More

Thomas de Zengotita

Thomas de Zengotita

Posted: September 3, 2007 08:27 PM

Four Scary Signs of a Last Desperate Move in Iraq?


I have blogged about this possibility before. The gist was: if Iran has always been the real target and Iraqi democracy is doomed and was always mostly bullshit anyway--then what American Imperialists will decide to do is join the Sunnis against the Shia in the broader Middle East as Iraq falls apart. That would have been the fallback position all along. It would mean that longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan would be reaffirmed and reinforced. Bush and his boys and girl would have to eat a little crow behind the scenes but those old Arab autocrats would enjoy that. They would nod wisely and forgive the American innocents their naive experiment and offer an oil-drenched handshake in exchange for zillions more in advanced weaponry. They would seal the deal by getting serious about bringing bin Laden down. He's their enemy too, after all--and compared to Shia Iran and its growing network of allies, the splinter group that is Sunni Al Queda is actually peanuts.

That's been my speculation. I've got it classified it in my mind as semi-paranoid, but recent developments give me pause:

1) The Brits withdraw from Basra in what looks like a good old fashioned draw play. Isn't that retreat inviting Iraq to move more obviously into the Shia south?

2) Everybody's ganging up on Maliki now, including clueless stooges in the Democratic party. Is this, in effect, making room for Shia leaders more closely allied with Iran to replace Maliki?

3) All the wise men (plus Hillary) are cooing about how we can "redeploy" to bases in the Kurdish north, apparently a pro-American heaven/haven.

4) Bush lands in Anbar this morning to cement the US commitment to Sunni "tribal leaders" who are now killing Al Queda instead of us. Who are those leaders? A lot of them are former Saddamists, no doubt, and the rest of them are surely in touch with the Saudis, Egyptians and etc. One things for sure: they hate the Shia.

Pretend you're playing Risk or something. Look at those developments and then imagine bombing Iran in concert with those developments coming to a head. Suddenly you are looking at a map in which a bomb-blasted Iranian military gets to extend into the Shia south--but the net effect is a clear line of battle drawn between them and the Sunni west and Kurdish north, both of now firmly allied with the US and backed by the Sunni states and maybe even, at least eventually, the Sunni masses.

This is an insane idea, of course--but so what? Look who's in charge.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:53 PM on 09/07/2007
The thing tieing this all together is obviously Iran. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan were all against us doing anything in Iraq. Iran was always the threat they worried about.

So Iraq was done contingent on us ensuring that Iran would not be able to dominate it, and once in Iraq, we would go after Iran and wipe out it's military, and it also allowed us to get out of Saudi Arabia because it was becoming an issue for the House of Saud and was on of the reasons Bin Laden gave for attacking us.

Obviously a Shia controlled government with ties to Iran whose constitution follows Islamic law would never be free of Iranian influence at an early stage and eventually Iranian control. Hence the need for a permanent presence in Iraq, and lets face it, we want to maintain a presence in the region where we can operate freely and not have to get permission from the host country for an operation we deem necesary.

Once we bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, the Shias in Iraq not already targetting US troops will do so, good thing we armed the Sunni's to help us fight AQI, now they can fight Shias, and more important, we will never be able to withdraw from Iraq because Iran would certainly invade a Sunni controlled Iraq once we departed.

Mission accomplished.
05:41 PM on 09/04/2007
Just to add another thought to this string. Bush believes in Armageddon. He may see this as his last chance to make it happen. If there is a God may he help us all and strike these fools dead.
04:24 PM on 09/04/2007
Put me down as in agreement. I finely figured out that why Current Occupant could never come up with a reason for invading was because there wasn't one that could be spoken about.

I have been claiming that we are seeing the Arab League outed.
04:18 PM on 09/04/2007
"...and was always mostly bullshit anyway" - Most hilarious line ever - and I mean that in a way that it made me laugh - not in a sarcastic way.

Great great post - gotta read this stud more often for his poignant and hilarious analysis.
02:48 PM on 09/04/2007
Bush’s decisions are destroying our military and looting our treasury. Most think it is incompetence. I suspect in fact that everything is going to plan.

All this apparent incomptence is intentional and targeted at very different objectives than we all think.

We are still in a cold war with Russia but we just dont know it. We know the KGB controls all of the oil wealth of Russia. I suspect if we dug deep as to who is really funding the neocon effort and other war mongers we would see that it is our comrads on the other side of the world who have the largest untapped reserves of oil and gas in the world. It is in the best interest of Russia and China for that matter for us to depleat our monitary and military resources and get bogged down in a regional conflict. Heck, this is the same playbook we used on Russia that we thought ended the cold war.

Money and blackmail are driving the leaders of this country to make what looks like stupid decisions that are totally supporting those who would wish to eliminate the US as a significant world power.

With China and Russia using Iran as a proxi, I suspect the price we pay for and Iran attack will be very high, and very much to their benifit.

Sounds crazy on first read… but think about it for a while. Who really benifits from what we are doing in the mideast?
05:19 PM on 09/04/2007
The KGB is funding the neo-con's? Come on, you might want to re-think that one.

Not being a neo-con myself and having no pervey to their interworkings, I can only deduce that their membership are the robber barrons and the corporate elite.(PNAC list not withstanding) I would think they wouldn't need KGB money, or that the KGB would be inclinded to give it.
outnow
Ban the bomb
01:59 PM on 09/04/2007
We always knew that Bush would go into Iran and Syrian after Iraq. I played Risk - it's all a joke with Rethugs. The political pile is dominated by opportunists from both wings. AIPAC and oil-- was there a question? No, I thought not!!

See me after class - I will tell you what a joke it is?
photo
speakingtruth2power
Not motivated by fear & loathing
01:50 PM on 09/04/2007
Your last statement was the clincher. Your argument is undeniable with that closer. With fewer options left, the decider will once again go 180 degrees away from the sane choice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Synoia
12:21 PM on 09/04/2007
This is a bit simplistic. It ingores the Kurds. And maybe the oil.

I have some Iranian clients, and they firmly believe the US bashes the Iranians down about every 25 years to prevent them becoming a major force in the middle east.
02:31 PM on 09/04/2007
Of course we do. Americans have fallen in love with our own power and strength. Our national pride used to be in our freedoms and rights, but as we have seen we threw away those rights and freedoms in the name of "security" which translates to our power and strength. Unfortunatly, preserving that power means we have to resort to ever increasing violence to maintain it. That's what Iraq and now Iran are all about: preserving American power. Our power is a house of cards these days, our national debt and alienation of our traditional allies will bring about our downfall if we do not change course.
12:12 PM on 09/04/2007
Iran has always been the target and Bush is now more dangerous than ever as time runs out on his term of office. Who wants to bet he won't choose the nu'clar option and create an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented proportions as well as setting the world on fire with further conflict?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:49 AM on 09/04/2007
Left to their own devices, Iran will eventually throw off the mullahs, becoming the social, cultural, military and political leader of the region. They will have nuclear power and probably the bomb as well. And they are not likely to tangle with Israel, unless Israel starts it.

As it is now, the people of Iran are the only ones in the middle east who actually like Americans, so naturally the madman running our government and ruining our country thinks it necessary to bomb them.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
11:06 AM on 09/04/2007
That's something I could never understand. A hard-right fundamentalist government that limits the press, imposes religious dogma, and represses civil liberties - and Republican's DON'T like them? They couldn't be more similar if they both used an elephant as their mascot!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Synoia
12:19 PM on 09/04/2007
It's about control, and the Republicans (Neocons) have no control over the Iranians.
09:30 AM on 09/04/2007
wolfwarrior - you're heart is in the right place, but you're not paying attention, and drastically overestimating american intelligence. the crooks and liars have already gotten away with it. And their propoganda DOES work. The bumbling idiot got re-elected. In the next year, we will hear more lies, our treasury will be plundered even more, and what will we do about it? Nothing. There is no opposition party. They're all in together. we are being run by the highest bidder, no matter who you vote for, doesn't really matter.
photo
joebaggadonuts
Civilization: Evolutionary pathway of choice.
02:29 PM on 09/04/2007
It can change if there are enough like Wolfwarrior out there.
photo
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
03:24 PM on 09/04/2007
People will always get the Government they deserve.
08:12 AM on 09/04/2007
We are just about where they have all wanted US- surrounded and depleted. And no one left to protect the home front. Better invest in the one right we still possess- the right to bear arms- because W & DICK have given away our defenses to our enemies. But it appears that has been their plan along.
08:10 AM on 09/04/2007
The big flaw in administration Iraq thinking was that we would be greeted as liberators, and all would spontaneously fall into place as in Eastern Europe.

The big flaw in administration Iran thinking can now be identified in advance; that a three day, surgical, aerial blitzkreig will obliterate all its military capacity, leaving us with no reaction to deal with.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
11:02 AM on 09/04/2007
Some years ago to pass the time I tried to list all the countires the U.S. has threatened with lethal force or actually dropped bombs on since Vietnam. It turned out to be quite an impressive list. Syria, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Lybia, Iran, Indonesia, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. etc. The common thread in all these cases is that we applied force with impunity, with no thought of possible retribution or consequences. But the world is turning, other countries have got our number now. They now realise we're not impervious to pain. The next time the U.S. attempts to apply lethal force to further its foreign policy goals expect painful repercussions, one way or another.
01:27 AM on 09/04/2007
Actually - The Neo-Con's and pro you know who - are in a hope we can do something mode.

They really thought Iraq would shower them with flower's - Once they said they were free - then it became a free for all.

But you can bet your bottom dollar - it will remain a living hell for all the people in the region - has been for centuries - and now is no diff.

But what does the neo-con's care - they made there money already - once they saw it was over for them - they created the mess - then they stole billions from American tax payer's and leveraged American equity.

But the problem is a simple one - no matter what the neo-con's do - without complete peace and democracy freedom for all people in the middle-east - They will face a hate so deep among the American people - they will burn for a long time.

They lied - and the American People won't fight for a LIE - and will come too hate the LIAR........

No matter how much propoganda fox and other's can throw out - there watched for how many lies they tell among the American people.

Propoganda is useless - when those it's used on see it all as LIE'S ....

So the only risk the neo-con's and pro you know who is playing - is having the gun's turn on them - When the American People demand a stop too the LIE'S ......
02:04 PM on 09/04/2007
I dunno wolf they've kept this one going for a long time
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
TXfemmom
Grandma with eye on the future
01:12 AM on 09/04/2007
Well, there is one thing for certain, bomb Iran and the Shites are going for our troops, and Israel in a manner which we have not seen.

We should withdraw, making the Saudis help the Sunnis, militarily and financially, but Saudi would make it come with the caveat that they destroy Al Qaeda of Iraq, as they are a threat to the Saudis.

The Saudis will have to pay the Jordanians to get involved, and the Iranians would help the Shites, and the Iranians do not have the financial reserves to do that without seriously depriving their own people, who are none too pleased, already. The Saudis could take out any hope of the Iranians getting their refined products, and take out Iran's refining rather easily, and Iran would fall, in a very short time.

That is a win-win for us, and the Saudis finally have to use their own money and men to fight the Shites. We need to stop doing their work for them.
02:31 PM on 09/04/2007
What on earth leads you to believe that the Saudis will get involved?
They hardly raised a finger during Gulf War I. What is their contribution to the current "coalition forces?" They prefer to fight their battles by proxy; with American men and women. Saudis and the other regional regimes have little in common, except for their hatred of Israel, and mistrust of each other.
On the one hand, I feel it should be the Saudi (and other regional countries' soldiers) who should be involved in stabilizing Iraq.
On the other hand, I fear that prospect very much. Because the same tensions that have torn Iraq apart will come to a head for the entire region.