Iran and the US should cooperate in Iraq

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

The crisis in Iraq caused by the Islamic State is now effectively drawing Iran and the US together, two sworn enemies. And this is a chance for them to work together and bring their relations into a more constructive territory. Otherwise Iraq will fall apart.

Right now, Iraq is standing in front of two crises. The political crisis around the scramble for the prime minister's chair, plus the existential crisis coming from the advance of the Islamic State (former ISIS, former ISIL). The two crises are interconnected, and both the US and Iran have their share of responsibility for having caused them. America is responsible, because the US invasion and the political chaos that followed, has undermined all political structures in Iraq. The result was a severe deterioration of security and stability. At this point, almost no one contests the fact that the war in Iraq was a dire mistake (not to mention that it was based on a lie).

But constantly looking back to the past and accusing each other is hardly a constructive approach to seeking an efficient solution for the future. The ayatollahs in Iran also share responsibility, because they used the political vacuum after Saddam's fall, to their advantage. Prime minister Al Maliki maintained friendly relations with Tehran. During his rule, he in fact followed the example of the ayatollahs, centralising all power in the hands of the Shia and marginalising the Sunni. That was a mistake with disastrous consequences. Many young Sunni were radicalised because of it. The lacking security structures in the country and the flood of US weapons among the populace have done the rest. The advance of the terrorist militias of Islamic State is a direct result of these policies.

It all began in 2003 with the so called Coalition of the Willing. But now the situation could be put under control only through forming a Coalition of the Unwilling. Cooperation between America and Iran will definitely not be a voluntary decision. But neither of the two can single-handedly tackle the problem with the Islamic State. The US does have the necessary military power, and Iran has the necessary political influence. In other words, each side has to solve that part of the crisis that it had caused. The US should stabilise security in Northern Iraq, and Iran should use its political influence to pacify the region by making concessions to the Sunni.

Without the shared efforts of Iran and the US, Iraq's Balkanisation is imminent. Such a development would have fatal consequences and could plunge the entire region, including Iran itself, into long years of chaos. And the international community will blame America for it. So, cooperation between the two sworn enemies is the only viable option.

Comments

[namey.livejournal.com]

The enemy of my enemy is... ISIS, basically. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/17/the_middle_east_friendship_chart.html)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So many smileys!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

In order to understand the US actions in Iraq, it's important to keep in mind what they're pursuing there. And that's, first and foremost, their national interests*. Everything else, including the question whether Iraq will fall apart or not, is of secondary importance from a US point of view.

* 1) protecting their national security and that of their allies, and 2) maintaining their economic domination of the region

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

This is actually pretty cool. Sad and scary, but cool.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

We could offer Iran tactical nukes if the shit hits the fan.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If it came to that I'd rather we did it ourselves. Own each bullet bomb.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Boy is that a relevant phrase given we're bombing our own weapons our of ISIL hands. Almost like that was the plan.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You assume that there is/was a plan.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Its just that the Iraqi military gave them their weapons without using them.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ok, that made me chuckle.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That's probably because you live thousands of miles away from there.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but I'm also one of those evil bastards who was never particularly impressed with Al-Maliki and thought it was a bad idea to pull out in the first place.

Honestly I'm kind of torn.

I want to say "I told you so" and that this is what happens when the powerful abdicate their responsibilities.

I'm pissed off that so much blood and treasure was essentially thrown away on a whim so that a bunch of latte-sipping SJWs could pat themselves on the back for being more enlightened than the average Redneck.

On the other hand, Pax Americana is dead, so why should we give a shit if the barbarians want to kill each other? Build nukes, exploit Bakken, and leave the middle east to it's own devices.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't be fooled. They're still more enlightened than the average Redneck. On the other hand, that doesn't say much. Because apparently, virtually anything is more enlightened than the average Redneck.

Pax Americana may be on its death bed, but that's exactly where empires tend to get dangerously erratic.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

true that.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Spilling your shit all over the place and then throwing your hands in the air and leaving. Hmmm, sounds just about right as per the description of the American way. ;-)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

When I left in 2008 southern Iraq was actually looking like it would a decent place to live again (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/19/what-kind-of-iraq-did-obama-inherit/). In 2010 (when the pull out began in earnest) Iraq was stable and peaceful, so much so that Obama and Biden were bragging about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc).

In short, we "cleaned up our shit".

Blame for the current mess lies with the current leadership, and to a lesser extent with the state department for failing to nip this ISIL buisiness in the bud.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Are you serious?

When would you have put boots on the ground in Syria?

Recall when people warned invading Iraq would destabilize the region? Because that is what happened.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

When would you have put boots on the ground in Syria?

Is you political memory really that short? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/world/meast/syria-unrest/) Never make a threat that you are not immediately prepared to follow through on.

Recall when people warned invading Iraq would destabilize the region? Because that is what happened.

Yes I remember, I also remember how many senators voted in favor of the invasion and a whole lot of "hawks" including Bush saying that pulling out early would be worse than never going in in the first place.

Turns out they were right.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Never make a threat that you are not immediately prepared to follow through on.

I actually agree with that, but you would have invaded Syria in 2012? And fought with/against who? Al-Nusrah? Assad? Al-Qiada? ISIL? All of em?

How can you still straight faced call Iraq a victory after admitting in its wake, we are subsequently drawn into engaging in Syria?


I also remember how many senators voted in favor of the invasion

The least partisan thing about me is my antiwar leanings. Ever democrat who voted for the war was wrong. Dennis Kucinich was who got it right.

and a whole lot of "hawks" including Bush saying that pulling out early would be worse than never going in in the first place.

A chaos was the result of our invasion but never mind, the oil is on the petro dollar. When ISIL threatened that, we bombed again. Oh yeah, and to save the Yazidis.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with that, but you would have invaded Syria in 2012? And fought with/against who? Al-Nusrah? Assad? Al-Qiada? ISIL? All of em?

Like I have said before. Go in, build a McDonalds and a school for girls in every city. Anyone who tries to stop you is the enemy. If the US is going to be an "Imperial Power" let's fucking act like it, we have the maxim gun air support and they have not (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hilaire_Belloc).

How can you still straight faced call Iraq a victory after admitting in its wake, we are subsequently drawn into engaging in Syria?

'cause until recently Syria and Iraq were two seperate kettles of fish.

The least partisan thing about me is my antiwar leanings. Ever democrat who voted for the war was wrong. Dennis Kucinich was who got it right.

*thumbs up* credit where credit is due.

A chaos was the result of our invasion but never mind, the oil is on the petro dollar. When ISIL threatened that, we bombed again. Oh yeah, and to save the Yazidis.


I disagree but whatever.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with you, for what it's worth.

People thought the Iraq occupation went on too long, because they were comparing it to length of declared wars. But building a stable political culture takes more than a few years.

If the Ottomans were still there, it would be a different matter. But they aren't, and the USA insists on playing hegemon in the region, even though we're not well-placed geographically for it.

So, if we're going to be propping up something in Iraq anyway, let's build up a thing we can believe in. Build schools, build hospitals, go native like the British East India Company, and lock up any religious radicals who disagree.

But of course, the USA is not a corporation that is set up to do that. :(

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

building a stable political culture takes more than a few years.

How much nation building have we done well? All the kings horses and all the kings men....

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> Never make a threat that you are not immediately prepared to follow through on.

That's not how diplomacy has worked throughout the last few millenia. ;-)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Diplomacy throughout the last few millenia has shown that "soft power" without the hard power to back it up isn't worth a whole lot.

Bluffing is for the foolish and the desperate.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Bluffing has worked miracles for a number of empires which had no longer possessed the military power they used to have before the moment of bluffing. The art is to convince the opposing side that you still have that power, even when you do not.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The art is to convince the opposing side that you still have that power,

Which would seem to reinforce my thesis that soft power aint worth crap without the threat of hard power to back it up.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

That's not what you said. You argued that you have to be prepared to back up your threat and make it into action. I argued you don't necessarily have to be able to make it into action. And now you're basically agreeing with me "the THREAT of hard power" - not the REAL existing hard power. What matters is if your opponent believes that such a capability exists on your side, not if it does exist. There's a difference between threat and fact. Please try to follow the train of thought here if that isn't too much of an inconvenience for you.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's not what you said. You argued that you have to be prepared to back up your threat and make it into action. I argued you don't necessarily have to be able to make it into action. And now you're basically agreeing with me "the THREAT of hard power" - not the REAL existing hard power. What matters is if your opponent believes that such a capability exists on your side,

This is this is part of the reason why you must be prepared to immediately take action. Once your ability or willingness to follow through on a threat is in doubt any future bluffs you make will be called, even the ones where you aren't bluffing.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So you agree that it's all a matter of perception rather than actual capability?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The short-sightedness of imagining that a few years of relative quiet due to a massive military presence constitutes a long-term "cleaning up our shit" is yet another typical American trait. You guys really can't see any further than your nose / your cup of popcorn / next Saturday (whichever happens to be the closest), can you?

News-flash: imposing ceasefire through military presence does NOT make a region peaceful. Sorry to use such a sharp language, but that logic borders on the infantile, and it would've been hilarious if it didn't affect the life of millions of people.

I'm getting more convinced by the day that we really don't need such a world cop. I say bring the Chinese. At least they know what long-term thinking is.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I'm also one of those evil bastards who was never particularly impressed thought it was a bad idea to pull out in the first place. Sadly my opinion got over-ruled. It is phenomenally hypocritical of those who so desperately wanted us out to turn around and blame guys like me for the current debacle.

I'm getting more convinced by the day that we really don't need such a world cop.

That's a fair position, but don't go complaining about our government's future lack of involvement in _____.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

It was a bad idea to GO IN, in the first place. What was your opinion about that, or were you too preoccupied shooting at things at the time?

May I only complain when your government refuses to sort stuff out which it has caused in the first place? Or at least HELP others clean your mess? Actually, I don't think I need your permission at all.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well no shit, but fact of the matter is that Al-Maliki (and Obama) inherited an Iraq that was peaceful and reasonably stable (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/19/what-kind-of-iraq-did-obama-inherit/) and he blew it. While he may have had good reasons to worry about a Sunni coup, his response was to isolate and alienate the very people who were keeping the war in Syria from spilling across the border.

You us wanted out? fine we're out.

Furthermore why aren't you pointing any fingers at Russia or the EU for backing a psycho like Assad and allowing the Syrian Civil War to get so out of hand?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You're still not getting it. Iraq not having a war =/= Iraq being peaceful. The old grudges were still there. The infrastructure was non-existent. That was the calm before another storm. And no military presence, even if you had stayed there indefinitely with a million troops, would have removed those conditions for a new conflict.

While you won't see me defending Putin for anything (and nice tu quoque red herring, btw), why am I not seeing you pointing fingers at anybody for essentially backing up jihadists in Syria, having created the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and turning a blind eye to the tyrannical regimes in Saudi Arabia and now Egypt? If we're to play this tit for tat game, it could really go on indefinitely, but what's the purpose of it, other than distraction?


The bottom line is this, and it's fairly simple. All US actions and all statements by people like yourself are reinforcing the notion that the US only cares about their short-term interests and nothing beyond that, all consequences of their inadequate actions or inactions be damned. And that's ultimately to the detriment of the entire world.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Anyone who looked at how Maliki was handling things in 2008 should have predicted what would have happened if his tinpot toy soldiers ran into a force capable of fighting. People did say that at the time. What nobody predicted was that Syria would become ground zero of a protracted civil war where Assad's regime started winning and that the West would repeat the Hekmanyatar-Taliban mistake.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Easy to say now in hindsight. You certainly didn't predict it at the time ;)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There was a good deal of critique over invading Iraq suggesting it would spread into Syria, Iran and cause regional chaos in 2003.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

There sure was, but not from our particular friend here :)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"Reasonably stable" as in less car bombings and sectarian killings than usual. It was a sectarian civil war on simmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_Iraq) that turned into a proxy war on boil. And it was spilling over into Syria too.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that I even have to divulge this to you, someone who has actually been in place there, but making a place "look like" it would [be] a decent place to live again, is not the same as guaranteeing a lasting peace in an otherwise very volatile region. The real solution is much more complicated, and requires much more time and actions that have not been undertaken - and cannot be done by an outside factor, even if it tried very hard. The solutions usually come from within.

Military action has seldom been the best solution in complex situations like these, they only tend to aggravate things more, bring old grudges to the surface where they didn't appear to exist, or dig new holes where they indeed never existed - and the last few years have shown this yet again. By the way, playing the blame game is not a solution, either. Sadly, from what I'm seeing, this seems to be the main occupation at your side of the conveniently large ocean, lately.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that I even have to divulge this to you, someone who has actually been in place there, but making a place "look like" it would [be] a decent place to live again, is not the same as guaranteeing a lasting peace in an otherwise very volatile region.

Of course it isn't. But then I wasn't the one advocating that we pull out. I said at the beginning that if we were to go in we need to go All In, and I disagreed with the decision to pull out early, but sadly it was never my call to make. The people who were demanding our withdrawal got exactly what they wanted but now that it's all gone sideways they want us to go back in and clean up the mess? Fuck that,

I gave my pound of flesh and watched it get thrown away.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Were you expecting otherwise, regarding the last part? Have you not been paying enough attention to the way politicians use soldiers like cannon fodder, and then toss them on the street like useless tools?

Again, war is the worst solution. Going "all in" and acting like a trigger-happy cowboy is immature, irresponsible and plain dangerous. It may appear to calm things down for a while, but in the long term, it makes things worse. I don't know if you feel proud, accomplished, or any other self-fulfilling feeling for having been part of all that, or perhaps just idealistically patriotic, but the fact that you still seem surprised from the end result is, in itself, surprising.

I know it is painful to realise that you have been used as a tool, and to see once more the confirmation that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have no doubt that your intentions were pure when you enlisted. And believe me, I deeply sympathise with the feeling of betrayal that you and many of your comrades must be feeling right now.

As for the Iraqi situation, the whole thing was done in an inadequate way right from the onset, despite the temporary good signs that you are talking about. It is because the whole premise was flawed. You do not fix a society through war, especially when there are so many factors involved, many of them obviously incomprehensible for the one who is intervening - and especially when there are other options available. I am aware that Americans tend to resort to the violent option as the first and only option more often than not, especially when their economic interests are directly at stake, but maybe you should have asked yourself first - what were you doing there, and on whose behalf? The Iraqi people? The American people? Or for something else? Something tells me that deep down, you have already realised what the answer to this question really is. Whether you want to acknowledge it and if not, why not, is another story that this is neither the place nor is it my business to discuss.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Were you expecting otherwise

Not really, I made my peace with being disposable a long time ago, I may have been stupid and idealistic the first time out but I reenlisted with eyes wide open. The problem is not getting sold out, it is getting sold out for so little. The betrayal was in expecting there to be an end goal and caring more about the outcome than our leaders apparently do.

If this war was about oil, why haven't we secured the oil fields?

If this war was about terrorism, why are we sitting on our thumbs? Can you imagine Cameron or Obama declaring "Haynes alive! or Mosa dead! (http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/perdicaris.html)" and meaning it? I know I can't.

Please tell me how the current situation serves our national interests. Is there any end being served beyond blood and chaos?

As I said before, there is a dark shitty part of me that wonders if the certain people in the government and the media WANT Iraq to fall to ISIS. If it falls their predictions of doom will be vindicated and they'll be able to pat each other on the back for being so much smarter and morally enlightened than the average voter. A stable Iraq, following a South Korean or post war German model would afford no such opportunity.

After all, why would anyone in the DNC give a shit about dead brown people in a far away place or about a bunch of ignorant rednecks and house-niggers who were probably gonna vote republican anyway? There are elections to be won.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I disagreed with the decision to pull out early

We should have just made it a state. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc. They all should be forced to live in Mosul, Baghdad and Basra.

I gave my pound of flesh and watched it get thrown away.

Nice that you're around to tell the tale and there were no more pounds given, notably the other hundred or two.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How did the current Administration start the Syrian Civil War?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Insofar as the Dawa Party is an Iranian proxy, Iran and the USA have been collaborating the whole time to begin with. So it's high time to formalize this instead of pretending that it's possible to pound the kapok out of the rivals of an Iranian satellite movement and claim hostility to the 'Axis of Evil' with a straight face.