« Iraq = Korea = Kosovo= Bosnia = Germany = Japan = Australia = Britain = Iceland = ETCNever Too Soon »

All Roads Lead From Tehran

Stratfor on Iraq = Korea:

… This is not so much an announcement of a plan to create a specific force structure or basing arrangement as it is a statement about the length and character of Washington’s commitment to Baghdad. The real underlying significance of the announcement is simple: the United States is not leaving Iraq any time soon.

Stratfor suggests this is, like everything else, tied to the talks with Iran.   

… This was not the standard “we stand by Iraq” press conference; the White House appears to have made an assertion that reflects a much deeper agreement with Tehran. Washington could well be positioning itself to garner domestic and Iraqi support for a U.S. military presence in Iraq that will continue for the foreseeable future (significantly, while reassuring Sunni allies in Iraq they will not be abandoned).

That presence, of course, will shift dramatically from the current arrangement. This is consistent with some changes already in the cards: a reduced U.S. troop presence and operational tempo, a shift from combat to advising and support, and a withdrawal from day-to-day security operations.

… That presence ultimately will mean the same thing for Iraq that it has meant for South Korea: an attack on Iraq is the same as an attack on the United States.

This position, whether official or unstated, has little to do with Iraq’s internal sectarian strife. Rather, it creates a strategic tripwire in the region: the U.S. military physically interposes itself between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and gives Washington enough sway in Baghdad to provide a counterweight to Tehran’s very real influence there. If the public talks continue to progress, Iraq could become the next nation to have its security (at least in terms of border integrity, if not internal stability) guaranteed by the United States — a commitment from Washington that has rarely proven to be short-lived.

But first, of course, there are the negotiations. For Iran, a large U.S. military presence in Iraq would be little better than a U.S.-backed Sunni puppet government in Baghdad (which is Tehran’s worst fear, whether or not Washington thinks it is attainable). Thus, if the Iranians have truly agreed to this arrangement — and that is an exceedingly large “if” — serious U.S. concessions will be forthcoming.

… If a deal is to proceed, Washington will have to reciprocate in kind with an equally unappetizing and nearly unacceptable concession, like sharing influence and perhaps even military participation in Iraq’s security apparatus.

Stratfor notes that politicians of all stripes in Washington and Baghdad as well as Iraq’s ethnic groups, insurgents and militias will have a vote in any outcome.

… Should all go incredibly well — should the various pieces of the puzzle not only fit into place but also hold their positions — there will be a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. But while this might serve Washington’s interests in part by providing a bulwark against jihadists, it also will fuel the jihadist fire. It is worth remembering that the origins of al Qaeda trace back to a single issue: the long-term U.S. military presence in nearby Saudi Arabia.

I doubt Iran has agreed to any such arrangement, or that the United States will agree to allow Iran to play a direct role in control Iraq’s armed forces, except perhaps a few token observers, with muzzles and electric dog collars on.

Topics: Iran, Iraq

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:51 am on Thursday, May 31, 2007

7 Responses to “All Roads Lead From Tehran”

1. RebeccaH Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 8:56 am

   Interesting indeed to see what plays out, especially since their dogs in Congress have given up the fight for the moment.

2. rocketsbrain Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 9:22 am

   Scott Malensek wrote a detailed plan last year which is essentially the same thing. Reposition the troops in secure bases along the Iranian and Syrian borders, seal the borders to prevent interlopers from interfering with internal Iraqi politics, and let the Iraqi Shi’ia and Sunni fight it out until they wear themselves out.

   A New Direction

   http://www.rocketsbrain.com/files/Newdirection.pdf

   RBT

   http://www.rocketsbrain.com

3. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 11:13 am

   Iran wants us out of Iraq, period. So I doubt that they would agree willingly. More like, they had their arms twisted and a pistol pointed at their head. The Iraq-Iran border might become one big DMZ.

   Oh, and when will Pelosi visit Tehran? Sounds like fresh territory to undermine some more foreign policy.

4. Bill's Bites Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pm

   2007.05.31 Iraq/Iran Roundup

   See previous: 2007.05.30 Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/The media sucks. Roundup Below the fold (newest items at the top): All Roads Lead From Tehran Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea See also: Bill Roggio: Awakening in Babil Iraq Residents Rise…

5. saltydog Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 4:08 pm

   So we’re planning on a long-term war of attrition, never taking care of the problem, continuing to drain the pockets of the American people, and putting off the inevitable. Is this what we’re doing to take care of Iran’s nukes? God help us all. We’ll pay for this, just as we’re paying now.

6. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   May 31st, 2007 at 7:57 pm

   It’s another Cold War, salty, just not so cold as the last one. Yays.

7. saltydog Says:
   June 1st, 2007 at 1:54 am

   Hell, JeffS, the last “cold” war wasnt’. Look at how many people died in all the proxy wars. I hate it. It is a compromise with evil. It gives evil power that they couldn’t otherwise have. I hate it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.