Saturday, March 25, 2006

Know your enemies, dudes!

There are a few things that make me keep my optimism about a near end or at least a reduction of Iran's destructive game in Iraq.

One and actually the most important is that we have an American ambassador who recognizes Iran's role in supporting both ends of violence in Iraq; that's the Shia militias, namely the notorious Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr and the extreme terror groups like al-Qaeda's Ansar al-Sunna.
Knowing that ambassador Khalil Zad will be the one leading the talks with Iran makes me feel that the talks are in good hands that are aware of the scope of the conflict.
Many people find it difficult to agree with this theory that Iran has ties with al-Qaeda and its branches and affiliates in Iraq and that's because they think the ideology difference between Wahabism and Shiasm would make any cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda a fairy tale or a ridiculous American excuse to justify a possible offensive on Iran.
But what really frustrates me is that we have people here who are supposed to be politicians aware of the behind the scenes game who refuse to accept this theory (which I consider a fact).

A few days ago a saw a prominent politician from the UIA talking on al-Hurra and when the point of Zad's accusations to Iran was raised his response was (not literal translation) "No sane person can think that Iran is supporting the terrorists who murder Shia Iraqis…".
It is this kind of blind conviction that make me lose faith in most of the political elites in Iraq; they have entrenched themselves behind their sects to the point that they cannot accept questioning the policies and intentions of their presumed friends forgetting that it's politics 101 to not put absolute trust in anyone.

They (our politicians whether Sunni or Shia) had been keen to have strong relationships with the regional powers, of course there's no objection on having balanced relationships with your neighbors but it's dead wrong to follow the plans of these neighbors when these plans are against Iraq's interests.
We see the Sunni while hate Iran have strong ties with Syria and depend greatly on Syrian support, on the other hand the Shia consider Iran their best friend while denouncing the Sunnis for being friends with Syria who they accuse of being responsible for terrorism.

I really wonder how those politicians forget (or give a blind eye to) the fact that Iran and Syria are the strongest allies to each other to the degree that Iran's president described Syria as "Our first front in the confrontation with our mutual enemies…" and both countries do not want Iraq to be stable and would do literally anything to stop Iraq from becoming a peaceful democracy because they think that keeping America pinned in a troubled Iraq can deplete America's determination and resources and discourage her from confronting the regimes in Damascus and Tehran.
Also it is Sunni Syria that supports the radical Shia Hizbullah and it is Shia Iran that supports radical Sunni Hamas, so why would anyone be surprised when someone suggests that Iran is supporting al-Qaeda or Ansar al-Sunna!?

And if politicians in question do not know this, then they are not qualified and must step down or be forced to step down, and if they know this but ignore it, then that makes them pure traitors.

The other thing that makes me optimistic is that the mullahs do not have much time left to continue their interference with Iraq's affairs; they are opposing the whole world with their persistent pursuit for nukes and they have entered a race against time in Iraq not realizing that the closer they get to their goals, the closer their end gets to them.

No comments: