Does Iran Want the US to Stay in Iraq? For Now, Yes.
It seems absurd to believe that the Iranian leadership wants the U.S. to continue to "occupy" Iraq - and that it is taking concrete action to make sure it happens. But Meir Javedanfar contends that this is indeed the case - and explains why.
“The US occupation forces must leave Iraq”, is a message Tehran has been repeating over and over again, since Washington sent its forces into Iraq in 2003.
The Iranian government’s stated opposition to the US presence in Iraq, on the surface at least, stems from a number of factors. One of them is genuine concern. Since the Bush government overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, and Saddam in 2003, the US armed forces, whom Tehran views as its most potent foe, has set up camp on Iran’s Eastern and Western borders. The regime in Tehran, is worried that these forces could be used in an attack against Iran’s nuclear program, or worst, to overthrow the regime.
This is why the Iranian government, with the help of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) has been arming and training numerous Shiite militias inside Iraq. These militias, as well as fighting their Sunni rivals, have been attacking US forces, very often with deadly precision and impact.
In the war of words between Washington and Tehran, on numerous occasions, the White House has lambasted Tehran for its military assistance to the Shiite militias in Iraq. Some American politicians, including Senator Joseph Liberman, have gone further and accused Iran of having the blood of US soldiers on its hands.
However in a surprise turn of events, the State Department’s top official in Iraq declared on 23rd of December that Iran has decided “to rein in the violent Shiite militias it supports in Iraq, a move reflected in a sharp decrease in sophisticated roadside bomb attacks over the past several months”.
This is a very positive development for President Bush, whose administration has been desperate for some good news from Iraq.
The question is: why have the Iranians suddenly decided to help President Bush? After all, judging by the hostile words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he would be one of the last people in the world with a desire to offer any support to the man who labeled his country part of the “Axis of Evil”.
The answer is: since the beginning of the revolution, there is a clear distinction to be made between the Iranian government’s words and it’s actions. In many cases, they have been known to be completely contradictory.
The repeated calls for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is the latest example. Although the Iranians say they would like America to up and leave tomorrow, the truth is that in reality, they want US forces to stay around for a number of reasons.
One reason is that as long as America is stuck in the mud of Iraq, the US military, and the American public are unlikely to have the political will to back yet another war — against Iran.
To ensure that US forces stay stuck in Iraq, yet are not strong enough to take on Iran, Tehran is assisting anti-US militants to engage in a long drawn-out war of attrition. However, when American casualties reach so high that calls for return of troops increase in Congress and the U.S. public intensify, Iran then suddenly reduces it support for the anti-US militia.
This is exactly what is taking place now. Therefore, Washington must not believe that Iran’s current strategy of reigning in the militias is a permanent or even long-term strategic decision by the Iranians. As soon as the level of US military confidence – and especially political influence in Iraq increases, it is likely that the Iranians will resume its support for the militias. This way, America will achieve Tehran’s goal of staying busy fighting the militias, without sufficient strength to take on Iran.
Another reason why Iran wants the US to stay is its antipathy towards Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden is not just an enemy of the US. He also hates Shiites. Many of his followers have taken part in numerous attacks against Shiites in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda forces in Iraq have also publicly threatened Iran. Tehran is worried that if the US leaves, Al Qaeda will turn its hostility and its guns against Iran. Therefore, it serves Iran’s strategic interests to see US forces do Iran’s work of containing Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Last but not least, there is the question of business interests. Iranian government charity organizations, called Bonyads, as well as other government and private individuals have invested approximately $2 – $4 billion to date in Iraq, especially in Shiite areas.
Reportedly, one of the most active Bonyads in Iraq is Astane Qodse Razavi (holy gateway to Imam Reza). It is Iran’s biggest Bonyad, whose business ventures total $13 billion, equivalent to 7.1% of Iran’s total GDP. This Bonyad is headed by Ayatollah Vaez Tabasi, a current member of the Assembly of Experts, and a long-standing friend and business associate of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Should US forces leave, it is very likely that much of his and other Iranian investments would go up in smoke in the ensuing violence and civil war. Therefore, the current presence of US forces in Iraq is in the economic interest of many of the powerful forces in Iran. The U.S. forces policing Iraq enables these billionaire Ayatollahs to continue making money in the lucrative Iraqi market for primary goods and real estate.
On the 5th of November 1979 , Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iranian revolution, called the United States “The Great Satan”, and “a wounded snake”.
Although Khomeini died in 1989, Iran’s current leadership continues to view the US as a “snake”. And when it comes to Iraq, they will do what they can for the “snake” to stay – and to remain wounded -for as long as possible.
Meir Javedanfar is the co-author with Yossi Melman of “The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran.” He runs Middle East Economic and Political Analysis (Meepas)
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
12 Comments
1. David:so, the more general answer to the question of “why?” is that the leaders of Iran are much smarter than the political leadership in this country (of both parties, btw)…this might be news to some, but not to me…they’ve been outsmarting the US on a regular basis since 1979, and we continue to sit and take it…and there’s no hint that it’s gonna change anytime soon either no matter who wins the presidency in ‘08.
Dec 25, 2007 - 7:09 am 2. dougf:Well this is all very interesting but as that once famous phrase went — Where’s The Beef ?
Of course Iran has self-interests in Iraq, as does the US, but to make the point that the whole dynamic is somehow dictated by Iranian actions seems a little outlandish. Booga, booga and all that.
Is the author saying that the Badr types or the Sadr types are merely puppets of Iran, and that they are now being ‘nicer’ simply because Iran has decided to tone it down a bit.
The US is NOT GOING to attack Iran with the ground forces in Iraq. Never was. That is fairly common knowledge now is it not ? Perhaps a better explanation of recent Iranian actions is the possibility that Iran has also drawn this fundamental conclusion. And has reacted accordingly to increase the stability factor in Iraq because it is not in Iran’s interests that Iraq be unstable and thereby exporting violencr to Iran itself at some point in the future.
And perhaps the widespread and well detailed Iraqi distrust of Iran limits the possibilities of Iran in Iraq. As the Sunni terrorism wanes, the need for Iranian ‘assistance’ to the Shiites also wanes, thus further decreasing Iran’s influence.
Is it not a virtual kiss of death for any Iraqi faction to be known as puppets of Iranian masters ? Is this not one of the reasons that SCRII changed its name, and its stated public goals, and that Sadr and his minions continutally rail against those they call ‘non-Iraqis’?
Iran ‘meddles’ in Iraq. Iran does not ‘dictate’ in Iraq. This article seems to build upon the former ‘fact’ to constuct a flimsy argument professing the latter.
With all respect, I remain unconvinced. Very unconvinced.
Dec 25, 2007 - 8:15 am 3. sepehr:The US has fallen hook and line and sinker for the Iranians. There is little America can do except accept Iran as a super power.
Dec 25, 2007 - 9:37 am 4. chuck,:And coincidently the US intelligence does a 180 and “determines” that Iran isn’t really about to get the Bomb. I smell a crooked deal.
Dec 25, 2007 - 10:17 am 5. Romat:Most probably, the leaders of Iran aren’t any smarter than our leaders but their plotting may be more feverish because their very existence depends on getting it right. They are, after all, surrounded by NATO forces in Iraq and Afganistan and other countries with Sunni Moslem majorities. Iran hasn’t the population or the resources to ever be a “super-power” and much their population is restive and no doubt has our support. The most the mullahs can hope for is to become a regional power capable of surviving as an Shiite Islamic republic for a decade or two at most.
Dec 25, 2007 - 12:06 pm 6. Ira Zad:I agree with Chuck’s post above.
http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Suddenly, Iran is helping quell the violence in Iraq, US is talking ‘talks’ and compromise with Iran, Iraq violence subsides, and Iranian regime gets its long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia for its Bushehr nuclear plan (which incidentally, President Bush actually praised since he said it meant that Iran does not have to continue with enrichment anymore.) What?!
What could be the possible reasons for such sudden White House playing happy times with Iran?
The White House says Iran is helping quell violence in Iraq since the Iranians have realized that the violence they instigated was turning the Shiite masses. A weak argument at best, since Tehran regime has never shied away from mass opposition to it. Case in point are the Iranian people themselves who have been by a large majority against the regime, yet the regime keeps on persecuting them un-flinched for almost 29 years.
The most plausible reason for this sudden semi-détente with Tehran is what the Bush administration has not told us about. And that is, a back door, behind-the-scene deal between US and Iran: Help us bring back peace to Iraq in exchange for US backing out a notch on your nuclear program. The Iranians brought up their POWs in Iraq, and their long awaited nuclear fuel shipment from Russia that has been blocked by the US so far. In return, US agreed to deliver, releasing Iranian POWs in Iraq, and signaling to Russia that it was now OK to release the first shipment of nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
So are we ready to send Condi Rice to Tehran to sing Kumbaya with the mullahs now? Perhaps not, but we are certainly laying the foundation for having the option to not to oppose it later.
Furthermore, it could seem that US, in a tactical move, is cooperating with Iran in order to quiet down Iraqi violence for political reasons, most likely for the 2008 presidential elections. When Iraq calms down, US troops will be relocated to Afghanistan which will help boost Bush’s poll numbers. The Bush administration is trying to create an atmosphere in which the next Republican presidential nominee (most likely McCain) could actually win.
If true, it could be deduced then, that any serious, drastic action against the Iranian regime -if it ever happens at all-is being postponed until the next Republican president takes hold of the White House in January 2009.
The new Republican president, if he does get elected, may -some time in his term– initiate military action against Iranian regime for the purpose of regime change, or just surgical strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.
On the other hand, depending on how many more Iran-appeasing deals Condi Rice makes with the mullahs between now and 2009, and whether the internal political structure in Iran changes in favor of the ‘reformist’ Khatami/Rafsanjani crowd (who have EU ties), we could be setting the stage for shelving the ‘regime change’ idea permanently in favor of ‘peaceful co-existence’ with Iran for the foreseeable future. And naturally, this will be especially true if an Obama, or a Chelsea’s Mama get into the White House in 2009.
Read my Iran Blog at: http://mor2com.blogspot.com/
Dec 25, 2007 - 7:44 pm 7. sepehr:Hi Ira Zad
Unfortunately, it seems that you have no idea about Iran and how to deal with the government. You seem blinded by your fanaticism to America. You guys have to get over your superiority complex. That way it will be easier to reach peace.
Dec 25, 2007 - 9:51 pm 8. Tom W.:“You seem blinded by your fanaticism to America. You guys have to get over your superiority complex. That way it will be easier to reach peace.”
Yes! How dare we say that the U.S. is superior to a country where women are covered head to toe in black bags because the men can’t be trusted not to rape them;
where gays are hanged;
where non-Muslims are killed;
where terrorism is exported around the world;
where the government supplies weapons and training to kill fellow Shi’ites in Iraq by the thousands;
where women are killed for holding hands with their husbands in public;
where the people get together in their thousands to foam at the mouth like rabid dogs and scream for the death of my country;
where children were marched through minefields holding plastic “keys to heaven”;
where the people support being oppressed by corrupt mullahs, as long as the mullahs provide the “prestige” of nuclear weapons to make up for all the country’s other failings;
where citizens are publicly humiliated, imprisoned, tortured, and killed for daring to dissent;
where the people don’t have the balls to do what the Rumanians did in 1989 and overthrow the government by themselves, without help, without heavy weapons, armed only with courage and a willingness to take casualties.
The U.S. is superior to Iran in every conceivable way. That’s not fanaticism; it’s the plain truth.
Iran is hell on earth, populated by complete losers.
Dec 26, 2007 - 12:07 am 9. sepehr:Tom W and Ira zad
It seems that you know nothing about Iran. So go back to the school book and learn. Nobody made the US the policeman of the world. We have every right to power in the Middle East. The Middle East does not only belong to you. You should come to the table, and negotiate,and Iran will give you a share. This is the only way. We are the powerful of the region. Not you.
Dec 26, 2007 - 2:57 am 10. Ira Zad:Seems we have been invaded by Islamist-Fascist fantasizers, here.
Dec 26, 2007 - 10:08 am 11. Mark:sepehr: As an American (of Lebanese descent), I can categorically state – I do not WANT to own any part of the ME!
You are correct stating “Nobody made the US the policeman of the world.” Please believe me when I say I wish we weren’t. However, if it were not for the USA, where would the WORLD be today? I’ll let you answer that one since I’m interested in just exactly how ‘worldly’ and ‘historical’ your views are.
On your statement of “accepting Iran as a super-power” – do you think attaining nuclear weapons only achieves that moniker?
Now back to the point of the post – I’m not sure (unconvinced, as dougf said) about Iran’s intentions. There is logic behind the author’s point yet there is also logic against it. I firmly believe Iran’s rulers are acting in self-interest first as that is only human nature. However, as to exactly what that self-interest is, I don’t know. Time will tell.
Dec 26, 2007 - 1:34 pm 12. RKV:Calm before the storm. A pre-US election offensive (Tet Redux) is coming.
Dec 26, 2007 - 4:14 pm