1. postroad said:

But of course! The very liberal New York Rev of Books had months ago noted that by invading Iraq, bringing "democracy" to the country, allowing votes, we would in fact turn the country from a state ruled by a madman to an Islamic state, controlled by Iran. But the one man one vote one time notion somehow didn't seem to bother Bush supporters. Now they have what they so strongly had urged with the invasion.

2. Ted Belman said:

"Not looking good" is probably an understatement.

3. John said:

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the U.S. has been the best thing that ever happened to the interests of Iran. It has created a weak and divided Arab neighbor with a Shiite majority which could eventually become, at worst, a satellite of Iran. This has completely tilted the balance of power in the region and has caused the U.S. to supply Saudi Arabia and Egypt with arms as a backup plan to maintain this balance of power. Najaf is the most holy site for Shiites and dont think for a second that it is not on Iran's radar screen. The occupation of Iraq has given Iran a legitimate excuse to pursue a nuclear arsenal. The United States cannot stomach a long, protracted presence in Iraq- we have already seen the American public's rapid drop in support for the war - this support will decline even further as these 19 year old GIs who are sitting out there as guinea pigs continue to die. Iran has also been doing a lot of business with China and Russia, because both of these countries have a reason to fear The U.S.'s long term interests in the region as a result of this unilateral strike against Iraq. There has always been a "line in the sand" drawn over Iran between Russia and the West. I have read on another post here that Iran is being isolated by Pakistan's dialogue with Israel- this is complete B.S. Pakistan's "dialogue" with Israel does not mean a damn thing. Do you think that the "recognition" of Israel by Egypt, Turkey, et. al. means anything? These countries despise the notion of Israel based on the fact that Israel has no "legal" right to exist.

4. postroad said:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050906-093816-2656r.htm

5. Ted Belman said:

John, you got that right. By the way the majority of Saudis who live around their oil fields are also Shiites.

6. radiorote said:

The agreement for Iran to act as "custodian" of Iraq was hammered out between the Bush Administration and Iran in 2003. The US, with limited forces, could not handle a two prong uprising, or with Sadr, a 3 prong uprising, they worked out a deal with Iran to supress Shi'ite uprisings in Iraq.

The deal was that if the Shi'ites were held at bay, the Iranians could have leverage in their nuclear facility manufacturing, hold Iraq politically, and would allow the US to have bases in Iraq at Iran's pleasure.

The Iranians and the Bush Administration knew that the US could have been pushed out or severly limitied in Iraq should Iran have seriously entered the fray. The Bush Administration had 2 choices: allow the Iranians to make it hard on them and potentially lose Iraq, or allow Iran to pull the strings and have the US become a dhimmi who has to pay the poll tax, figuratively speaking.
Tehran appreciates the US in Iraq, as they are the ones spilling blood to keep the Sunni's in check -- as opposed to when the US played one of the other during Iran=Contra.

The recent Shi'ite uprisings in Iraq that started and stopped on Tehran's que were reminders to the Bush Administration as to who really ruled.

There have been spells of cooperation and regret by the Bush Administration, but they made their own bed.

It is unfortunate that kids signing up with the US National Gaurd, are, indirectly, signing up for the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd

7. Ted Belman said:

RR

I was not aware of such agreement but it would explain why al Sadr heeled and was no longer an outcast. It would also explain why the US didn't attack Syria to stop its support of the insurgency. But it does not explain how the US explains this to its Saudi "friends" or does it. The US is trying to strengthen the Suniis in Iraq probably wantging to acheive a certain balance of power. It is also arming Egypt and S. Arabia.

8. radiorote said:

The Saudi's are not taking it so well, as who would in knowing that a Shi'ite region might lead up to one's door step? This is where US policy in Gulf War 1 was off the mark. A rationalization that Saddam might go into Saudi Arabia and take over the oil fields was bantered about as a reason to militarily push him out of the rump country of Kuwait.

In fact, no Moslem country would have allowed a Bathist, Secular and Nassarite leader to control Mecca. Saddam knew that move would have been one way for his rule to end suddenly and in a rather unpleasant way, to boot.

The Shi'ites, as you know, are a different story. They are worrisome to Saudi Arabia. So, information has been disseminated that the Saudi's are supporting the insurgent Sunnni's as a way to create a feign in Iraq, and keep the US off balance. A reason teh US went into Iraq was to change the thinking habits of Saudi Arabia. They are not so inclined to do so, and would rather not see US hegenomy in the region.

As you know, this is similar to what Saudi Arabia they did with the PLO -- talk peace in Israel while arming terrorists. Should we expect an Iraqi "Road Map" from the Kingdom?

Now the US thinks that giving Saudi Arabia carte blanche in the WTO (while not recognizing Israel and still supporting the boycott) will somehow bring them around to civilized standards.

If giving the Saudi's billions in oil revenue did not change their minds, what will chump change do?

But, back to your question. The US made the deal with Iran before they caught Saddam and, in capturing him, changed the minds of some of the Sunni tribal leaders to not support the insurgents. The US, then realizing this change of heart by some Sunni leaders tried to back out of the US-Iran deal. The Iranians caught on to this change quickly (since they have well placed spies throughout the country based on their population in the south and a neccesity to know what their war enemies, the Sunni's, were planning against them at any given time -- Chalabi, being the best placed spy for them). Somehow, the US intelligence and White House were unaware of the scope of Iran's well placed intelligence throughout Iraq and soon both the Iraqi's and Iranians were "on" to what the US was trying to do.

During the last Iranian 'election', remember that many 'moderates' were pulled off the ballots by Iranian officials -- another way to inform the US that there will be no candidates who would allow this type of US and Sunni back-channeling without the knowledge of Tehran.

Hence, Shi'ite rebellions in Iraq would start up, and end, suddenly. It was Sistani's way of remindning the Bush Administration who pulled the strings there and, being a guest in the Greater Iranian metroplex, the US should be on their 'best behaviour'.