BF2S Forums Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to meet with Iran, Syrian leaders.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Bout time.  Now something will get done in Iraq.  Iran and Syria will have that country stabilized in mere months.  Good for them.  Now hopefully some humility will be used on our part (not cowardice) and we'll pull out before any more unneeded US Military lives are taken.

I guess I am torn. You have to also understand that those two countries also play a big part in destabilizing Iraq as well. I just have a tough time accepting things at face value with regards to the Middle-East. Hopefully it will be a step towards stability but I admittedly am unknowledable on how these other nations can help curb Secretarian violence. I am eagerly waiting for someone to explain this to me in detail (truthfully).

I found it hard to believe he hadn't met the heads of state of these two neighbouring countries until now. That would be one of the first things a new government should do, for trade reasons alone.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-20 11:21:25)

yes, then they can start gassing kurds again, and get those rape rooms kicking, imagine the plight of all those unemployed rapists!
they may even bring in some longstanding iranian traditions like hanging mentally retarded teenage girls for not being able to say no to a man as she cries for mercy!!
Hooray Iran!

as erkut points out, it's the same crap they pulled with getting the hezzies to attack israel a few months ago, then iran swoops in and plays the benevolent hero.

Kmarion wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Bout time.  Now something will get done in Iraq.  Iran and Syria will have that country stabilized in mere months.  Good for them.  Now hopefully some humility will be used on our part (not cowardice) and we'll pull out before any more unneeded US Military lives are taken.

I guess I am torn. You have to also understand that those two countries also play a big part in destabilizing Iraq as well. I just have a tough time accepting things at face value with regards to the Middle-East. Hopefully it will be a step towards stability but I admittedly am unknowledable on how these other nations can help curb Secretarian violence. I am eagerly waiting for someone to explain this to me in detail (truthfully).

Iran in particular is key in all of this (not that they have been behind the violence) as it has influence over several of the Shia political parties (particularly DAWA and SCIRI which were in exile in Iran during Saddam's rule). DAWA and SCIRI essentially run Iraq along with the Kurdish bloc.

SCIRI = Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the organization that led the revolution in Iran was the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran) SCIRI is an offshoot of DAWA
DAWA = Islamic Call Party (Hizb al-Da'wa al-Islamiyya)

What I most have problems with is the overt religiosity of both parties (obvious enough due to the names) and that they were brought to power largely through US machinations. This effectively negates all the hostile rhetoric of the US against Iran, particularly relating to the Islamic nature of the regime.

At this point Iran could probably help neutralize Sadr and at least try to convince the Shia factions in government to reign in the militias ethnically cleansing the Sunni populations in major urban centers.

Syria is more complicated. President Assad is Alawite (a Shia sect heavily influenced by Christianity and Greek philosophy) as is most of the military and intelligence leadership. Most of the civilian government elite and business community are Sunni (with a smattering of Christians). So the leadership of Syria might have a degree of influence over the Shia parties in Iraq (assuming they don't consider the Syrian leadership heretics and apostates) but not nearly as much as that of Iran.

What Syria might be able to do is effectively police their eastern border with Iraq's Sunni areas (this will probably have to be done with US coordination as it is vast and harsh terrain). Syria has cooperated with the US previously during the Gulf War and as late as 2002 during the WoT (as did Iran during theUS invasion of Afghanistan).

The Americans will probably have to be willing to guarantee that it will not attack either state in exchange for cooperation. I don't know yet if the US leadership is ready for such a step, but I do know that Iran especially can make life extremely hard for the US in Iraq with little effort and almost no evidence.

There is precedent for cooperation but unless and until the US moderates its tone opportunities will be sparse. Neither Iran or Syria has much use for a destabilized state on their border but as long as the current state of affairs exists between the three countries they have every incentive to maintain the present situation with the US unable to leave and thus not a threat to either state.

CameronPoe wrote:

I think the lesson to be learned is that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his backroom team, to use an old adage, should not be 'misunderestimated'.

He's nothing..powerless, and his country doesn't even believe he'll accomplish the lies he fed them. It's the supreme leader of Iran that runs the show.  If Iran wanted to work with Iraq and Syria, it wasn't Ahmedinejad's idea..it was Khumeneis idea.