Managing Iraq's collapse

[bemildred]

A good read on issues in post-COW Iraq.

As the United States gradually retreats from Iraq, the stakes for Iran rise accordingly. The long-awaited Iraq Study Group report - which will likely shape US policy in Iraq for the next two years - will start this process in earnest.

The opportunities for Iran are numerous, but the potential risks could be calamitous. For nearly four years, Iran has sat back while the US repeatedly blundered in Iraq, all the while exploiting the situation with almost breathless subtlety and precision. This is likely to change as the US presence fades, thereby exposing the Islamic Republic to the chaos that is tearing Iraq apart.

---

Given the near-inevitability of the fragmentation of Iraq, a much deeper understanding of Iranian interests in Iraq is required. Moreover, it means that some of these interests must be either revised or relinquished altogether. In short, the matrix of interests and risks that informed Iranian attitudes toward the US-led intervention in March 2003 are now seriously outdated.

---

Long-term Iranian influence in Iraq requires a stable regime in Baghdad. This is why the Iranians should be deeply fearful of the sectarian slaughter that is tearing Iraq apart. Moreover, the Iranians would do well to appreciate the extent of anti-Iran feelings in Iraq. General distrust of Iran is widespread in Iraq, much of it the product of nearly 40 years of relentless anti-Iranian propaganda by the Ba'athists. Given the chaos in Iraq, much of what the Iranians have built can unravel very quickly. Furthermore, any brazen interference in Iraqi affairs risks provoking the ugliest forms of Iraqi anti-Iranianism.

Asia Times

[cliss]

1. So Ironic.

Managing Iraq's Collapse.

Take a look at that title. It's hard to even come up with anything to say, when you read something like that.

Just

complete,

unequivocal

FAILURE.

Got that, George Bush?

[oblivious]

2. LA Times: Iraq pullout talk makes Iran uneasy

Iraq pullout talk makes Iran uneasy

Although officially opposed to the American presence, the Islamic Republic fears the repercussions of a dangerously unstable neighbor.

By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer

November 16, 2006

LONDON — Iran has consistently opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, but new prospects of a stepped-up American withdrawal are prompting growing unease in the Islamic Republic, where many fear the repercussions of a dangerously unstable neighbor.

Officially, Iran's policy remains flatly opposed to American troops in Iraq and characterizes them as a key contributor to the escalating violence. Iran's government says it wants the U.S. to withdraw at the earliest possible opportunity.

But the U.S. elections this month that swept in a Democratic majority to Congress and subsequent talk of a phased pullout have touched off a discussion in Tehran about the outright anarchy that could result.

On Tuesday night, Tehran's English-language news channel featured commentary from political scientist Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, who called for the U.S. to remain in Iraq until it has established a strong, stable central government capable of providing adequate security.

"The Americans can't simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving the mess as it is," Mojtahedzadeh said in a telephone interview from the Iranian capital afterward. "Who's going to look for the safety of the Iraqis there? The Iranians can't do it. The Turks can't do it…. This is not a question of political rivalry between Iran and the West. It has to do with the fact that the society has to have a government structure in place."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran16nov16,0,7641580.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[bemildred]

3. Iran thinks the present situation is just perfect.

Any change is detrimental for them. When your biggest enemy chooses to blow his nuts off with a shotgun, what would you want to change?