Muqtada Pledges Defense of Iran from US attack
Iranian FM calls for US Troop Withdrawal from Iraq
AP reports that guerrilla violence left dozens dead or wounded in Iraq over the weekend. The young men who attempted to volunteer for the Iraqi police force, kidnapped last week, turned up as two dozen corpses on Sunday.
Muqtada al-Sadr, visiting Iran, has pledged the support of his militia, the Mahdi Army, to Iran in case that country were attacked by the United States. The forces of the young Shiite nationalist fought US forces in April-May and again in August of 2004.
Wire services note the remarks of the Iranian foreign minister:
' "The American forces are there to dominate Iraqi interests," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who met the firebrand cleric, was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA. "The crisis existing in Iraq can be resolved with the departure of the occupying forces," the minister said. IRNA quoted Sadr as saying: "We are happy that ties between the Iranian and the Iraqi nations are developing every day and we always support the strengthening of Iraq's relations with all neighbours, especially the Islamic republic of Iran." '
Of course the Mahdi Army would attack the US if Washington falls upon Iran. But it should be noted that of all the major Shiite foces, the Sadrists are the least close to Iran. Al-Sadr's remarks must be seen as an attempt to gain support inside Iraq. He had earlier tended to cede the position of "Iran's best friend" to his coalition partner and sometimes rival, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Indeed, the Sadr movement activists have often complained about Iranian dominance of Shiism.
SCIRI's Badr Corps militia, it was alleged by Newsweek, is still on the Iranian payroll.
Any attack by the US or Israel on Iran's nuclear energy facilities would certainly bring massive crowds into the streets in protest in neihboring Iraq. The resulting violence and the attacks on US troops are not important demographically, but they could cost the Republican Party its majority in Congress, if the American public becomes alarmed that the US is losing (even more) control.
This Iraqi/Congressional factor is among the reasons I believe that the current hard line taken by the US against Tehran is mere saber rattling.
The LA Times reports on US hopes of convincing the Shiite religious parties to give up control of the ministry of the interior, on the grounds that they are too tied to sectarian militias. I am quoted, saying basically, 'and they would do that why, exactly?" They did win the election.
My interview with journalist Sarah Phelan is now online. I talk about the difficulties the US has had in Iraq.
Some of what I've been up to while I've been traveling is apparent in this article from UCLA on Jihadi recruitment and Zawahiri.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/23/2006 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Sarah Phelan is my sister-in-law! She just told me at dinner Saturday that she had interviewed you. Her husband is my brother. What a small world.
Prof. Cole...did you see this item on Saturday?
11:06 Ankara. Foreign Trade Minister Kursad Tuzmen has announced that thirty-four Turkish suppliers have suspended deliveries of fuel to Iraq because an unpaid $1 billion bill.
Sophie Shihab of Le Monde has written two excellent analyses of the Kurdish game.
Ian Bremmer has written an analysis, "The Iraqi Government: A Potemkin Village" in Beirut's L'Orient-Le Jour. The flawed Iraqi Constitution pits the clay-footed central government against the regions, guaranteeing break-up and instability. [Links chez moi].
Really, you know that Bush is grasping at straws when he invites in the Arab League. They are desperate, desperate, desperate and are merely agressively raising the ante. The bluff will be called. And Cheney's bellicosity suggests he is not getting enough oxygen to the brain.
At some point there ought to be a world wide declaration stating who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot.
India and Pakistan are ok since they would only use them against each other.
The UK is ok because they share a common language with the US. Presumably New Zealand, Australia, and Canada would be ok for the same reason.
The US, Russia and China are ok because they are superpowers, and all superpowers are ok.
Israel is ok because none of their enemies have nukes. So they couldn't possibly use them. Besides,Israel is permanently engaged in the peace process.
France is never ok but its too late now.
Iran is not ok because Israel the US would really like to do that country some harm (must be something we picked up from Saddam), but if they had nukes we'd have to leave them alone.
North Korea is not ok because because the US would like to do them some harm, but would hesitate if they had nukes. We haven't fought North Korea for 53 years, not long enough to work out some diplomatic accomodation.
I've read the account of your conference in UCLA with interest. However I think that your explanation of Islamism radicalism/fundamentalism relies too much on the sociology of religion and misses an important part of the problem (if the account given really reflects what you said/think). There is also a political and economic component explaining the development of islam radicalism. It is rooted in the idea that Western capitalism isn't the solution of all problems, that, on the contrary, it results in an undue exploitation of the other developing countries, including ME countries. These movements are also reflecting a quest for their cultural identity. These trends are particularly visible in the Arab movements emerging in the EU; the young men arrested in Italy after the second failed bombings of London were clearly not only pushed by religious motives. Also, reducing these movements to their religious aspect is more or less going in the same direction as Hutington and it's theory of the clash of civilization. Then the only difference you expressed is that these movements aren't dominant in their respective societies, but only represent a very small fraction of activits.
If that is a sign, on Saturday, the biggest bank corporation of Switzerland (UBS) declared that she was stopping all her activities and closing down in both Iran and Syria.
The second biggest one (Credit Suisse) said first that she couldn't stop her activities for the next day, because she still had contracts going on with clients in the import/export business. But to-day (Monday) she declared she was closing down as well, because the situation was getting too risky.
(Mmm what did they fear ? Targetted bombing by US or Israel and military escalation ? or economic retorsion, like the nationalization/confiscation of Western assets by the Iranian government ? )
Post a Comment
<< Home