“America is the most advanced model for civilization on the face of the planet, so when America extends its outstretched hand to Iraq in order to help her, that means, in the lexicon of politics and progress, that a miracle of good fortune has descended onto Iraq, a nation that has suffered greatly from bad luck and misery. And this has been chiefly due to the destructive behavior of its own sons. It is they and no others who have been solely responsible of the misery of their own country! … Beyond Allah, Iraq has no hope or savior except America, which is capable of protecting Iraq from itself and the crimes of its politicians, parties and the greed of neighboring countries - particularly Iran and Syria.”
One of the untold stories about the effects of U.S. involvement in the Middle East has been the escalating power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia for control of the region. At the height of the insurgency in Iraq, for instance, Saudi Arabia—a supposed U.S. ally—was funneling money and volunteers to the Sunni insurgency to undermine the Maliki government, which it feared could become too susceptible to Iranian influence. The insurgency was prolonged by both countries funding militants in hopes of filling the power vacuum and/or preventing the other from taking control.
It’s also happening in Afghanistan, as Iran and Saudi Arabia have taken opposing stances on whether the Afghan government should negotiate with the Taliban. From the Diplomatic Courier:
The talks, held at the behest of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, took place in Mecca during the final three days of Ramadan, which ended on September 29 … The prospect of some sort of Taliban rehabilitation received a much frostier reception in Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki urged the U.S. against talks, saying that the Taliban’s extremism could not be confined to the Middle East and West Asia. Iran’s ambassador to the UN said that negotiations would make Afghanistan even less stable. The chairman of Iran’s parliamentary foreign policy and national security committee said the talks would spread terrorism.
Iran despises the Taliban for three reasons. The first is sectarian. Iran is a Shia theocracy, whereas the Taliban are Sunni extremists who view Shias as heretics … Not surprisingly, Iran welcomed and assisted the Taliban’s downfall in 2001.
A second reason for Iran’s posture is the Taliban’s involvement in the production and shipment of Afghan opiates. Iran’s impact on the Taliban’s drugs revenue is one of the untold stories of the war on terror. Even the U.S. has praised Iran’s efforts against narcotics.
A third reason that Iran dislikes the Taliban is because it sees the militia as a tool of Arab influence in West Asia. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were among only three countries, the other being Pakistan, to recognise the Taliban’s government in Afghanistan.
Iran is locked in a battle with the Saudis for influence in Pakistan. Tehran is favorably impressed by Pakistan’s new president Asif Zardari, who hails from a Shia Baluch family. Zardari’s prime minister and foreign minister are both drawn from Pakistan’s majority Barelvi sect, a syncretic form of Sunnism that shares elements with Shiism (such as the worship of saints). Zardari has publicly pledged himself to the war against the Taliban and has also forsworn violence against India, an old Iranian ally. Since he took office in September, Pakistan’s army has waged its most effective campaign against the Pakistan-based Taliban to date, killing as many as 1,000 militants during a summer offensive in the Bajaur tribal agency.
As far as the Arab world is concerned, Obama’s election has brought cautious optimism. But there is another narrative that has been emerging that Moderate Voice readers may have noticed if you have been following our recent posts from the Arab world.
“It is said that in the first few months of his presidency, America’s new head of state plans an address to the Islamic world to dispel any idea of a clash of civilizations. The intention is a good one, but any speech will ring hollow as long as the Israeli lobby continues to dictate American foreign policy toward the Arab world. It’s difficult to forget Obama’s speech to AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], when he practically pledged allegiance on the very day he won the Democratic Party nomination. In this act of allegiance, one could take the measure of a system in which the Zionist lobby is very powerful. Another reason not to succumb to Obamania.”
Today from Kuwait, we have posted the most pessimistic article yet, which contains yet another meme that has emerged over the past few days: That Obama’s choice for chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is everything from simply ‘bad’ because he’s Jewish to a Mossad agent because he was once an Israeli Defense Force volunteer.
“Since the day he announced his candidacy to win the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama was largely applauded …We saw nothing but his skin color and his father’s name (Hussein) … Even editors at our newspapers have waxed poetically, talking sweetly of the ‘Brown Knight’”
“America’s policy, particularly in regard to us, will not change, neither during the era of Obama or his successor in four or eight years.”
Readers of the Moderate Voice will recognize his name, since this is the tenth article the people of WORLDMEETS.US have translated by this author. In today’s article, Taahar warns his compatriots that they had better sign the long-term security agreement with the United States before President Bush leaves office or, ‘Iraq will be wiped off the map, torn apart and destroyed forever …’
OBAMA STANDS NEXT TO A CAR LABELED ‘IRAQ’ POINTING TO THE CAR, THE IRAQI MAN SAYS TO OBAMA: ‘THAT IS WHAT YOUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION DID. WE’VE BEEN SUFFERING FOR FIVE YEARS. CAN YOU FIX IT?!’ [Sotal Iraq, Iraq]
“Among the changes that are casting a shadow on the Iraqi arena, there are many positive signs. If Iraq’s political can take advantage of these circumstances by organizing a united Iraqi national movement aimed at ending the occupation, rejecting sectarian quotas, this could form the basis for translating the intentions of the new American administration into acts that would be in the interest of our nation and its people and once and for all, bring an end to the Iraqi crisis.”
The bargaining in Baghdad is getting serious as Iraqis pressure the Bush Administration for last-minute concessions on a status-of-forces agreement to sanction US presence beyond the end of the year.
But the American election and Bush’s imminent departure have changed the game. Gone is the McCain mantra of “victory with honor,” a prescription for open-ended American presence, and what’s left is only haggling over details about the pace of troop withdrawal and how much control Iraqis will assume over security efforts in the meantime.
Somewhat lost in the shuffle these past few days [for obvious reasons] is how the U.S. attack on Syrian territory last week may be imperiling a long-term security agreement between Iraq and the United States.
With much of the Arab world in uproar over the U.S. incursion from bases inside Iraq, we translated this article from the Iraqi News Agency, which is a statement by the influential Sunni group, The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq. Keep in mind that the recent calm in Iraq was achieved with the help of the Sunni Awakening Councils …
According to the statement, which calls the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, the ‘Surrender Agreement,’ signing the deal would give the Americans Carte Blanche to launch ‘any attacks they please’ against Iraq’s ‘Arabic Brethren’ from Iraqi territory.
“American arrogance and contempt for the lives of ordinary civilians has exceeded Iraq’s borders and moved into its sister Arab countries. Syria was the first but certainly won’t be the last - as long as the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement allow the Americans to launch whatever military operation they like from Iraqi territory.”
The article also includes efforts by the Muqtada al-Sadr bloc to have the security deal killed.
