Matt Yglesias points to this KnightRidder account suggesting that Iran seems to have emerged holding the strategic spoils of the Iraq war:
The logic of Iran's ascendance is simple. Iran sat back as the United States launched expensive wars and defeated Iranian enemies on two of its borders, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran's population is predominantly Shiite Muslim, and with Iraq's Shiite majority certain to dominate any new Iraqi government, the two nations will share cultural and religious ties that will likely bringing the formerly warring neighbors closer.In this week's New Yorker Seymour Hersh explains that it gets even more complicated than that:Senior U.S. officials in Washington fear that a Shiite uprising in Iraq could trigger unrest in neighboring Kuwait, where Shiites are 30 percent of the population; in Bahrain, which is 70 percent Shiite, and in the oil-rich eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where Shiites are a narrow majority.
Iranians, who succeeded in exporting their Islamic revolution to Shiite parts of Lebanon after Israel invaded that country in 1982, believe they've now played their cards well as America stumbled into a guerrilla war in Iraq.
Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel’s clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports.Yikes. The Kurds are seriously agitating about the prospect of a Shiite majority government—which Iran is promoting. Iran, Turkey, and Syria don't want to see Kurdistan emerge—which Israel is urging. Sometimes I hope that I'm just reading about the world's worst game of RISK, and I'll wake up soon with a solidly fortified position in Brazil, which everyone knows is the key to holding both South America and Africa and the road to victory, and a vast array of tanks/Roman numeral 10s at my disposal, because everyone knows you don't fight a land war in Asia, and the whole Middle East is only one territory anyway.
While we're talking about this stuff at the Stratego level, it's unequivocally good news that the Iraqis seem to approve of the new government framework, with "support spanning ethnic and religious groups." Who'd of thought—the transitional authority figures haven't been slurred as US stooges. There may be a good honeymoon in this transition. The countervailing opinion, of course, can be found in the unimpeded insurgent attacks, like the coordinated display yesterday that killed 100 Iraqis. If that trend continues unabated, I bet the honeymoon sours quickly. We're going to at least need some lucky dice.
Posted by Kriston at June 25, 2004 3:46 PMSomeone explain to me how killing Iraqi citizens advances your cause as an insurgent. Is it just to maintain a vague feeling of unrest in the hopes of stirring ethnic tensions when election time comes around? Are they trying to keep things volatile so that all of the agitation you talked about in this post leads to the disintegration of the country?
Because, otherwise, it just seems stupid.
Posted by: matty at June 25, 2004 7:20 PMIt proves the US and the current Iraqi gov aren't doing a wonderful job of making sure everyone is safe, but yes, I agree that it certainly could create a big backlash against those doing the bombings, especially if the bombers are perceived as being foreigners. Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger (or infidel).
The US qualifies as the stranger/infidel, but if the Iraqi gov can be seen to be taking serious and useful control of Iraq, then the Iraqis will likely turn against those doing the bombings both becaues they are killing other Iraqis and because they are in part people from other countries and tribes.
See http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ for a very detailed history and analysis of the middle east and how tribal warfare has affected the whole area.
Posted by: Justin at June 26, 2004 7:53 AMI agree that Iran emerges the strongest...and who the hell's gonna do anything about their nuclear capabilities, except Israel. I would hope Israel would show restraint and not send F-15's unless all else fails..
I don't understand why the interim government doesn't start calling Zarqawi a "foreigner", a "jordanian" every day from every ministry. In fact, I'd call on the Jordanian government to drop 1,500 troops in Fallujah to start hunting him down for extraction. Who the hell is he to tell the interim government you can't do this or that...
Brazil, Kriston?
Posted by: j.scott barnard at June 26, 2004 11:46 AMIt's a RISK thing. I only expect like 2 nerds to follow it...
Posted by: Kriston at June 26, 2004 12:03 PMYour Blog is so sweet! Your posts give me ideas and I start really thinking. Thank you!
Posted by: Manuel Lawernce at March 27, 2011 10:22 AMI am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.
Posted by: Maryalice Hetrick at April 24, 2011 10:23 AM