Michael Ware: "Iran Has A Lock On Influence And Persuasion... Within The Iraqi Political Process" (VIDEO)

My extremely tall friend Matt Duss of the Center for American Progress has a fascinating video interview with CNN's Michael Ware, who's done yeoman work reporting from Baghdad. Ware's take on the Status of Forces Agreement: Iran had much more influence over the process than the U.S. seems to realize.

Keep reading here.

-OR-

Watch the interview below.

Comments

[sticksnstones]

Iran a major player in the mid-east? The hell you say! Sticking their noses in Iraq's affairs when we all know anything they do there is an effort to promote self-interest. We can't have this. This is our own private sandbox .......to promote our own self-interest.....

[motown67]

Iran was opposed to the SOFA at first, but now they've changed their tune. Ware is right, Tehran has extensive ties with many of Iraq's leading parties. The Supreme Council (SIIC) was formed in Iran and fought on the Iranain side in the Iran-Iraq War. The Kurds were supported by Iran and also fought on their side in the Iran-Iraq War as well. Many members of the Dawa were also pro-Iranian. Since the war they have built up extensive military, political, economic, religious, and social ties within Iraq. They fund various Shiite militias to stir up chaos in the country to tie the U.S. down, they supported the 2005 elections that put the SIIC, Kurds and Dawa in power, and they still have close ties with them, Iran has become the largest trading partner for Iraq outside of oil, Iranians are the largest tourists to the country, and has religious pull with the holy city of Qom. They are now for the SOFA because it will not allow the U.S. to use Iraq as a base for attack and sets a date for when the Americans will leave. Overall, Tehran doesn't want to run Iraq, they just want enough influence so whatever happens they can shape and benefit from it. For more see: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2008/11/iranians-and-special-groups-forces.html

[peterg76]

Funny how any time the Iraqis aren't cravenly capitulating to the petro-mercenary occupation, the problem is Iran.

[arvay]

Somehow, the US news media have largely ignored the glaring fact that Bush's removal of Saddam set up Iran is a major power in the area, without serious opposition.

We've removed a secularist Arab state (admittedly run by a very bad actor) and replace it with a Shiite government clearly oriented toward Iran. There is absolutely no chance that a liberal democracy can emerge in iran in our lifetime or maybe ever.

Once we're gone, look for Iraq to serve as a conduit to Iran for weapons, advanced technology and a friendly place to locate missiles.

Actually, a powerful Iran can help to put a lid on israeli craziness, which is why Israel is screeching to attack Iran now. That won't work either, the last thing the US and the advanced economies can stand now is a recession PLUS astronomical oil prices that would follow an attack.

Checkmate, W. The Fifth Imam salutes you!

[Durango]

I disagree. We could have the beginnings of a liberal democracy in Iran as soon as this summer's elections.

The biggest political movement in Iran is towards reform. it is being held back, in part, by aggressive US policies that by threatening Iran, and empower the conservative clerics who are the real power.I n any country the citizens will support their government in times of crisis. Especially foreign threats.

But the clerics are growing old. And corrupt.

Left to there own without foreign threats Iran just might evolve into a modern progressive country.

It is worth giving them the chance. What we have been doing so far hasn't worked.

[arvay]

I think your timetable might be a little off, there might be a democracy of sorts in Iran eventually, but the Iranians are going to have to deal with a well-armed theocratic party that will have to be persuaded to step down.

After the collapse of the USSR, I guess we shouldn't dismiss the possibility. Economic collapse might hasten the process, and if the Iranians are lucky they might overturn the theocrats without bloodshed. It's already clear that the Iranian population is sick of their erratic president and his failed economic policies, the fanatics who whip people for having long hair and isolation from the rest of the world.

I share your view that we are the major force keeping the conservatives in power. I have high hopes for the Obama presidency, but the idea of Hillary as SOS is making me edgy about exactly where he's going. That, and the Israelis, are the big wild cards in the mix. If we can avoid a conflict and prevent Israel from starting one, there's a chance that we'll see a peaceful evolution in Iran.

Also, resolution of the Palestinian situation would remove the underlying problem that keeps the area festering.

[Sapphdia]

Liberal democracy... hahahaha!

[Topo]

If you believe in true freedom - not the false one as embraced by Bush - it is up to Iran to choose between US influence or Iran influence.

[stanblack]

Define freedom.

[mcantwell]

Nothing new here.

[TLV]

Well, yea...you destroy Iran's worst enemy - Iraq - and not expect Iran to become more powerful? Bush had NO clue! Never did...never will.

[Americano]

What can one say: "This has been the worse 8 years, under this Bush presidency, in America's history. It may take 20 plus years to under the failures of this administration on America and the whole world! Sad!

[repugnicansfearme]

If you believe anything Ware says you are as crazy as he is.

[davesideas]

Pardon me, but the Ware has been the only clear voice out of Iraq since the invasion; his reporting has been highly accurate. Too doubt Iran's involvement with the only other major population of Shia in the middle-east is to deny the obvious.

[helonias]

Irans rulers are treated to the red carpet when they visit Iraq silly

[Durango]

Not to mention the red carpet treatment Iraqi leaders get in Iran.

[HoneyRyder]

I think Michael Ware is so sexy..even with his twisted "Luke Owenish" nose. A total babe

[Hirnlego]

With Iran, Obama Needs More Carrot, Less Stick

By Scott Ritter

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21223.htm

[Harrier]

My Guess is Alabama has a lock on the political process in their state as well.

[robeson]

Johjn Nagl analyst on PBS NewsHour says we need to arm Iraq with M-1 tanks and F16 aircraft. Didn't we go in to disarm them?
Nagl,
"The Iraqis are currently negotiating with the United States to buy M-1 tanks, F-16 fighter planes. They need those. This is a dangerous neighborhood Iraq lives in. And it's going to need that kind of security apparatus for the future. But it's not going to have them in place and be able to maintain them and fly those planes themselves by 2011."

[jmbrooks2]

Brilliant observation.

I watched that same interview, and didn't pick it up.

Really great point robeson!

[SmellyOne]

If you are being truthful, you will admit that we erroneously went into Iraq to find WMD, not to "disarm them". Any rational person can see the difference.

[robeson]

Actually you are incorrect once more smelly. smelly "...not to "disarm them". Just to find them an say, your it, I suppose?
We certainly did. If a helicopter could deliver WMD surely an F-16 could.
Expand your universe mate, turn off hate radio. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Durango]

Actually the argument went:

1. Saddam has WMD's (which we knew he didn't because the UN inspectors on the ground disposed of them).

2. Saddam was going to give those WMD's to his mortal enemies in al Qaida. Who would then use them to attack the USA.

3. Saddam or al Qaida had the means to deliver the WMD's through model aircraft.

We certainly invaded Iraq to disarm them.

[chaos4700]

We're arguing semantics at this point. Robeson's pointing out the irony of going into Iraq, completely divesting it of its military infrastructure in our fruitless search for WMDs, and then offering to sell them military equipment. It's kind of like a vacuum cleaner salesman who breaks down your front door, pours a bottle of red wine your rug and then offers to sell you a steam cleaner.

Considering US contractors in Iraq are making out like bandits, it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of many ulterior motives the administration and its cronies had.

[luke150]

M. Ware is the best reporter from Iraq. He knows so much more than the ridiculous pundits on the networks.
Bush created such a nightmare with his stupid policies that it will be so hard for Obama to fix it.

[Nonamnesiac]

Just as the US Politicians couldn't turn down the graft each will receive as their piece for giving away nearly a trillion dollars to the financial institutions that caused the collapse of the economy with no enforceable accountability, transparency or reregulation, the Iraqi politicians couldn't turn down the graft they will each receive as their piece of the $10 billion per month giveaway the US supplies Iraq with little oversight. The new Iraqi leadership will vote to extend the US military presence in Iraq and take the huge resultant graft and remain close to Iran while they do it. Once the giveaway ends, they will formally ally with Iran. And with a narrow-world view, reflexive militarist Hillary as Secretary of State, that's exactly what's going to happen. The Dems and the Republicans in Congress and the White House are wholly personally corrupt and owned as are the Iraqi ruling parties. Unfortunately for our courageous young men and women in the military, they are going to pay with their lives and limbs.

[postman606]

Before he sold his soul to Bush/Cheney and the CIA, Colin Powell predicted this very thing.

[Durango]

Colin Powell, Hell!

Dick Cheney predicted this in 1992 (or so)

Which only makes his crimes that much worse.

He KNEW better.