Iraq considering help from... Iran?

[darkkazier]

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president -- hosting a visit from Iraq's prime minister and expressing support for his country's beleaguered war-torn neighbor -- says the Islamic republic supports a "united" Iraq and will help the nation "establish full security," an Iranian news agency reported.

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at a news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after private talks were held on Tuesday, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported. It is al-Maliki's first visit to Iran since he became prime minister earlier this year.

 

"Iran will provide assistance to the Iraqi government to establish full security. We believe strengthening the Iraqi government is tantamount to promoting security, peace and friendship in that country," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

 

Iraq is currently in the throes of deep civil strife, enduring a persistent insurgency and an upsurge of sectarian violence this year between Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad and other cities.

 

American and British officials have claimed that Iran is attempting to fan the flames of insecurity in Iraq, where the government is trying to promote national unity among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

 

Iran and Iraq are linked in large part by common religion, but their relationship is complicated.

 

Iran -- populated largely by Persians, Azeris and Kurds -- is predominantly Shiite Muslim. About 60 percent of the people in Iraq are Shiite, most of whom Arabs.

 

Iraq's new government is dominated by a Shiite-led coalition. Both Ahmadinejad and al-Maliki are Shiites.

 

While many Iranians and Iraqis -- officials as well as citizens -- believe the nations are kindred spirits, there have been tensions between them.

 

They fought a bloody war in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq. Hussein is now on trial for genocide in connection with a military campaign in Iraq's Kurdish region at the tail end of that war.

 

The United States, now the chief ally and backer of the Iraqi government, has been a longtime adversary of Iran on many issues, including Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 

Last week, six Iraqi border guards were detained by Iranian border guards in a dispute, an official with Iraq's border security said.

 

A prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, Saleh al-Mutlag, questioned al-Maliki's visit in light of this incident.

 

"I am very surprised that a prime minister would visit a country holding symbols of Iraq's sovereignty," he said.

 

An Iraqi official told CNN the issue will be dealt with in Tehran by lower-level officials from the two countries.

'Close ties'

 

Ahmadinejad also boosted the idea of a "united and independent Iraq" that "will be beneficial to security and progress of the entire region."

 

He "pointed out that both countries have close ties in both cultural and religious areas, and they have reached agreement in trade, transportation and energy," IRNA said.

 

"The Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq enjoy deep-rooted historical relations beyond normal ties between the two neighboring states," Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying. "We regard progress, independence and territorial territory of Iraq as our own."

 

And, he added, "we completely support the Iraqi government and parliament and will transfer our experience to our Iraqi friends in all fields including reconstruction of the country and economic cooperation."

 

Describing his talks with al-Maliki as "very good," he said the countries "share" a "common stance on regional and international issues. Both sides are determined to consolidate brotherly ties."

 

According to the IRNA report, al-Maliki said both countries are looking forward to bilateral cooperation.

 

IRNA reported that al-Maliki was "asked whether Iran and Iraq did not implement previous agreements following allegations raised against Iran about its meddling in Iraq's domestic affairs."

 

It reported that al-Maliki "stressed the two sides face no obstacle in the way of implementing agreements."

 

Earlier, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh told CNN that al-Maliki was in Iran on a two-day official visit "to discuss security and political relations."

 

"In principle, Iraq wants a relationship with no interference."

 

Asked what he meant by no interference, Dabbagh replied that Iraq did not want to be drawn into the disputes between Iran and the United States.

 

"Iraq cannot pay the cost for that. As Iraq cannot be used by Iran to attack the United States, also Iraq cannot be used as a base for America to attack Iran."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.iran/index.html

 

Its a lose lose for the U.S. then, if the democratically elected government of Iraq decides not to use Iran's help because of the U.S. then it will be obvious who really controls the country, and if they do decide to accept their help then Iran gains more control in the region.

[Aardvark]

Its a lose lose for the U.S. then' date=' if the democratically elected government of Iraq decides not to use Iran's help because of the U.S. then it will be obvious who really controls the country, and if they do decide to accept their help then Iran gains more control in the region.[/quote']

 

How is that lose lose? If Iraq refuses because of the USA, in what way does that mean the USA loses anything?

 

It is clear that Iran is not trustworthy in this matter and Iraq, and the USA, will gain by politely thanking Iran for its kind interest but not allowing it to interfere in Iraqs internal affairs.

[Pangloss]

Its a lose lose for the U.S. then, if the democratically elected government of Iraq decides not to use Iran's help because of the U.S. then it will be obvious who really controls the country, and if they do decide to accept their help then Iran gains more control in the region.

 

It's certainly a challenge, isn't it? If you were trying to build a struggling democracy next to the world's most powerful despotic theocracy, with 40%+ of your people religiously controlled by that neighbor and the other ~60% religiously opposed to it, how would you proceed?

[ecoli]

Iran wants to minimize US influence in the middle east, I believe.

[Pangloss]

I think it's more than that. They're trying to become the primary player in the region.

[timo]

Iran wants to minimize US influence in the middle east, I believe.

That would make perfect sense. I suppose the US wants to minimize iranian influence in north america, too.

 

Allow me to see the approach of Iran and Iraq from a non-US standpoint (hey, my nickname already stands for blasphemy, what do you expect ):

We have two nations which have had not-so-good relations in the past. Now, a major reason for these not-so-good relations is gone, namely the former leader of the Iraq. I think it is good to see that neighbouring countries which share a bloody not-so-distant history (ok, chemical weapons probably aren´t overly bloody) can approach each other by saying "oh, that was just because of that evil dictator - in reality we are good friends" and maybe develop a sort of partnership. Such things already happened in the past: Take Germany and France.

 

EDIT: While in the OP it doesn´t really become clear (in fact the article tells me next to nothing), the german press (http://www.spiegel.de) actually goes as far as to title "Iran and Iraq approach each other" and claim that both countries pretty much agreed on working together - examples of building a pipeline and making agreements on trade, energy and traffic are given.

[darkangel199]

I am sure the U.S is not too thrilled about this. And i am sure that Iraq will accept the offer, which wll probably piss off the U.S. and Iran will laugh all the way to the bank. The U.S. rermoved the only person basically keeping the two countries seperate, what dd they think would happen when them ajority of Iraq are Persian, like Iran? Now what will the U.S. do? Afterall this is al la result of the democracy they want installed all around the world. Wil lthe U.S. handle it the way they handled Hamas being elected? Basically tell them if you dont choose someone else we will not gve you any aid? or will they respect the Iraqis decisions as a supposed soverign nation?

[Sisyphus]

I don't think Iran could be particularly effective in a stabilizing role, anyway. It would just get non-Shiites really angry, and confirm their paranoia. (Imagine if JFK had had daily phone conversations with the Pope.) There's a lot of Hatred towards the United States in Iraq, but at least it's uniform hatred, and we're not perceived as favoring one ethnic group over another.

[ecoli]

That would make perfect sense. I suppose the US wants to minimize iranian influence in north america' date=' too.

 

Allow me to see the approach of Iran and Iraq from a non-US standpoint (hey, my nickname already stands for blasphemy, what do you expect ):

We have two nations which have had not-so-good relations in the past. Now, a major reason for these not-so-good relations is gone, namely the former leader of the Iraq. I think it is good to see that neighbouring countries which share a bloody not-so-distant history (ok, chemical weapons probably aren´t overly bloody) can approach each other by saying "oh, that was just because of that evil dictator - in reality we are good friends" and maybe develop a sort of partnership. Such things already happened in the past: Take Germany and France.[/quote']

 

But for the most part, post-WWII relationships between France and Germany were relativly good. In the middle east, if Iran gains too much influence, then the delicate democracy in Iraq will collapse. At this point, an allied Iran and Iraq could make things dangerous for the west. If you listen to Ahmedinejad anyway.

[timo]

But for the most part, post-WWII relationships between France and Germany were relativly good.

Because both states actively worked on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_cooperation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French-German_enmity , in case you want to read up on it), that´s what Iraq and Iran seem to try atm.

In the middle east, if Iran gains too much influence, then the delicate democracy in Iraq will collapse. At this point, an allied Iran and Iraq could make things dangerous for the west. If you listen to Ahmedinejad anyway.

The delicate democracy of germany did not collapse (ok, the social situation was a bit more stable, admittedly) and I suppose the approach of western germany and france was seen as to make things dangerous to the sowjet block - history showed that we got out of the trouble pretty well.

 

I am aware that one can always see as much or little similarities as one wants (means: Exactly that much or little that supports your position) when making historical comparisons, but spontaneously I found the Germany-France example quite fitting. Also, it´s boring if everyone just presents the "evil arabs try to rule the world"-view.

[ecoli]

Also, it´s boring if everyone just presents the "evil arabs try to rule the world"-view.

 

It may be boring, but it's certainly the side Ahmadinejad seems to be showing. Regardless of how well he could carry out his threats, we shouldn't be taking the man lightly.

[Aardvark]

The U.S. rermoved the only person basically keeping the two countries seperate, what dd they think would happen when them ajority of Iraq are Persian, like Iran?

 

No, the people of Iraq are not Persians like the Iranians. The Iraqis are Arabs, whilst the Iranians are Persians, a completely different racial and cultural group. The two countries are seperated by more than three thousand years of history as well as race, language religion and culture. President Hussein had nothing to do with keeping them seperate, they already were.

 

If the two countries can normalise relations to the degree that their can be some cooperation in cross border trade and the like then that is fine, but the Iraqi government will remain suspicious of Iranian motives and meddling.

 

The US could do well out of this, some cooperation with Iran would help limit the straightforward malicous meddling that Iran has so far indulged in. Instead the meddling would be more limited and Iran would find itself with more of a stake in a stable Iraq.

 

Potentially a win win scenario for the USA.

[Pangloss]

The two countries are seperated by more than three thousand years of history as well as race, language religion [/b']and culture.

 

Well, almost. The Arabs of Southeastern Iraq share the same religion as the Persians of Iran. This, of course, is part of the dynamic of the region, and one of the reasons why Iraq has a basis for seeking assistance from Iran. The danger, of course, is that Iran will attempt to dictate Iraqi politics, to the detriment of Sunnis and Kurds.

[Y-S]

Well, Iran probably wants oil from Iraq so that's prolly why they offering help to Iraq

[Pangloss]

Unlikely. Iran has a tremendous reserve and an existing 4-million-barrel-per-day export business. They don't need it.

 

Nor do I think it's really necessary for Shiites to control Iraq in order for it to side with Iran (the Iran-Venezuela cadre) in OPEC.