(many thanks to datta for this submission)
Note: It turns out that this article comes from the blog of Layla Anwar.
The original link is this: http://arabwomannews.blogspot.com/
I had not been made aware of this since I had received this text by email. I apologize to Layla for not linking to her piece.
I am removing this article, but I will leave the comments. Anyone interested in reading the original article should go to Layla Anwar’s blog.
The Saker
It still amazes me how here in the US the completely simple and obvious notion of a united national anti-occupation force in Iraq never even comes up in the media.(of course the US administration doesn’t want us to acknowledge that the Iraqi resistance is doing exactly what we would do if illegally invaded and occupied by China.) Anyone in Iraq who fights the occupation is considered some maniacal blood drinking AQ member,Shia death squad, or Iranian extremist. : )
True, but keep in mind for the time being the notion of a united national anti-occupation force is exactly that: a notion. Look what the guy says about Sadr (though he does leave the door open, a little).
Frankly, as long as the Sunnis persist in thinking that they can fight the Empire *and* the Iranians and, more relevantly, the allies of Iran in Iraq they will get nowhere. Also, their idea of fighting all occupation forces is based on a fallacy: that Iran wants to occupy Iraq.
Iran has absolutely no desire whatsoever to occupy Iraq, even if it was handed Iraq on a silver plate for free. What Iran wants is to make darn sure that there will never be another Saddam in power in Iraq and that, in turn, means that Iran will support (in various degrees and depending on the circumstances) *any* and *all* Shia factions.
The Sunni need to come to terms with the reality that they are a *minority* in Iraq and that they will never run the country again like they did in the past. Once they accept that, they logically accept the need to coexist with the Shia and the Kurds on the best achievable terms.
In that context, the only Shia faction they can enter in talks with is the Sadrist movement. Maliki, Dawa & Co. are hopeless, and mostly irrelevant outside the Green Zone anyway.
Iran can live with a Sadrist regime in power in Baghdad; this is not their first choice, but they know its their *best possible* option: regardless of his nationalism anti Persian rhetoric, Sadr is a real Shia and he will never allow another aggression against Iran.
Judging from this interview, the Sunnis are still far away from accepting these facts.
VS,
Thanks for the article. Very interesting read. I had read that the Badr brigades and Supreme Islamic Council were Iranian agents or strongly influenced by Iran, but it is interesting that the Sunnis also regard the Sadrists as not much better. When they were fighting the US they were supportive, now not so much.
With regard to your reply to the poster above, refuting the notion that “Iran wants to occupy Iraq”, IAI guy said “it is in the interest of Iran not to have any form of stability in Iraq.” He did not really imply that Iran has territorial ambitions within Iraq. I don’t know if that is true or not.
What was also interesting to me was that though they are nominally Sunni they, the IAI, seem really to be nationalists first. He seemed quite open to work with the Sadrists. Things may not have worked out when the Sadrists put the ethnic agenda first?
Also, what do you make of his comments about Al Quaeda? Why was Al Quaeda blowing mosques and attacking academics?
Vs,
You said, “Iran has absolutely no desire whatsoever to occupy Iraq, even if it was handed Iraq on a silver plate for free.”
However, Iran is actively pursuing the splintering of Iraq, by pursuing the “Federal” charade. We can’t gloss over that fact and this objective is shared by the US occupation.
This is not speculation on my part. The two parties strongly backed by Iran (Da’wa and Supreme Islamic Council) want a separate Shiite state in the south and back a separate Kurdistan. While Maliki is demanding the dismantling of the Mahdi army, he has no problem keeping the much stronger, Israeli-armed and trained Peshmerga fully armed; the Kurdish warlords are his allies.
Iranian agents have also systematically murdered countless Iraqi pilots and other military men as well as scientists and other leaders. That fact is well-documented and can’t be denied. In an article by Dahr Jamail which I posted yesterday, the chief of a major Shiite tribe in the south complained bitterly about Iranian agents systematically murdering Shiite tribal leaders opposed to Iranian control and agenda.
So, while I would not put Iran in the same enemy camp as the US occupation, I would not give it a certificate of good conduct in Iraq, either. Let us not go to either extreme, but let us maintain our objectivity and credibility.
@anonymous: you write IAI guy said “it is in the interest of Iran not to have any form of stability in Iraq.” and Why was Al Quaeda blowing mosques and attacking academics?
You hit it right on the nail (that is the expression in English, right?).
Iran DOES want a stable Iraq and Iran does NOT benefit from instability there. However, a stable Iraq means, from the Iranian point of view, means an Iraq in which the Shia *majority* is fundamentally in power, thereby protecting Iran from Baathists and Wahabis.
Al-Qaeda does NOT want a stable Iraq since Al-Qaeda supporters are less than 1% of the Sunni resistance and that they fully understand that they cannot ever be influential if Iraq is stable because stability can only mean majority rule.
@Tony: you write Iran is actively pursuing the splintering of Iraq, by pursuing the “Federal” charade. We can’t gloss over that fact and this objective is shared by the US occupation.
Let me begin by noting that “pursuing the ‘Federal’ charade is not the same as occupying Iraq. Second, I think that there is no doubt that Iran is using the US occupation to promote its own interests. I don’t think that this indicates any form of deliberate collaboration, but only a skillful use by Iran of the fact that the USA does not control the situation on the ground.
This is not speculation on my part. The two parties strongly backed by Iran (Da’wa and Supreme Islamic Council) want a separate Shiite state in the south and back a separate Kurdistan. While Maliki is demanding the dismantling of the Mahdi army, he has no problem keeping the much stronger, Israeli-armed and trained Peshmerga fully armed; the Kurdish warlords are his allies.
As you no doubt know, Iran has its own problems with the Kurdish separatists. Yet, you point out that Maliki is not demanding the disarming of the Peshmerga. That should point you to the inevitable conclusion that Maliki is not quite the puppet of Iran which many assume he is. More likely, Maliki is the puppet of the highest bidder (US, Iran, Israel and whoever else) and while he is definitely a ‘horse in the race’ for Iran, he is not *the* (only) horse. As I said above, Iran wants to keep its influence as strong as possible with *all* Shia parties. Here is how I believe they view them:
1) Maliki: has no force of his own and is dependent on the Badr corps. Thus Maliki is the weakest of all Shia faction leaders in Iraq. This weakness makes him pliable to pressure. Also, Maliki came to power in what the USA calls a “democratic election” and since the Americans cannot put Hakim in power directly, they are going to have a hard time booting Maliki out (even though they might end up doing this anyway)
2) Hakim: definitely an Iranian puppet. But with no political power outside Maliki and Dawa, thus not a key player as long as the US occupies Iraq. Useful to keep Maliki in check, though.
3) Sadr: definitely *not* an Iranian puppet but a nationalist. The only Shia faction leader with a huge popular base and probably the single most popular leader in Iraq. His anti-Persian rhetoric and his independence make him somewhat of a maverick, but he has shown enough common sense to realize that he cannot fight Iran *and* the Empire at the same time. He is also supported and, probably, advised by Nasrallah.
So none of these options are perfect, but since the situation is fluid and God knows what could happen, it only makes sense for Iran to keep all its options.
What would Iran really want in Iraq?
An Iraqi Nasrallah.
Nasrallah is, beyond any reasonable doubt, an Lebanese patriot. Only a terminally sclerotic Baathist could deny that. Nasrallah is thus not a puppet of Iran, but he is a staunch ally. While he is politically independent, he is spiritually a follower of Ali Khamenei (and not of Sheikh Fadlallah who is often described as the “Hezbollah spiritual leader which he is not. He is a Lebanese Shia spiritual leader, but Hezbollah follows Khamenei, not Fadlallah). Thus, Nasrallah can be a trusted ally and friend, somebody which Iran can count on far more than anyone in Iraq.
There are no Iraqi Nasrallahs in Iraq, at least for the time being. Sadr is the closest thing to it, but he is far from being a Nasrallah for sure. So, for the time being, Iran will keep all its options on the table while trying to groom Sadr to become the Iraqi Nasrallah.
Iranian agents have also systematically murdered countless Iraqi pilots and other military men as well as scientists and other leaders (…) the chief of a major Shiite tribe in the south complained bitterly about Iranian agents systematically murdering Shiite tribal leaders opposed to Iranian control and agenda.
Tony, Iraq is not Lichtenstein. Not only that, but since NOT A SINGLE Iranian national has ever been captured in Iraq these “Iranian agents” could be anything. In fact, if leader “A” has a beef with leader “B”, all he needs to do is call him a “Persian” or an “Iranian agent”. This being said,
I also heard about the Iranians coming in a killing people in the wake of the invasion. But that is neither here nor there since nobody has ever claimed that Iran killed indiscriminately. Did Iranian kill specific individuals? Possibly. And what does this prove? That the Iranians can be as ruthless as anyone else. Is that really big news? No to me. Tony, the Iranians lost ONE MILLION PEOPLE TO THIS WAR! How do you think ANY country would react after loosing 1’000’000+ in a war if it could settle accounts or make sure that the key people of this war were not around to start another one?!
Again, there is no over-emphasizing this: Iran lost ONE MILLION PEOPLE as a consequence of the Baathist attack launched under orders from Washington. ONE MILLION.
Please ask yourself: if your country had lost one million people because of the Iraqi Baathists, how would you deal with the current situation in Iraq?
The Saker
We can’t be free and ignorant at the same time, can we?
We can’t be free and ignorant at the same time, can we?
I am not sure what you are referring to here but whatever it is, no we cannot. Only the Truth can make us free.
I sent you an email yesterday kindly requesting you to RESPECT copyrights and to link this article — which I have created through hand written notes, translated into English from personally watching the Al-Jazeera interview,and gathering all the info and presenting it the way it is presented and publishing the whole thing on my blog – arabwomanewsbytes.blogspot.com
You obviously have ignored my request for evident reasons.
I find that shameful on your part to say the least. But then am not surprised either…
Tiens tu t’es reveille? :P
I am not sure what you are referring to here but whatever it is, no we cannot. Only the Truth can make us free
It’s a quotation from George Washington I believe.
I just can’t believe the number of b/s coming from the MSM (Fox and CNN) when we just need to surf on the blogs to be well informed (and therefore free).
L’Amerique debout K.O. en Irak (from the author of american parano).
Tiens tu t’es reveille? :P
B’un, il a vien fallu que je me reveille avec l’autre megere qui a commencer a hurler comme quoi je lui avait pique son histoire :-))
Bon, j’ai vire son texte, comme ca elle peut se calmer. Ceci dit – j’avais aucune idee que cet opus lui appartenait, mais elle en a rien a foutre, elle m’a encore envoye une lettre d’insultes.
Beati pauperes spiritu…
Its true that the corporate media either lies or entertains. They are simply not in the information business. I don’t even have a TV, I never listen to the radio, not even NPR (Neocon Public Radio), and don’t read the papers. The Internet has so far proven to be the
only mass media which still free. Once they get serious about taking it away, and I am afraid that they will try oon, its going to be awfully hard to get info. So let’s enjoy it while we can!
Je suis une mégère et t’es un vrai connard…et comme le dit le proverbe..
“la chasse aux cons est un safari sans espoir”…
Mauvaise foi et mauvaise langue.
Dis-voir, Layla, t’as pas envie de te calmer un peu? Ta gueguerre contre moi est inutile et ne te rends guere grace…
Si t’est pas capable de t’excuser pour ta crise de nerfs et tes insultes (car maintenent tu *sais* que je n’y etait pour rien dans to histoire de “traduction volee)), tu pourrais au moins la fermer, non?
Encore des âneries de ta part…
Car tu crois que tu es gracieux toi-même…
Et s’il ‘y a qu.un qui doit la boucler ici c’est toi, pauvre con, avec tes médisances et ton ignorance…on peut facilement s’en passer. Je n’ai plus rien te dire vu que tu ne mérites rien.