arrived in the capital April 8, the military said.

``While there have been substantial accomplishments in Iraq since 2003, the past four years have also been disappointing, frustrating and increasingly dangerous in many parts of Iraq,'' a U.S. military spokesman, Rear Admiral Mark Fox, said at a news conference televised from Iraq yesterday.

Any chance of stopping the nonsense about woman in combat?

The generation, raised on the mythical celluloid pretend world of Star Trek, controls the military and political establishment in most of the West. Inclusion and diversity was all part of "beaming up Scotty."

Propaganda, intense media indoctrination and education are all forms of mind melding. The “coming together” one of the byproducts of the outcome based, concluded that woman needed to be everywhere from clubs, locker rooms and most unfortunately combat units and warships.

All that provides some interesting distractions and distortions of some hard cold facts. The presence of woman in these roles distorts politics, propaganda, tactics and the survival and well being of the unit personnel. The recent events in Iraq are instructive. This from a Telegraph article this morning:

Two women were among four soldiers killed in Basra yesterday in an unprecedented day for the Army in Iraq.

The women, a nurse and a member of the Intelligence Corps, were in a party of four patrolling the southern Iraq city in the early hours.

The Warrior armoured vehicle in which they were travelling was torn apart by a "colossal" bomb.

A fifth soldier was "very seriously injured" and is being treated in the military hospital in Basra.

Iraqis were pictured waving one of the soldiers' battered helmets while children held aloft fragments of the shattered vehicle collected as trophies.

The nurse, from Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, was the patrol's medic. The men were from the 2Bn The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. A civilian interpreter was also killed. The patrol was returning to its base in Basra air station after providing protection for a "strike operation" that had seen British forces arrest a man said to be a senior member of the insurgency.

The deaths come at the end of one of the deadliest weeks for the Army since the invasion of Iraq and follow the shooting dead of two soldiers by a sniper earlier this week.


But it is the death of the women that will reinforce the danger faced by troops in southern Iraq.

Never before have two women died in the same incident on the front line.

Their deaths also come at a time of heightened debate about the wisdom of putting female personnel into dangerous positions.

Only yesterday Faye Turney, a mother of a three-year-old girl, returned to Britain after she and 14 other Royal Navy personnel taken prisoner by the Iranians were released.

Col Bob Stewart, who was the first British commander of UN forces in Bosnia, yesterday said that he was against women being close to combat as their deaths or injuries had a debilitating effect on male soldiers. "It's disquieting for a lot of people in this country when women are put into the front line because when they are wounded or killed, the men around them find it very difficult to operate," he said.

Col Stewart, who commanded the Cheshire Regiment, said he had twice been present when women soldiers died.

"One was in my arms after a bomb in Northern Ireland and I was inconsolable afterwards. I could not operate.

"If you put women in the front line because they are equal then you have to expect that there will be operational casualties."

more here at The Telegraph, where 2164th is now banned, and his previous comments expunged. Oh dear, was I bad again?

Another view on why Iran is short of cash for their nuclear fuel.

Several posts ago, we ran this story: Iranians running short of cash I have been wondering why the Iranians have run short of cash for such an important project. After all $25 million per month is not much cash for Iran. Guess what? The Russians and Iranians have been playing a little charade for us. The Iranians are now using this coincidence in an interrupted supply chain to justify their own manufacture of nuclear fuel.

Russian delay shows there are no guarantees for nuclear fuel delivery: Larijani

Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN – The fact that Russia has delayed delivering nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant shows that there is no guarantee for receiving nuclear fuel from other countries, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said here on Tuesday.

The European Union has been claiming that it is ready to guarantee the selling of nuclear fuel to Iran if Tehran freezes its uranium enrichment program.

Russia, which is building Iran’s first nuclear power plant, has delayed delivering nuclear fuel for the station, claiming that Moscow has faced problems in receiving payment from the Islamic Republic.

“It is regrettable. The great Russian government should honor its pledges on time,” Larijani told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting with Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.

The five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, France, Britain, China, and Russia -- plus Germany are considering imposing new sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment activities.

The Security Council imposed a package of limited sanctions on Iran in December, barring the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology or expertise. It threatened further steps if Iran ignored the February 21 deadline to suspend enrichment.

Larijani said that if the 5+1 group members take hard-line actions against Iran, they will receive a firm response.

Taking tough measures will only make the Iranians more determined on insisting on their nuclear stance, he added.

“Such measures will make Iranians more unified,” he noted.

Larijani went on to say that Iran participated in the Baghdad conference on Saturday to help resolve the Iraqi security problems through regional cooperation.

“Iraq’s security and development is Iran’s security and development,” he added.

The Baghdad security conference brought together the five permanent members of the Security Council and Iraq’s neighbors to find a way to end the daily bloodshed in Iraq.

Dialogue with Iran.

There is ample precedent for American presidents being outlasted by their arch nemeses. Castro wins the prize for outlasting Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and another Bush. That is a record that may stand for all time. Like a vintage Timex, Castro is still ticking. Saddam did not make the cut, but North Korea seems to have dodged the bullet. What of Iran?

Will the second leg of the triangular axis of evil be broken or will GWB go off to the ranch?

Will the Iranians get talkative and engage in meaningful negotiations?

This Kurdish professor speculates:


Who will go first: George Bush or the Islamic Regime of Iran?
2/17/2007 KurdishMedia.com - By Dr Hussein Tahiri

Since George W. Bush branded the Islamic Regime of Iran as part of the “axis of evil” there have been growing speculations that the US administration would attempt to change the Iranian regime, even if by force.

When Saddam Hussein was overthrown it was expected that Iran would be the next in line. However, events in Iraq have not turned out how the US has hoped. Chaos and terrorism that have dominated Iraq handicapped the US efforts to establish a democratic and pluralistic Iraq that would be a role model for the rest of the Middle East.

Iran and Syria who saw success in Iraq as their demise have tried their best to make sure the US is not going to succeed and Iraq would not stabilise. Turkey fearing a legal Kurdish federal state developing and Kirkuk might join Kurdistan, added to the crises by intervening in Kirkuk and inciting the Turkmens. Other regional Arab states, while not wanting the disintegration of Iraq, have been quietly happy about the crises. A democratic and prosperous Iraq would mean their eventual demise. In fact, no regional power or country has an interest in having a stable and democratic Iraq. What the US is facing is not just terrorism but resistance to the US plans in the region.

In this regional power struggle the Islamic Republic of Iran has so far come out victorious. It has prevented the stabilisation of Iraq, putting the US in a very difficult position. It has had a great influence in Lebanon through Hizbullah. It has been able to appease the Arab population by championing the Palestinian cause and threatening to destroy Israel. It has created division between the US and its European allies and resistance to the US’s harsh measures against Iran in the UN Security Council over Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran has successfully challenged the US at every front. In the face of the US, Iran is becoming a regional superpower. Yet, the US is unable to counter Iranian influence.

The US administration has tried to create a regional alliance of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states to counter Iranian domination. However, these countries are extremely careful to make a fine balance between maintaining US support and appeasing their own populations. They are very concerned about Iran’s influence in the region and its nuclear program but, at the same time, they are acutely aware of ani-American sentiments within Arabic and Islamic world and do not want to be seen to be supporting the US against Islamic Iran. Also, as previously mentioned, they are worried that a democratic and stable Iraq would threaten their regimes in future. Thus, while trying to show sympathy with the US concerns they have been engaging with Iran. Just recently Saudi Arabia and Iran held a discussion to find a solution to the Lebanon crisis.

It does not seem that the US has many options in dealing with Iran. The UN Security Council, particularly China and Russia, have been opposing economic sanctions against Iran. Given the current involvement of US military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the vast territory that Iran covers, the US is not in a position to launch a ground attack against Iran to change the regime. Military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and other strategic military cites could inflict some damage but it could give Iran the ammunition and justification to attack US interests in the region and worldwide (including targeting the US military in Iraq and the Gulf) using its military forces and its large network of terrorist groups.

Dialogue with Iran does not seem to work either. The western European countries have been engaging in “critical dialogue” with Iran for over 27 years. In the past few years they have been in intense negotiation with Iran over its nuclear program. However, this has not come to any fruition as the Islamic regime has continued to follow its own agenda with no regard for international laws and conventions. A dialogue would only work when Iran is allowed to have its own way and this would not be acceptable to the US.

George W. Bush is in a very difficult position. Would he drag out the crisis until handing it over to the next US president, or will he attack Iran before his presidency comes to an end? Damned if he does; damned if he does not. With the current developments, it seems that George Bush will go before the Islamic regime in Iran does.

Dr. Hussein Tahiri, a regular KurdishMedia.com contributor, is a Middle East commentator and an Honorary Research Associate with the School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University.