Iran brokers behind-the-scenes deal for pro-Tehran government in Iraq

[CHIMO]

Source: guardian.co.uk

Iran has brokered a critical deal with its regional neighbours that could see a pro-Tehran government installed in Iraq, a move that would shift the fragile country sharply away from a sphere of western influence.

The Guardian can reveal that the Islamic republic was instrumental in forming an alliance between Nouri al-Maliki, who is vying for a second term as Iraq's prime minister, and the powerful Sadrist leader, Moqtada al-Sadr.

The deal – which involved Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the highest authorities in Shia Islam – positions Maliki as a frontrunner to return as leader despite a seven-month stalemate between Iraq's feuding political blocs.

It also positions Iran as a potent buffer to US interests at a time when America is looking to change its relationship with Iraq from military overlords to civilian partners.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/iraq-government-iran-tehran-deal

[Mudoria]

1. Sounds like a civil war if that happens..

the Sunni's and Kurds aren't going to take this lightly.

[tabatha]

2. So much for the crap (about Iran/Iraq) that Condi spewed today.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Hurray the war is over! Now that we've lost, can we finally go home?

Oh I'm not "whining" Mr. President, it was totally worth all those lives and all that money and our cratered economy to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Totally. We sure got those weapons of mass destruction too, didn't we? So, OK, a few lies may have been told to Congress, The United Nations, and the American people to "get the party started", and OK so we engaged in wholesale torture along the way, and a few Iraqi towns had to be leveled and the whole country is a pockmarked ethnically cleansed humanitarian nightmare - so what? Our boys fought valiantly! And who would repudiate that? So long as our boys fight for glory, who would be so churlish as to question the morality of what they were fighting for? Not you! Certainly not you. Our boys fought brilliantly to the end and you backed them the whole way. Unfortunately, final victory was marred by the unwarranted interference of Iraqi voters and leaders in the affairs of their own country. We were so close! Now then, you may remember some of us in this party warning about accidentally creating an "Islamic Republic in league with Iran", back when the whole thing was starting. You even called it a dumb war yourself, once. Water under the bridge! Here's the thing though: We've been outmaneuvered by Iran the whole time, and this is the denouement. So now that our long term aims have been dashed and our defeat is obvious, can we finally bring our glorious military back home - or do they have to stay in place so we can impotently threaten Iran? Are you going to keep them there to try to keep Iraq -supposedly a sovereign nation- from "tilting too far towards Tehran"?

[bemildred]

4. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[benld74]

5. 700 billion dollar Amercian Embassy built by Bushco and Friends?

Gee I wonder how they will utilize this monstrosity?

[madrchsod]

6. wow... the guardian is reporting

what the iraqi bloggers were posting at least one year ago. i guess it`s not news unless the west says it is...

[Diclotican]

7. CHIMO

CHIMO

All this is not new, at least not for everyone with half a brain, and some knowlegde about the part of the world we are now talking about. From the get go, when US was starting the marsh to war, it was warned, again and again, and again about the venture, and it was even sugested that if US was to go to war, it could end up in a regime far less friendly to US interest in the region, and far more friendly to say, country like Iran, who is the "home" of most Shia muslims in the world today (irony of all irony, Iran started out as a Sunni dominated country in ca 600AD) And it was warned many times that Iran would not be sitting silent when US was playing out their little "game" in Iraq either.. After all US had no clue what they was doing in Iraq, and many muslim country's, like Tyrkey, Saudi-Arabia, Syria and Iran was all playing "their game" in Iraq when US with a smart move, destroyed all chance of working togheter with the different groups in Iraq. And maybe do as they did in Germany after world war two. Keep the public servants, but de-nazify them, so it would not start all over again when Germany was rebuild from scratch.. Germany was/is a sucesshistory becouse of it. And becouse germans learned that war was not worth it..

In Iraq, they could, and should have been doing the same way, keept the sivil servants, but also de-bathfiszhed the country, city by city, county by county to the worst of the worst was arrested, and given a FAIR TRIAL by a court. Not that cangooro cort who was set up, and who hang a few of them, but where thousands of butchers and others was given a free pas... Mostly becouse US neeeded them to do the same job, as they had been doing under Saddam Hussain, but now for the US.

And now, Iran and Iraq is soooooo friendly with eatch other, that Iran in fact can influence who the next government are in Iraq.. And posible also deside what wil happend to Iraq in the future, that be an independed state, or in a form of union with Iran. Specailly in the south of the country, who largerly are shia muslims, and where friendship, and kindship is close on both side of the border..

The only thing that is keeping Iraq togheter as a nation for the moment - is the pressence of 50.000+ US soldiers in the country. And some big bases and the most expensive Ambassady building anywhere in the world. The biggest Ambassady in the world - after what was the biggest ambassdy in South Vietham until 1975 (anyone rembember what happend then?) It is a HUGE komplex, who are more or less self sufident from the rest of the world. Build like a fortress.. But I doubt it wil survive if iraqis, are irritate enough, and wanted both the 50.000 soldiers out, and the ambassady closed off, and the americans trown out of the country... The only thing that is keeping US in Iraq today, is the old proverb divide et impera where US is splitting, and therefore can rule Iraq as they see fith.. When the subjects is tired about been ruled by an ilegetim foreigh nation, like US, then they wil band togheter, to fight a common enemy.. And then US would be trown out of Iraq, regardness of the military superiour forces of US. If most of Iraq is on faire, it do not matter that US have the biggest weapons - and most of the tecnial advances.. I hope it wil not be that, but the history is showing, again, and a gain and again, to our own days, that been an occpying power are never a easy task. Not when the public do not want you there

And Iraqis is tired about having 50.000+ americans in their own country... Really tired.. And now Iran can even influence who is ruling in Iraq or not... Not what mr Bush and Co was telling us when they was plotting and playing cards for geting them a little war

Diclotican

[bemildred]

8. Thank you, well stated. nt

[bemildred]

9. U.S. now urges Iraqis to take their time in forming government

After months of pressuring Iraqis to form a new government quickly, the U.S. is now urging them to slow down rather than rush into a deal that would run counter to U.S. interests and risk further destabilizing the country.

The turnabout in the U.S. approach came after anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's political faction agreed to support Prime Minister Nouri Maliki for a second term, propelling the incumbent close to the parliamentary majority he needs to keep his job.

If Maliki can strike a deal with Iraq's Kurds, he will have enough support to form a government. But such a government would contradict goals the U.S. has been working toward since the March elections.

Under a plan promoted by Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. officials had hoped that Maliki would remain prime minister in a power-sharing arrangement with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite Muslim leader whose Iraqiya bloc commands the support of most Sunni Arabs and won two more seats in the elections than Maliki's group.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-us-20101018,0,2366226.story

[Arrowhead2k1]

10. The fruits of our foriegn policy decisions.

Nice!
:sarcasm:

[earcandle]

11. But how does it benefit us. we the people?

[bemildred]

12. Iran backs Maliki for second term as Iraqi PM

Iran has for the first time publicly backed Nouri al-Maliki to lead Iraq for a second term, hours after Maliki arrived in Tehran today for a rare meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Maliki is due to travel to Qom later to meet his former foe turned ally Moqtada al-Sadr, who has aligned his powerful political bloc to Maliki's coalition.

The Guardian revealed yesterday that Iran had brokered a deal between Sadr and Maliki and had recently used its sway with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon in an attempt to shut out US input into a new government.

The revelations of increased Iranian involvement in Iraq at a time when the departing US military is scaling back its influence have caused ripples inside Iraq, where Maliki's visit is being cast by the Iraqi media as a job application.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/18/iran-iraq-maliki-ahmadinejad-sadr