![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 16/8/14 00:46 (UTC)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 gunair 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.
(no subject)
Date: 17/8/14 11:14 (UTC)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. :(
(no subject)
Date: 21/8/14 08:27 (UTC)How much nation building have we done well? All the kings horses and all the kings men....