The fighting in Basra was supposed to be a “defining moment” in
Iraq. So why are things still so confusing? Consider: The conflict
was between Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which has been linked to Iran, and forces loyal to Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is friendly with Iran. A
fragile ceasefire between these parties was brokered by
Iran.
A parliamentary delegation from Maliki’s own coalition,
including a member of the prime minister’s Dawa Party, traveled to
Iran to enlist the commander of the Qods bridgade of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps in an effort to get Sadr’s followers to
stand down. “Iran was part of the problem and an effective part of
the negotiations,” an Iraqi legislator told McClatchy Newspapers. A spokesman for Maliki
praised Sadr’s “concern for Iraq and
Iraqis.”
Here is where things begin to get clearer: Iran has a great deal
of influence in the new Iraq, both among the insurgents who are
killing American troops and the government in Baghdad those troops
are dying to help protect. Many of the Shiite leaders who replaced
Saddam Hussein cut their teeth in exile in Iran and retain ties to
Tehran even now.
These cozy relations were on full display when Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Iraq in March. Ahmadinejad received a
more pleasant reception in Baghdad than he did at Columbia
University. The U.S.-subsidized Iraqi government rolled out a red
carpet to welcome the Great Satan’s vocal critic. In an
affectionate display, President Jalal Talabani embraced his Iranian
counterpart and kissed him on the cheeks four times. An Iraqi
military honor guard, presumably trained by American troops, was on
hand to salute the most anti-American world leader this side of
Hugo Chavez.
The pomp and circumstance were facilitated by the fact that
Ahmadinejad’s visit required light security, in sharp contrast with
the way senior U.S. officials must travel to Baghdad under the
cover of darkness. Washington Times columnist Diana West
speculated as to why Iraq is more welcoming to
Iran’s president than the president of the United States:
“Iranian-supplied bombs and rockets endanger American presidents,
not Iranian ones.”
Wrote West, “We are living and dying for a ward-like ‘ally’ who
is happy to cozy up to our worst enemy.” And as we dig deeper into
intra-Shiite conflicts, allies and enemies can be difficult to
distinguish. Syndicated columnist Terence Jeffrey put his finger on the challenge: “[R]ecall that
we went into Iraq because all of our intelligence agencies with all
of their resources could not accurately determine whether Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Now, to get out of Iraq,
our soldiers must accurately determine which members of a
heretofore murderous, Iranian-armed, Shiite fundamentalist militia
can be trusted to make peace and which ones cannot.”
Despite Gen. David Petraeus’s recent successes, the further
removed the Iraq intervention gets from the original casus
belli, the more impatient the American people get. That
impatience and anger will grow even further if Iran is seen as one
of the winners of the Iraq war.
Some counsel a harder line against Iran while others
contend we have no choice but to talk to Tehran.
But perhaps the first step is a simple realization: It is difficult
to drain the swamp when there are alligators all
around.
