Monday, June 9, 2008

Iran

Well today's news is mind-blowing. Iran told the visiting Iraqi Prime Minister that the entire reason that there country is having problems is the "foreign forces that are in it." Well I'm glad he cleared that up for me, I was under the mistaken illusion that it was Al-Qaeda, various other insurgents, and Iranian trained, backed, and supported militias. I can't imagine what I was thinking. Oh, wait, that wasn't an illusion.

Below is an excerpt from the the NY Times Article about it, the link is at the bottom of the post.

Iran's supreme leader told Iraq’s visiting prime minister on Monday that the American forces in Iraq are the biggest obstacle to Iraqi stability.

The message from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was the most authoritative public word to date on Iran’s objections to long-term security agreements currently under negotiation between the Bush administration and the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The American military has been operating in Iraq under a United Nations mandate that has been renewed annually. The current pact Dec. 31, 2008.

“The most fundamental problem of Iraq is the presence of the foreign forces,” Ayatollah Khamenei told Mr. Maliki, according to excerpts of their meeting reported by the Iranian Students News Agency.

“The Iraqi government, Parliament and all the authorities who have been elected with public vote should take charge,” the ayatollah said.

Iranian officials strongly oppose the American military presence in Iraq, which they consider a major threat on their border. Yet it was the American-led effort that overthrew their hated enemy Saddam Hussein and brought about a coalition government in Baghdad dominated by Shiite political leaders, including Mr. Maliki, with strong ties to Iran.

The most surprising part of this comment is that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies. They fought a long and extremely costly war, and then engaged in a semi cold war for years. So the question becomes why would you be mad when your neighbor gets rid of a brutal totalitarian regime for a democratic style of government? And, moreover, why would you try to destroy that democratic style of government by funding, supporting, and backing the insurgency in that country?

In all honesty, the answer is quite simple. When you, yourself are a totalitarian regime you don't want democratic governments on your borders. Iran now has two, Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake, the Iranians are up to no good in Afghanistan as well. The same tricks and ploys that they are attempting to pull in Iraq are also feeding into the insurgency in Afghanistan. The problem for all totalitarian regimes is that when your neighbors are democratic and people have rights, your own people can see that. It serves as a catalyst to them asking the question, "Why do I have to live like this?" Then the answer is, "I can do something about this, I can change the way I live, just look at Iraq". That is the entire crux of this problem. The complete insecurities of another brutal totalitarian regime that keeps people in line with force and coercion and now sees the writing on the wall that it is no longer a valid state and fears for its own existence.

Iran has another large problem, their youth. Currently over 50% of their population is under the age of thirty. These young people enjoy the internet and western culture. They are far from ignorant and can imagine what it is like to live in the free society they see springing up around them. It was these very same students and young professionals that led various demonstrations in years past calling for reform. The Iranian Government's only way now of dealing with them is trying to find a large external enemy to point to as a threat, and to keep them in line through use of force and threat of force and imprisonment. This problem is their worst fear, and as the ruling members of government grow older, they will have to deal with this problem; and they are scared.

Finally, Iran has been snubbing its nose at the international community for a little over four years concerning its nuclear program. While the United States is half a world away, there is a small buffer of security that they feel safe in. But, with almost 175,000 US troops within a short aircraft flight, I am sure that they are a bit more worried. So what do you do? You fund and equip terrorist elements to try to destabilize your neighbors. You train these militias in being more effective at suicide attacks and blowing up convoys. In short, you train them to kill American and Iraqi soldiers, and civilians. I must say, not a very neighborly thing to do, more so the actions of a scared regime that has seen its day and now sees its own future crumbling in front of it.

The Iranian people are a proud and accomplished society. Their history is one of the oldest in the world and one of the most interesting and wonderful. It is time that they remember who they are, and deal with the totalitarian dictators that are oppressing them and rejoin the world community as an upstanding member of it.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?ref=world Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

Bag Blog said...

I agree with you that Iran is worried that if democracy works in the neighboring countries, their people will want the same. But I also wonder if the longtime hate between Iraq and Iran is part of it. Is Iran hoping that the foreign forces will leave Iraq - leaving Iraq unstable and ready for Iran to move in?

Mezzo SF said...

The idea ALONE of freedom is threatening to those who wish to control and/or prevent it.


BagWag...good question...

Mezzo SF said...

Check out the following excerpt from this article:
[David] Satterfield bristled at suggestions by a senior Bush administration official close to the talks, who told The Associated Press on Monday that it was "very possible" the U.S. may have to extend the existing U.N. mandate.

"It's doable, that's where our focus is, not on alternatives," Satterfield told reporters. "We're focused on plan A because we believe plan A can succeed. ... We think it's an achievable goal."

Stakes for both sides are high. An agreement would ensure long-term U.S. political and military support for Iraq and could help ease Arab concerns that the country would fall under Iranian domination if U.S. troops leave.

The agreement also could serve to counter the spread of Iranian influence both in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

MAJ C said...

Bag Blog, Mezzo SF,

I think your both spot-on. If we were to leave now, before the job is done, and the same amount of instabillity were to happen again as per before the surge they would be ripe for the picking. To pull out of Iraq before the proper time is just asking for further and worse trouble.

I think just about anyone you ask, just looking at regular news wire type reports will say that Iran is the largest threat right now in the Middle East. They attempt to bully their neighbors, they train and equip terrorists, and they are fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

There is no doubt in my mind, that they are a major threat.

Bryan