Iran: Enemy of US and Iraq?

[Ardentfrost]

Iranian influence increasing in Iraq - Yahoo! News

Iranian influence increasing in Iraq

SHALAMCHEH, Iran - Trucks line up every day at this border crossing to carry melons, cookies, soft drinks and appliances into Iraq. For truck driver Ala Saeedi, the booming trade is proof his country is helping its war-torn neighbor.
ADVERTISEMENT

This spot in southwestern Iran, he notes, "was once the scene of chemical attacks by Saddam (Hussein) against Iranian troops. But now it's used for trade. ... Iran is meeting the daily needs of Iraqis."

More than four years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam, Iran's influence from trade links to political sway has never been greater — a fact bedeviling the United States as President Bush pledges American troops will remain in Iraq in large numbers.

In his speech Thursday night, Bush warned that a U.S. pullout would encourage Iran "in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

Washington also has long accused Iran of sending arms and even fighters to help Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops, and both British and American commanders have called the fight in parts of Iraq a "proxy war" by Iran.

Iran disputes those allegations, saying it doesn't meddle inside Iraq and isn't trying to acquire atomic weapons.

But Iranian officials do agree they play a strong role in Iraq, much as they do with the trade and aid they provide to Afghanistan on their eastern border, as Tehran seeks to increase its regional influence.

"The Iraqi government and nation are close friends of Iran," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview this week. "We are natural allies."

Complicating the U.S. position, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government itself has sought close trade and political ties with Iran, whose people are predominantly Shiite.

Iraq and Iran were hostile to each other throughout Saddam's reign, including fighting a long and destructive war through most of the 1980s. But when Saddam's Sunni regime fell and Iraq's Shiite majority took power, long-standing historical, religious and cultural ties between the Shiites of both countries flourished again.

These days, Iran's influence still is most apparent across Iraq's mostly Shiite south. But it is also felt in Kurdish northern areas and even in Baghdad, where many new reconstruction projects — such as improving Iraq's electricity grid — are financed by Iranian investment.

"Decades of war and U.S. invasion have destroyed almost everything in Iraq. And Iran is well prepared to make good use of this opportunity to flood Iraqi markets with goods and services," said Saeed Leilaz, an economic and political analyst in Iran.

The export of goods to Iraq brings both money and influence, he noted. "Iranian products are sold everywhere in Iraq. This never happened before. Iran is playing a clever game," he said.

Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hasan Kazemi Qomi, said last month that Iran-Iraq trade in 2006 totaled $2 billion — 97 percent of that going from Iran into Iraq. Hossein Tizmaghz, an Iranian Commerce Ministry official, said he hopes trade will soar to $10 billion in five years.

Shalamcheh is one of three major crossings along the 620-mile border.

In the 1980s, it was a dusty battlefield where Iranians and Iraqis exchanged bullets and mortar shells and where Saddam's regime used chemical weapons. Today, its export terminal bustles with trucks as well as Iranian families traveling to Iraq's holy cities for pilgrimage.

The border situation is more complicated in Iraq's Kurdish north. The inflow of goods, including cheap gasoline, booms, but the atmosphere is tense.

Iran has periodically fired artillery across the border in recent weeks at bases used by ethnic militants staging attacks in Iran's Kurdish region. An Iranian envoy warned last weekend that if the Iraqis could not stop the Kurdish raids, Tehran might respond militarily.

There are also tensions in Iraq's south, where there has been fighting between Shiite groups and political parties, some of which have closer links to Iran. But the traffic in commerce and pilgrims remains high.

Each month, more than 40,000 Iranians visit southern Iraq's important Shiite spots such as the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, buying religious souvenirs and pumping money into the economy by staying in hotels.

Many pass through the south's biggest city, Basra, just over 30 miles from the border. It is has many Iranian cultural and religious centers, and its shops are full of high-quality and cheap Iranian food, kitchen appliances and construction materials.

"The Iranian influence is very large," said Ali Abdul Aziz, a retired Sunni teacher in Basra.

Iran has said it wants to build an airport in Najaf and promises to help renovate important shrines. It also has begun work on a railroad between Iranian port of Khorramshar and Basra, connecting Iran's rail system to Iraq's.

Tehran also has signed a $150 million contract to build a 300-megawatt power plant in Baghdad. Another project, a 400-megawatt electricity transmission line from the Iranian frontier city of Abadan to the Iraqi town of Alharasa is expected to go into operation in a few months.

Iran also is conducting feasibility studies on building two pipelines to carry oil and derivatives from Basra to Abadan.

"Enmity is over," Iranian businessman Bahram Mehrparvar said as he filled out paperwork at the Shalamcheh export terminal for the bricks and cement he exports to Iraq. "Business and trade has replaced bullets and mortars."

This story is a bit of an eye opener for me. I never thought about how the rebuilding of Iraq would affect its neighbors. Especially since Iran doesn't have to worry (as much) about the Sunni's, this is great news about the relations between the two countries.

Which brings the question: why do we need to be there? Even if bombings continued (which is likely), it would be in Iran's best interest to ensure delivery of its goods militarily if Iraq can't fully provide that. This wouldn't be Iran trying to take over Iraq, as forecasted by the US, but them protecting the product they're selling to Iraq. As I see it, that's great, and would act as a replacement to what we're doing.

[Donkey®]

Sorry....Iran is evil according to the right. Of course there's nothing to prove this point....but they just are...Bush said so.

[RMNIXON]

They have been a enemy to the United States and Iran since the so-called Revolution. A major step backwards for Freedom and Human Rights in the region. But yes, they are getting worse and our mixed signals about Iraq has made them very bold.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They have been a enemy to the United States and Iran since the so-called Revolution. A major step backwards for Freedom and Human Rights in the region. But yes, they are getting worse and our mixed signals about Iraq has made them very bold.

They have been an enemy since we tried to impose our imperialistic geopolitical agenda on their country in the 1950s. They hate us because of what our policy makers have done. Our installation of a brutal leader was the real major step backwards for freedom and human rights in the region. We did it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They have been an enemy since we tried to impose our imperialistic geopolitical agenda on their country in the 1950s. They hate us because of what our policy makers have done. Our installation of a brutal leader was the real major step backwards for freedom and human rights in the region. We did it.

The newest generation is a lot more forgiving on that atrocity than the previous one was.

a little factoid: Iran had candle light vigils honoring america in response to 9/11... our two big buddies, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, did not Take that for what it's worth.

Iranian Artist painting.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The newest generation is a lot more forgiving on that atrocity than the previous one was.

a little factoid: Iran had candle light vigils honoring america in response to 9/11... our two big buddies, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, did not Take that for what it's worth.

Iranian Artist painting.

I'm sure that there's no shortage of good people in Iran. Nobody, as far as I know, thinks that every person in Iran is a terrorist or a murderer or supports terrorists and murderers. But that doesn't mean that its government - or even the majority of its population - is friendly to us.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The newest generation is a lot more forgiving on that atrocity than the previous one was.

a little factoid: Iran had candle light vigils honoring america in response to 9/11... our two big buddies, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, did not Take that for what it's worth.

Iranian Artist painting.

No no...you see, the most logical thing to do now would be to bomb the ever living shit out of their nuclear facilities, and then pray that this doesn't radicalize the future ruling generation of that country, which likes the U.S.

[Donkey®]

Official Scoreboard:



Times Iranian government has been removed and new government put in by CIA = 1

Times US government has been removed and new government put in by Iranian Secret Police = 0


Times Iranian jetliners have been shot down by US forces = 1


Times US jetliners have been shot down by Iranian forces = 0


And we're still the good guys...

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Official Scoreboard:



Times Iranian government has been removed and new government put in by CIA = 1

Times US government has been removed and new government put in by Iranian Secret Police = 0


Times Iranian jetliners have been shot down by US forces = 1


Times US jetliners have been shot down by Iranian forces = 0


And we're still the good guys...

Times US embassy has been held hostage for over a year by Iranian radicals - 1

Times Iranian embassy has been held hostage for over a year by U.S. radicals - 0

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Publius

Times US embassy has been held hostage for over a year by Iranian radicals - 1

Times Iranian embassy has been held hostage for over a year by U.S. radicals - 0

What did Iran do to us to get their plane blown up? What did Iran do to us to get a new CIA government?


What did we do to Iran to have their STUDENT radical groups overtake our embassy? Oh yes...that's right...

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I'm sure that there's no shortage of good people in Iran. Nobody, as far as I know, thinks that every person in Iran is a terrorist or a murderer or supports terrorists and murderers. But that doesn't mean that its government - or even the majority of its population - is friendly to us.

Why would they and why should they be friendly to us? After everything that we have done to them?

Removing their democratically elected leader so the UK can maintain dominance of their oil....Installing a very brutal regime in to power...Providing Saddam Hussein with conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction, money, intelligence reports, etc, for an extremely bloody Iran/Iraq war.

Are they just supposed to sit idle while we label them 'axis of evil' and threaten them constantly with military action? What if someone called you an asshole and threatened to hit you in the face?

I am not siding with Iran here, but I do understand where they are coming from.

Do not forget that 80% of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia... Not Iran, not Iraq, not Syria. The guy organizing the event was in afghanistan. I think we should probably evaluate who is really our friends, who we have fucked over repeatedly, and who our enemys are.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Why would they and why should they be friendly to us? After everything that we have done to them?

They've never been friendly to us since the Shah was overthrown. The islamic government of Iran hates the US. Whether they should or shouldn't is immaterial. They ARE our enemy.

Removing their democratically elected leader so the UK can maintain dominance of their oil....Installing a very brutal regime in to power...

We didn't "install" anything. We maintained the existing monarchy that was friendly to us (the Shah). Maybe we shouldn't have interfered, but don't make it sound like we just waltzed in and put some random person in power out of the blue.

Providing Saddam Hussein with conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction, money, intelligence reports, etc, for an extremely bloody Iran/Iraq war.

Iran had already established itself as our enemy by the time of the Iran/Iraq war. That was, I think, 2 or 3 years after the hostage

Are they just supposed to sit idle while we label them 'axis of evil' and threaten them constantly with military action? What if someone called you an asshole and threatened to hit you in the face?

They've been long established as our enemy. You know, since about 1979. Calling a spade a spade isn't out of line.

Do not forget that 80% of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia... Not Iran, not Iraq, not Syria. The guy organizing the event was in afghanistan. I think we should probably evaluate who is really our friends, who we have fucked over repeatedly, and who our enemys are.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is no friend, but come on. Timothy McVeigh was from the US, so should we declare war on ourselves?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

They've never been friendly to us since the Shah was overthrown. The islamic government of Iran hates the US. Whether they should or shouldn't is immaterial. They ARE our enemy.

If they have a legitimate reason to, I won't dismiss whether they should or shouldn't.

We didn't "install" anything. We maintained the existing monarchy that was friendly to us (the Shah). Maybe we shouldn't have interfered, but don't make it sound like we just waltzed in and put some random person in power out of the blue.

That monarchy was not in power before we got there. We removed the guy and they took over. Essentially we installed them back in to power, and they were brutal to their people.

Iran had already established itself as our enemy by the time of the Iran/Iraq war. That was, I think, 2 or 3 years after the hostage. They've been long established as our enemy. You know, since about 1979. Calling a spade a spade isn't out of line.

I am honestly surprised the only thing we have got out of them was a hostage situation and violent anti-american rhetoric. I understand they are an enemy today. To just ignore the past as WHY they have such a hatred for us and continue to threaten them with military action is not the way to fix things.

I agree that Saudi Arabia is no friend, but come on. Timothy McVeigh was from the US, so should we declare war on ourselves?

I don't think we should invade them per say. At a minimum we should not support them financially. We should take action against those who are responsible for attacking us. Iraq was the wrong place. Iran was the wrong place in the 1950s. We should stay out of the region completely. To make long story short, Ron Paul has the correct middle east foreign policy after Iraq is over with.

[Ardentfrost]

The current Iranian gov't has leftovers from the previous generation. If we play our cards right, the anti-US sentiment will greatly reduce once the new, more US accepting/neutral generation takes power (which it has already started to do b/c of the younger crowd voting more and more). We're basing all this "Iran is our enemy" bullshit on 30 year old propaganda.

[garbagemanlb]

Apparently the former General in command of Mid-East affairs, replaced recently by Fallon (the guy who called Patraeus a 'chickenshit' ) feels that Iran having nuclear capabilities won't be the end of the world! What a fucking hippie.

WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT



John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.

He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.

Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.

"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.

He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.

The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran - Yahoo! News

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They have been a enemy to the United States and Iran since the so-called Revolution. A major step backwards for Freedom and Human Rights in the region. But yes, they are getting worse and our mixed signals about Iraq has made them very bold.

You mean since we staged a coup backed by the CIA in Iran and overthrew their government. While dropping inflammatory and racist leaflets from the sky, and even then the majority of the Iranian civilians love us and love "American Culture"