Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Iran Cleans up in Iraq

Iran is perhaps the only unambiguous winner in the new situation in Iraq, and its foreign minister was basking in the glow on Saturday. On Friday, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari defended Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear energy program. That can't be what Washington was going for in backing the new Iraqi government.

Al-Hayat reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki wrapped up his visit to Iraq by meeting in Najaf with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and with the junior cleric and nationalist leader Muqtada al-Sadr, along with numerous other clerics in Najaf and Karbala. He also met in Baghdad with Sunni fundamentalist leader Adnan Dulaimi in an attempt to "reassure" him about Iran's intentions in Iraq. The representative of Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Labid Abawi, said that Mottaki's visit was "extremely positive." He added, "One of our objectives was to underline that Iran is close to Iraq and that it is impossible to bypass it in looking for a resolution of the Iraq question."

Mottaki reaffirmed that Iran had committed $1 billion in aid to Iraq, and would cooperate in the area of energy production. Mottaki also sent a letter to the tribunal judging Saddam Hussein with a list of charges against him.

Issues the Iraqis brought up with the Iranian official included the need for better border control to stop unauthorized entry of Iranians, as well as combatting weapons smuggling and drug smuggling. The Iranians in turn complained about the infiltration of Iran from Iraq of terrorists from the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) guerrilla movement. Saddam had allowed this terrorist group to establish a base in Iraq, in order to use it to harass the Iranian regime. Although the State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization, the Department of Defense appears to be giving it free rein in Iraq.

Iranian news of the visit concentrated on the new Iranian consulates that will be established in Iraq.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that Mottaki said Sistani emphasized the necessity of Iraqi national unity, and had avoided using the words "Shiite" and "Sunni."

Tom Lasseter of Knight Ridder looks at the Shiite militias of the south. His interviewees in the British and US military maintain that Iran is running training camps inside Iran for Iraqi militiamen. (Iran for over two decades had trained the Badr Corps, recruiting from Iraqis who fled Saddam, so such training camps, facilities and expertise are nothing new.) On the other hand, since they have such longstanding and tight relations with Badr, it doesn't really make much sense for them to arm, fund and train Badr's potential rivals, such as splinter groups of the Iraqi nationalist Sadr movement. On that, I would have to see more proof. Badr is a no brainer.

Lasseter says that the Sadr movement dominates the city council of Amarah. Then he says that Amarah police are mostly Badr corps. That I don't understand (I'm not challenging it, I just don't understand). Wouldn't the Sadrist councilmen have packed the police with members of the Mahdi Army? [Answer: The central government's Ministry of Interior has enormous influence over the hiring of local police, and under Bayan Jabr it was in the hands of the Supreme Council, which has Badr as its paramilitary arm.]

Lasseter also reports on suspicions that the governor of Basra is using Shiite militias (of various sorts) for extortion and assassination. The governor is from the Virtue Party but is alleged to be using Badr and the Mahdi Army. (Last I knew, the Mahdi Army is not actually very powerful in Basra, but this may have changed).

The NYT profiles the ways in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is drawing power into the traditionally weak office of president.

5 Comments:

At 4:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

In almost every generation of youth, there is a segment that gravitates towards a violent romantic tryst with patriotic bloodlust...

In nation states where the opportunity avails itself to allow such youth to volunteer for military service, they fill the ranks of Sandhurst, West point and NDA seats...

But in Arab and Muslim states, especially since the devastating defeats of the 1967 wars, followed by the humiliating degeneration of national military institutions under Shahs and El Presidentes, the youth have gravitated towards militia movements...

Those who do not understand why young people join the ranks of Hizbollah or Hamas or any other of a few dozen of Muslim militias across the world only need study the comprehensive castration of nationhood in these states...

No matter what we do, there will always be a segment of every generation that wants to sacrifice itself for supposed higher causes...

In Ummrikka, we have movements such as the Christian RightWing BattleCry pulling teenagers out of video games into real combat... In the Muslim world, well, they don't really have to go very far beyond their door step to find an enemy now, do they?

Stewie.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger James A Bond said...

You say, "Although the State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization, the Department of Defense appears to be giving it free rein in Iraq."

If true this is very important because it shows that the US government again really has no principles to which it adheres other than power. If we bleat incessantly about "international terrorism" EXCEPT when the terrorism is against a government we consider an enemy we are shown to have no principles.

 
At 10:47 AM, Blogger Brian said...

One of the points used to difuse the Iranian president's more outragious statements (although some of those statements have proven to be false) is to rightly claim that the President has little power.

As the former home of Judith Miller, perhaps the NYT is trying to "build up" the President of Iran in order to make him more "scary," and thus provide more justification for action against Iran.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger floridaforpeace said...

Juan, could you elaborate some on the NY Times article? The sense I got off of it was that the President of Iran is attempting to develop his office more as a front for the Supreme Council than as an actual power unto itself. Can you elaborate?

 
At 8:49 PM, Blogger eRobin said...

For the reasons Brian stated, I don't believe a word of reporting on Iran from the NYT. I'd like to hear Prof. Cole's take on the NYT story as well, which is why I clicked over. It seems that the rise of the Iranian president is happening with the blessing of the clerics and so who's in charge after all?

But again, this could all be another big lie from the paper of record.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home