Iraq: Don’t Fear The Reaper

posted at 10:15 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Nouri al-Maliki sought to reassure his Iranian neighbors that an Iraqi-American security partnership would only concern defensive security. He promised that American bases in Iraq would not be used as launching pads for an American invasion of Iran, and that the Iraqis would not stand for such action based out of their country. The security partnership faces stiff opposition among National Assembly factions close to Tehran, and Maliki wants to get it passed this summer:

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, sought to soothe Iranian opposition to a long-term American military presence in Iraq by offering assurances in Tehran on Sunday that American bases would not be used to attack Iran.

“We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors,” Mr. Maliki said, according to the Iranian state-run news agency, IRNA, which reported that he met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the second day of a three-day visit.

The Iraqi prime minister also held talks with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Vice President Parviz Davoudi, among other officials.

Iran has made no secret that it opposes a long-term security pact, currently being negotiated by American and Iraqi officials, which among other things would address the future of American bases in Iraq. Iranian authorities have spoken against the agreement in the past week, saying it would harm the interests of the Iraqi people.

Maliki will present evidence, however, that Iran uses its military to arm the Shi’ite militias operating in the south of Iraq. He plans to confront Tehran over its meddling. At the same time, the US announced the detention of a militia leader that smuggled arms and munitions out of Iran, disrupting for the moment a part of that network. Maliki will likely tell the Iranians that the best way to keep the US out of Iran is for Iran to stay out of Iraq.

It comes as no surprise that the Iraqis don’t want the US to stage an invasion of Iran from Iraq. The Iraqis tried launching a war against Iran at the combined cost of a million lives and eight years of destruction, to no avail. They don’t want to see a repeat of that, even as spectators, which Iran would ensure they wouldn’t be. Any security partnership between the US and Iraq would have that limitation regardless of who negotiates the treaty.

And of course, the US would hardly be in a position to invade Iran anyway. It would take far more forces to invade and control Iran than it did Iraq, and we simply don’t have those resources, even if we used every last American man and woman in Iraq today. Nor would we want to invade; if we used any military options at all, they would rely on airpower and missiles from naval batteries in the Gulf, and not ground troops.

Military bases in Iraq would still have the effect of keeping the Iranians off balance, at least for the short term, while we help strengthen the Iraqi security forces for internal stability and border protection. The Iranians will never accept our presence in Iraq, even with Maliki’s soothing rhetoric. Hopefully, Maliki can overcome the opposition to the security partnership without needing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s blessing.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why is he over there to give “assurances” to a thug that is undermining peace in Iraq?

jgapinoy on June 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Oh, I don’t know, if I was the Iranians, I’d fear The Reaper.

trubble on June 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Shi’ite trumps borders.

profitsbeard on June 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Before we hear all the to-hell-with-Iraq comments….

No biggie, imo. The security agreement goes out the window if Iran attacked Iraq or American security forces. This simply gives the Iraqi government additional elbow room to keep us on the ground.

Limerick on June 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Maliki will likely tell the Iranians that the best way to keep the US out of Iran is for Iran to stay out of Iraq.

And Lebanon and Gaza and Golan and the West Bank and Turkey and Afghanistan and the Gulf and …

Tony737 on June 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Who is this guy and where did he come from. Did the U.S. stwitch the real Maliki out a few months ago for an impersonator with some stones?

More Cowbell.

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Before we hear all the to-hell-with-Iraq comments….

No biggie, imo. The security agreement goes out the window if Iran attacked Iraq or American security forces. This simply gives the Iraqi government additional elbow room to keep us on the ground.

Limerick on June 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Yeah, this is just a chess move. I don’t see any American boots on the Iranian ground as a military move without major provocation. I do anticipate an air and sea move to take down the Iranian economy.

a capella on June 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM

I do anticipate an air and sea move to take down the Iranian economy.

And the Navy will be happy to oblige Iran if they want a Naval Conflict.

Although I do not see the army helping us out in the Naval War like we have been doing for them in the Augmentation process.

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM

I do anticipate an air and sea move to take down the Iranian economy. – a cap

Agreed. Then watch for the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs and celebrate in the streets.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Tony737 on June 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM

And the Navy will be happy to oblige Iran if they want a Naval Conflict. – Squid

The Air Force will also be happy to sweep the skies clear of any Iranian pilot dumb enough to take off.

Tony737 on June 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Tony737 on June 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Nahh the Navy will have the Iranian AF handled before the zoomies get off the golf course :)

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM

… before the zoomies get off the golf course – Squid

HAHA yeah, we do have our priorities! The pilot I was flying with the other day was a former Navy guy and he was saying how amazed he was at the golf courses on every A.F. base he’s been to.

There’s even a movie (a true story) called ‘Bat 21′ about an A.F. colonel shot down over Vietnam who uses the greens of A.F. golf courses to create a map for the rescue team to pick him up.

But I predict the F-15s will have the skies clear before the F-18s even launch. The A.F. wants to makes sure that no former Tomcatter in a Hornet has to shoot down an Iranian F-14, it would just be heartbreaking for him.

Tony737 on June 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM

The Iranians want the US to come.

“Let the Americans come,” she said loudly. “Let them sort things out for us once and for all.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/sympathy_for_the_great_satan_114459.htm

drjohn on June 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM

“We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors,” Mr. Maliki said, according to the Iranian state-run news agency

So basically the NY Times is apparently a syndicated outlet for IRNA. I would take the entire story with 50 grains of salt.

crosspatch on June 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM

If you can get all the Naval AV8Rs outta their hot bunks;0

Rhinoboy on June 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM

As far as I can tell, the Iranian news agency is the only source quoted for that story. It doesn’t appear that they attempted to get any response directly from Maliki’s office. They simply found a story that fits their agenda and ran with it as gospel.

crosspatch on June 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Judging from consistent historical figures, al-Maliki shares rhetoric of the region. Within regional populations and leaders there, sometimes what is said is merely said as part of the overall mannerisms. I couldn’t say what al-Maliki said or meant, and would remain on constant monitor mode. Iran, a purely Islamic theocracy with one sect acknowleged, is not bound by the diplomatic niceties such as are required of al-Maliki who is performing extremely well in his tight-wire balancing act. Obviously, mind all of the Ps&Qs while keeping your holster in hand.

Iraq doesn’t WANT another war. Neither do we! By “invade” one could presume that denotes first strike and has no bearing on defensive response to attack from Iran.

Bush had better define and get his Iraq treaty before leaving office.

maverick muse on June 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Since when does an Arab leader’s word mean anything?

Ethics and Arabs don’t mix.

fogw on June 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM

But I predict the F-15s will have the skies clear before the F-18s even launch. The A.F. wants to makes sure that no former Tomcatter in a Hornet has to shoot down an Iranian F-14, it would just be heartbreaking for him.

So true, they would be sad.

I would like to fight the Iranian Navy (not the IRG-N)

They have always been very professional during my limited contact with them.

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Another appeaser.

How about, “You animals are killing my people. Stay out of this country or we will come and find you.”

Hening on June 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Hening on June 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Because that is not how you talk to the really big country next door that you have already faought a devistating 10 year war with.

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM

We don’t need Iraq to launch an attack, he can make all the promises he wants.
The fact is, if Iran wants to attack, then we will be there to repel any attack.

right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM

It comes as no surprise that the Iraqis don’t want the US to stage an invasion of Iran from Iraq.

I don’t know that. I’ve heard literally thousands of bum steers about what the “Iranian in the street” thinks about everything. And this claim makes as little sense as all the others did. There is still plenty of bad blood left between Iran and Iraq, and the incessent incursions and Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq haven’t exactly helped to smooth things over.

And I’ve heard even MORE idiotic claims about how “America is doomed to lose” whenever we dare to face up to the invincible will of Islamic fundamentalism. I think it’s safe to assume the Iraqis know better than anyone that the U.S. Military is not the Republican Guard. And just because Saddam Hussein couldn’t succeed doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for us.

logis on June 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM

We don’t need Iraq to launch an attack, he can make all the promises he wants.
The fact is, if Iran wants to attack, then we will be there to repel any attack.

right2bright on June 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Iran won’t attack. They want to lure the U.S. into making the first strike. They don’t want to provide an excuse nor does the U.S. want to go after their economy without major provocation. Iran is very aware of this and is playing for time while the centrifuges spin.

a capella on June 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM

It would take far more forces to invade and control Iran than it did Iraq, and we simply don’t have those resources

Yes and no. Removing the mullahs would likely be no more difficult than removing Saddam. Occupying the country of 70 million might be more difficult than managing 25 million Iraqis — but then again, it might not.

Iran, unlike March 2003 Iraq, has security institutions that will not crumble overnight if the leadership is decapitated. They also don’t have the sectarian issues around which ruthless militias would coalesce as they did in Iran. The Sunni presence is small, so no Al Qaeda.

And of course, we don’t necessarily have to occupy Iran.

TallDave on June 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM

as they did in Iraq*.

TallDave on June 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM

It comes as no surprise that the Iraqis don’t want the US to stage an invasion of Iran from Iraq.

Depends who you ask. The Shia are friendly to ambivalent with Iran, the Kurds don’t like Iran but don’t want war, and the Sunnis can’t wait to help us sack Tehran.

TallDave on June 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM

I posted the following on this idiot’s blog:

Oliver,
This seems like an honest mistake, I think that you are reaching pretty hard with you assumtion that people who have a problem with Senator Obama’s associates and policies want to firebomb a church.

Just because we think the pastor is a nutbag does not mean we want to burn the church dowm, comeon.

Isnt Obama supposed to be about trancending race?

The only people who I see bringing up shades of racism are his supporters. I am not saying you are racist, but it is gross opportunism, taking advantage of the guilt many of us who were not even alive at the time still feel.

Respectfully,
The Squid

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Sorry, wrong thread, please ignore.

Squid Shark on June 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM

It would take far more forces to invade and control Iran than it did Iraq, and we simply don’t have those resources

Yes and no. Removing the mullahs would likely be no more difficult than removing Saddam. Occupying the country of 70 million might be more difficult than managing 25 million Iraqis — but then again, it might not.

TallDave on June 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM

People keep forgetting that the majority of the “difficulties” in Iraq are being caused by the Iranian regime. Therefore, occupying Iran should make the net effort EASIER, not harder.

It’s like in WW2, occupying France might have seemed “easier” than occupying both France and Germany, but only if you took the really short view of the situation.

logis on June 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Note that attack does not equal invade. Attack could also mean wipe out what is known of Iran’s entire nuclear capability, what is known of its armed forces, and attempt to decapitate the nation without any subsequent invasion. A series of bombing raids could suffice. They might not be pretty. We have pretty much used up our large size precision guided weaponry. So we may be reduced to plain old fashioned iron bombs.

The big problem with such an attack is that mounting it would require actions from such a large number of aircraft simultaneously that preparing for it would telegraph the intentions.

{^_^}

herself on June 11, 2008 at 5:00 AM