May 13, 2008 8:14

A Reporter's Take on Iran in Iraq

Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (9) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

For an alternative look at Iran in Iraq, read Nir Rosen's provocative piece on Steve Clemons' Washington Note. Rosen challenges the conventional wisdom of Beltway policymakers and media narrative-setters. He pulls no punches in taking on everybody from the U.S. military's Gen. Petraeus to the Washington Post's editorial board. Nir, a former colleague of ours in TIME's Baghdad Bureau, has written extensively for the New Yorker, the New York Times and others. He's a reporter who has covered America's military involvements after 9/11 more closely on the ground as anybody has. His reporting on that is contained in his book, just re-issued in paperback, The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq.

A few excerpts from his take on Iran in Iraq, "Selling the War With Iran":

I have remained shocked, like many journalists and academics familiar with the region and its languages, that the Americans have shown no improvement in their understanding of the Muslim world with which they are so deeply engaged militarily and as an imperial power... too often the so called experts are equally ignorant. Remarkably, their lack of background, expertise or language skills and their repeated errors have not diminished the credibility of people such as Fred Kagan of the far right American Enterprise Institute (a Russia expert!), or Kenneth Pollock of the Brookings Institute or their cohorts...

Moreover the dominant parties in the government and in those units of the security forces that battled their political rivals in Basra and elsewhere are the ones closest to Iran. The leadership of the Iraqi government regularly consults Iranian officials and is closer to Iran than any other element in Iraq today. Moreover, the Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them. So Iran is a convenient scapegoat to explain the strength of the Sadrists, a strength actually resulting from the fact that they are a genuinely popular mass movement. Blaming Iran also lets the Americans maintain the illusion that the Mahdi Army's ceasefire is still in effect. I expect this from the Bush administration and the ideologues who back it. But when the American media, which, in the build up to the American attack on Iraq abdicated its duty to challenge those in power and inform the public, continues to demonstrate the same lack of skepticism, it is very distressing...

The truth is, most allegations about Iran's role in Iraq and the region are unfounded or dishonest. Iran was responsible for ending the recent fighting in Basra and calming the situation after Iraqi parliamentarians who backed Prime Minister Maliki approached it. The Iranians, never close to Muqtada or his family, were so annoyed with Muqtada and his presence that they reportedly ordered him out of Iran where he had been living in virtual house arrest anyway since arriving six months earlier. Iranian officials and the state media clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as "illegal armed groups" in the recent conflict in Basra, which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer. The Supreme Council is of course also the main proxy for the US in Iraq and somehow in the Senate testimony it was forgotten that its large Badr militia was established in Iran and is actually the only Iraqi opposition group to have fought on the Iranian side against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Moreover, the Badr militia was a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is so demonized today, and Badr dominates the ministry of interior, if not most of Iraq at the higher echelons. But none of this openly available information made its way to the Post's editorial writers or the dominant discourse in the US...

There is no proxy war in Iraq, because the US and Iran share the same proxy and the US installed that proxy and empowered it. Today, to the extent that we can talk about an Iraqi "state," it is dominated by the Supreme Council and its Badr militia. The Sadrist movement of which the Mahdi Army is a loose militia is also the largest humanitarian organization in Iraq, providing homes, security, rations, clothes and other services to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It is a complex movement and certainly is as guilty of crimes as all the other groups that took part in the Iraqi civil war, including the Americans...

Most of those who fight the Americans in Iraq do so not at the bidding of a foreign power but out of genuine and sincere opposition to the American occupation. The Americans never grasped this and always assumed it was about the money, or al Qaeda, and now part of a silly Iranian conspiracy. After at first siding with Iraq's Shiites much to the consternation of America's so called "moderate" Sunni allies, the Americans are now targeting Shiites and perhaps even Shiite Iran as Bush prepares for once last war on his path to the "New Middle East." But without the help of an acquiescent media supplicating to Bush administration and US military officials they might not be able to go to war once again...

I believe that in fact Iran is a positive influence in Iraq, that it has a close relationship with the Kurds and the Shiites and that the Iranian regime, unlike its Sunni neighbors, is not sectarian and is very pragmatic. If Iraq's Sunnis dislike Iran it is because Saddam Hussein initiated a war of aggression against Iran and succeeded in demonizing Shiites. Admiral Mullen was wrong when he said that Iran prefers "see a weak Iraq neighbor." Iran and the former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari even discussed Iran training Iraq's security forces. Iran has close relations with Sunni Islamist Hamas and its foreign policy is not a Shiite one at all. Iran does not seek to conquer or control its Arab neighbors but it also chooses not to be an American puppet or client regime, and that has always been the sin the American empire will never pardon...

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (9)

hman3:

Amen, brother. Iran's principle sin has always been that it wouldn't toady like the Saudis to the American hegemon. I've always supported Iran's acquisition of nukes just to keep madmen like Bush at bay, a strategy that has makde North Korea invasion-proof. Iran will sooner or later be THE major Muslim force on the planet and the day will come when Washington has to beg Tehran for attention, But by then the US will be a minor player, its sabers too rusty and dilapidated for anyone to take seriously anymore. If America can't wage imperialist war, what can it do?

Posted by hman3 | May 14, 2008 12:20 AM

BMB2:

SM- Thank you for this excellent post and for linking to the Rosen article. Any chance of this getting into the dead-tree Time?

Unfortunately, most Americans are bombarded with falsehoods and misdirection emanating from the Admin's propaganda machine and distributed by a pliant corporate media. Bush, last month, called Iran and al Qaeda "two of the greatest threats to America in this new century". Sounds eerily similar to the noise preceding the Iraq invasion. A "myth-busting" type of article about Iran and al Qaeda might go a long way toward opening eyes and having a more educated debate (eg. no Iranians among 911 perpetrators, Iran has not attacked other nations, no collusion between al Q and Iran, Iran did not say "wipe Israel off the map", AQI was formed in response to the US invasion, AQI is a minor player in Iraq, Iran is a NPT member...). Is this possible?

Posted by BMB2 | May 14, 2008 1:33 AM

Nathan W.:

Iran may not be the Demon of the Middle East as Bush would like it to be, but Iran is no Saint either. Iran desires a hegemony of it's own, and while it hasn't attacked other countries, it does finance militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Now, before you argue that Hezbollah -- and to a lesser extent, Hamas -- dapple in humanitarian work as an aside to their "armed resistance", ask yourself whether this humanitarian spirit comes from a true desire to improve conditions for their people or rather derives from a desire to win the support of the local population. Lets face it: Iran has ambitions. They want to build a powerful alliance of Middle Eastern states capable of opposing the West, and humanitarian aide is one of the many ways of getting there.

I have no problem with Iran building their coalition if it means a stable and prosperous Middle East. If it means antagonizing Israel, using the Palestinians as pawns, and launching more proxy wars against other countries, then I do have a problem with it. Hence, to understand Iran's true motives, and to perhaps show them the way to a peaceful relationship with the West, we need strong diplomatic engagement, not more scapegoating.

Whether we like it or not, to see a stable Middle East we will need the help of Iran. And to be recognized as the eminent player in the Middle East is perhaps all Iran really wants.

Posted by Nathan W. | May 14, 2008 3:31 AM

Toronto:

And yet, the UnitedStates-ian populace will once again vote the hawks in come November. A decent, highly civilized, nuanced and democratic fellow such as Obama is too much for the most gullible electorate in the world. Good post, Scott.

Posted by Toronto | May 14, 2008 4:21 PM

yair:

Hi,
I first must say I am an israeli, which of course means I am the only commentator around who's life is in danger because of comments and blogs like this.
Saying Iran is a peacefull and a moderating
force in the middle east is ubsolutely ridiculous. It's talking out of ignorance or worse.
Iran didn't threaten Israel??? their president says usa and israel are the devil every couple of days and israel is a walking corpse.
I saw Iranian made weapons with my own eyes in the 2 wars I fought - in lebbanon and against hamas. it is iranian made and funded.
was 11.9 ok if bin laden gave money to poor people and funded schools in afganistan?
You people need to see the truth - there's a new hitler around, who wants a nuke.
reactions like yours were common in germany about 70 years ago - they led to a world war, a holocaust and millions of lives destroyed.

WAKE UP. NOW.
And stop talking things you know nothing about.

Yair

Posted by yair | May 15, 2008 10:23 AM

nk+:

Yair,

Your stories of Iranian-made weapons are good for your own recollection, but to state that it is proof-positive that you saw weapons, not only made in Iran, but with an implication that the Iranian government, or apparent authority thereof, supplied those weapons, lacks credibility.

The credibility gap opened when you ranted about an imminent threat to your life, that "there's a new [H]itler around, who wants a nuke", and that criticisms of your government are tantamount to plans to annihilate your friends and family. I understand your concerns, and yes, you do live in an area prone to foreign attacks, but to act like Chicken Little with ultimately no evidence, nor chains in the link of evidence, is frustrating to people who want to know the truth -- even negligent.

I suggest you read, http://www.payvand.com/news/08/may/1104.html , where the US Military has ADMITTED that the weapons purported to be from Iran in many news stories in the US and Israel were, indeed, not Iranian. It's a confession that somehow got sucked into the abyss of that which is too "informative" for anti-war factions.

Hope that helps.

-NK+

Posted by nk+ | May 15, 2008 11:52 PM

yair:

NK,
As opposed to you, I don't have to read the news.
where do you think the Grad missle that hit southern israel yesterday came from, who made it? it is an iranian missle.
Where do you think hamas learned how to build a kasam rocket? iranian and Hezbollah knowledge.
where do you think the anti tank missle I saw personaly in the second lebannon war, ready to be launched came from and who payed for it?
Iran and syria.
Where did the million dollar intelligence equipment and radio transmiters I ,too, saw personally, came from?
Israel has been telling the whole international community that iran and syria are passing arms and money to Hezbollah for years. the government is paying for terror to happen, as simple as it sounds.
Again, I know the stories you proudly quote. they are partly true, not only iran helps militants in iraq. but denying they are giving money, trainning and weapons is being foolish.

Take 1 minute to imagine the day the arms iran will pass to syria and Hezbollah will be a nuke.
imagine the 11.9 terrorist using a nuke instead of an airplane.

Get real, stop ignoring the truth about radical islam.

I lack credebility? You have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. Go and read your news and interpret them as it fits you.
Its all just a little something you read on the news.

Your comment just proved me how israeli media failed. you are so ingnorant and naive its amazing.

Hope you will be a minority next election.

Yair

Posted by yair | May 16, 2008 2:01 AM

jackpot