| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran capitalizing on Iraq violence |
| 2004-09-14 |
| Seventeen months after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein, instability in Iraq is creating opportunities for its mainly Shiite Muslim neighbor, Iran. "The real long-term geopolitical winner of the 'War on Terror' could be Iran," concludes a new report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Britain's most respected foreign-policy research organization. The report suggests that Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear program — despite U.S. and European pressure to do so — reflects the Iranian leadership's judgment that the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq, is in no position to "launch a serious military operation against Iran." Nervous that it might be the next U.S. target after the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, Iran agreed last year to suspend enrichment of uranium, a fuel that can be used for power plants or bombs. But an Iranian official, Hossein Mousavian, said Monday that Iran could resume enrichment "within a few months" and has a "legitimate right" to do so to provide fuel for power plants. Mousavian spoke at a meeting in Vienna of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. Despite U.S. lobbying and the discovery by U.N. inspectors that Iran hid crucial elements of its nuclear program, the board is expected to put off any consideration of punishing Iran until after the U.S. presidential election in November. Since the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has increased funding for Shiite groups and social services in western Afghanistan and southern Iraq. Iran experts say Iran has strengthened ties with Iraqi Shiite religious and political leaders, including rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr loyalists battled U.S. forces in Najaf last month and are still fighting Americans in Baghdad's Shiite slums. "The Iranians have so much control over what happens in Iraq," says Gareth Stansfield, a research fellow at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the British report. "The United States is only beginning to realize this." Supporters of the Iraq war say that creation of a democratic government in Iraq will undermine Iran's authoritarian regime by encouraging Iran's democratic opposition. "If a democratic Iraq develops, protected by the Shiite clergy, that is not good for Iran," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, a conservative think tank. "The ideal situation for the Iranians was a weak Saddam Hussein" who was unable to wage another war on his neighbors. But movement toward democracy in Iraq has been hindered by violence, which could delay or limit elections set for January. Even if voting takes place on schedule, the victors are likely to be the majority Shiites, who would be expected to seek good relations with Iran. Iran wins in every Iraqi political scenario except a new secular dictatorship, the most unlikely outcome of U.S. intervention, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert at the Congressional Research Service, a think tank that prepares reports for Congress. "The losers are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia," which face new challenges from Sunni Muslim fundamentalists and restive Shiite minorities, Katzman says. Emboldened by U.S. difficulties in Iraq, the Iranian government has been increasingly assertive about its right to build a nuclear infrastructure and to support radicals in countries stretching from Israel to Afghanistan. "I say the presence of Americans (in Iraq) is not a sign of strength," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the Al-Jazeera television network last month. Bragging about Iranian influence, he said: "We are present from Quds (Jerusalem) to Kandahar (in Afghanistan). We are present in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 Methinks the Pentagon lights burn 24x7 - and plans are updated as often as the intel demands. Tick... Tock... Mullahs can't tell time. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-14 12:56:01 PM |
| #7 I don't disagree. One think that Iran might be mindful of is that there are two months between November and January 4. Looking at our past militay actions - that's pleny o' time. Between Israel, Russia and the US - things aren't looking good for Iran - despite all their customary bluster. |
| Posted by: 2B 2004-09-14 12:53:43 PM |
| #6 2B, It is immaterial if they are that close to a nuke what matters is that in a little time they may possess enough stashed critical stuff that can be hidden away, and then they may at their leisure construct nukes as the need arises. I definitely don't think Iraq is a quagmire - the opposite is true, considering the objective conditions the Americans have achieved a lot. The problem is that this kind of change will take years and requires patience and a long attention span (which I doubt common american voters possess). Therefore it is extremely important that the de-fanging of Iran (and possibly of the Norks) is done NOW, while you can still gather public support and understanding for this. Later, it may be almost impossible to locate and deal with already half formed nuke components, while right now the uranium purification plants and the reactor are sitting ducks. So I say now is the time to do it and IMHO you dont even need nukes to accomplish this if you plan correctly. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2004-09-14 12:48:29 PM |
| #5 The Umrah will occur in mid October, heh. There is no end to the ritual requirements of Islam. Keep 'em bizzy - and watching each othere (Stasi-style) - and they'll stay on the reservation. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-14 11:04:27 AM |
| #4 B-a-R - Already happened for the current Islamic "year" - in January. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-14 10:59:50 AM |
| #3 When does that Shiite pilgrim season begin? Until a large part of the insurgency is crushed, the border should be secured and "pilgrims" not allowed to enter. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-14 10:49:26 AM |
| #2 good post EZ. However, considering the overall quagmire tone of the article above, I wonder if Iran is really that close? Not saying they aren't - but this article is even attempting to make Sadr look like a major threat. This strikes me as wishful thinking by the latte left, that Iraq is spiralling out of control and the US is mired! Mired! in Iraq. |
| Posted by: 2B 2004-09-14 7:38:25 AM |
| #1 "I say the presence of Americans (in Iraq) is not a sign of strength," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the Al-Jazeera television network last month. Bragging about Iranian influence, he said: "We are present from Quds (Jerusalem) to Kandahar (in Afghanistan). We are present in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq." The prime challenges of the next US president 1) Defanging Iran's and NK of nuclear capabilities. 2)Regime change in both. This is not me saying this, this is straight from the mounth of Ali Shamkhani himself. They are so sure of themselves that they dropped al pretense regarding their ambitions. I hope President Bush is smart enough to have the army prepare the proper response now and not wait till reelection. This way he can unleash them on the Mullahs while there is enough time. If Bush fails I hope my own government will do something about them, otherwise this is going to be the beginning of the end for western civilization. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2004-09-14 5:04:21 AM |