Interesting facts on current situation with Iran/Iraq

[TayTay]

I got this notice in my e-mail from the Council on Foreign Relations site. Lots of links to articles and info on the current state of US/Iran relations and what is really going on.

I just thought you might like this particular site. I found it very useful in identifying the players, the positions, the Bush exaggerations and so forth. This made it easer to figure out what Sen. Kerry is saying on this subject.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12514/baghdads_iran_problem.html?breadcrumb=%2F

Daily Analysis
Baghdad's 'Iran Problem'


Iranian and Iraqi Shiite Muslims participate in religious rituals in Tehran. (AP/Vahid Salemi)
January 31, 2007
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner

Four years after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, it is clear Iran’s influence in southern Iraq is solid and growing. Iran’s relations with Iraq’s Kurdish communities in the north are also strong, despite worries in Tehran that their push for greater autonomy from Baghdad might animate Iran’s own Kurdish minorities. As this new Backgrounder explains, Iran is believed to have operatives all over Iraq collecting intelligence and assisting various Shiite militias. It also has amicable ties with Iraq’s Shiite leadership that have boosted trade and religious tourism for Iranian pilgrims. Plans are underway to build an Iranian bank (NYT) in downtown Baghdad.

But to suggest Iraq is a puppet state of Iran is misleading, experts say. Iraqi Shiites are driven as much by nationalism as by their sectarian identities, suggests Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, an expert on Iranian foreign policy, in this CFR.org Podcast. It is further misleading for U.S. officials to blame the “mess” in Iraq on Iran, Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution tells CFR.org’s Bernard Gwertzman. “The Bush administration,” Pollack says, “seems to be regarding the Iranians as the source of many, if not all, of Iraq’s problems today. To me, it is dangerously reminiscent of how they talked about the Syrians in 2004 and 2005, when they ridiculously exaggerated Syria’s role in the Sunni insurgency.” The Los Angeles Times reports there is scant evidence linking Iranian agents to any specific attacks against American forces, though some investigators say the suspects behind an attack that killed five U.S. soldiers (NYT) in Karbala may have been trained and financed by Iranian agents.

Also this: http://www.cfr.org/publication/12521/

Also this in Time: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571368,00.html

[beachmom]

1. Thanks. I think what was interesting from the brief 12 min. webcast

from Davos was that one guy on the panel was pretty pro-Bush -- leader of the Arab League. Bush has now forged an alliance with these weak Sunni despotic regimes who sat around watching Iraq from afar while Iran created a web of influence there and elsewhere. So Bush is shifting in a dangerous direction. He seems to be drifting away from the Shi'ites, while most of our troops are still killed by the Sunni insurgency. I swear, every move he makes is a new mistake compounding all the previous ones.

You know, when Kerry says "international conference", I agree, but what does he truly suggest? Getting together is not sufficient. What kind of set up does he think is best? Why would Iran agree to make concessions? What would the Sunni states get?

[ProSense]

2. Fascinating!

The article at the third link really adds perspective to the hornet's nest that Bush stirred up by invading Iraq.