Log in

View Full Version : Iran, Iraq seek closer relations



Severian
17th July 2005, 22:44
An opinion piece in Tehran Times says: (http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=207127)
Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s three-day visit to Tehran has become the center of attention for regional and international media outlets.

Ten Iraqi ministers have accompanied Jaafari on the trip, during which important issues will be discussed such as current developments in Iran, Iraq, and the region, the outlook for political, economic, and security cooperation between the two countries, and ways to fight against the development of Arab terrorism in the region and the world.
...
After the collapse of the dictatorial Baath regime in Iraq, which was the main source of regional insecurity, the occupying forces tried to prevent relations between the two Muslim countries of Iran and Iraq from developing, in the belief that the establishment of friendly relations between Iran and Iraq would lead to the formation of a Shia crescent in the region.
...
Over the past 28 months, the United States has lost about 1800 soldiers in attacks by Arab terrorists, but if the U.S. refuses to review its Iraq policy, it will most likely suffer even more losses.

Furthermore, unless it begins to cooperate with some of the non-Arab neighboring countries of Iraq, [meaning Iran -S] which seek the establishment of peace and security in the region, the U.S. will not only fail to establish security in Iraq, but will also be incapable of providing the necessary security for its own forces.
...
As for the religious and cultural considerations, it should be noted that the Shia religious authorities have remained silent so far in regard to the atrocities and attacks committed by Arab terrorists -- the victims of which are mainly innocent women and children -- because they are well aware of the fact that any kind of unwise reaction would trigger a civil war in Iraq.

The repercussions of a civil war would definitely not be restricted to Iraq’s borders but would undoubtedly affect other countries in the region and the world.

The main factor behind the insecurity is the fact that some of the minority in Iraq do not want a popular government to be established through the normal democratic process but want to turn the clock back to the Saddam Hussein era through the use of violence.
Note that's appearing on a major Iranian news site; which tends to reflect the views of the Iranian overnment.

Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/17/2005&Cat=2&Num=011)
Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said upon his arrival in Tehran on Saturday afternoon that his country is determined to expand economic and political ties with Iran.
....
“In the current situation in which the Baathist regime of Iraq has been toppled, support for the Iraqi people and their elected leaders has been the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” [Iran's First Vice President Mohammad Reza] Aref added.

MacLeans (http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w071725A)reports Iran's President Khatami made similar comments and that:
Jaafari meets the next day with Mohsen Ahmadinejad, the hardline president-elect who will be replacing the reformist Khatami early next month. Ahmadinejad is expected to pursue the same line of closer ties with Iraq's government - but may put more pressure for the withdrawal of American forces.

According to Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-07-16T172726Z_01_N16571818_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-IRAN-IRAQ-DC.XML) a number of trade deals and pieces of economic aid are planned.

The two governments are also discussing security cooperation - AFP (http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=17804):
"One of the subcomissions we formed is on security cooperation between two sides. Its aim is really to establish a mechanism for intelligence sharing, to prevent infiltrations and to assist us in stablising the situation," [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari said.
One of Iran's key complaints has been that several thousand members of the People's Mujahedeen armed opposition group remain cantoned in a camp in Iraq under the supervision of US troops. "The Iraqi government policy is that it will definitely not allow any armed militia group or any armed foreign militia group to operate from Iraqi territory against any neighboring country," Zebari said, adding that the group has been "disarmed".

Last week, Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun Dalimi visited Iran. Al-Jazeera reported: (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3B7E6C5-B473-4779-8402-8D48A7299A35.htm)
"It's a new chapter in our relations with Iraq. We will start wide defence cooperation," Iranian Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani told a joint news conference with visiting Iraqi counterpart Sadoun al-Dulaimi.

"We're going to form some committees which will be involved in mine clearance, identifying those missing from the war and also ... to help train, rebuild and modernise the Iraqi army," Shamkhani added.

Iran last year offered to train Iraqi border guards, but Baghdad declined the offer.
...
Asked about possible US opposition to Iran-Iraq military cooperation, Shamkhani said: "No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement."

Iraq's al-Dulaimi echoed Shamkhani's comments.

"Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries," he said.

After returning to Baghdad, UPI reports, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050712-08285600-bc-iraq-iran.xml)Iraqi Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaimi has denied part of an agreement with Iran struck last week includes assistance in training the country's new military....He said the agreement did call for Iran to give $1 billion in reconstruction aid to the Iraqi government, some of which would go to the Defense Ministry.

We'll see what comes out of this second, higher-level visit. It's clear that Iran is willing to offer all kinds of aid, including miltiary aid, to Baghdad, in order to enhance its influence. The question is, to what extent can Washington force Baghdad to refuse that aid? So far...not entirely.

It seems likely to me that Washington will have increasing difficulty with this as time continues. And the availability of other aid will strengthen those calling for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Comments?

redstar2000
18th July 2005, 06:31
Won't happen.

The U.S. is not about to permit any kind of serious alliance between its puppet regime and the Iranian mullahs unless the mullahs agree to subordinate themselves to U.S. interests...a most unlikely development.

Of course, the Iraqi quislings may be permitted to verbally exercise their "independence"...and the U.S. certainly won't object to an additional source of funds to support its quislings -- if the Iranian mullahs are so foolish as to come up with any serious money.

The idea of Iranians "training" Iraq's "new army" is something of a joke in itself...Iranians (except for a small Arab minority) do not speak Arabic and Iraqis do not speak Farsi at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Led Zeppelin
18th July 2005, 07:16
The idea of Iranians "training" Iraq's "new army" is something of a joke in itself...Iranians (except for a small Arab minority) do not speak Arabic and Iraqis do not speak Farsi at all.


All Iranians are obliged to take Arabic lessons while in high school, to read the Quran.

viva le revolution
18th July 2005, 10:19
The U.S will never allow Iran any part in training the Iraqi army, that would mean furthur Iranian influence in not only the civilian but also military establishment.

jvs
18th July 2005, 12:36
Its merely a publicity stunt by the United States to show that it's war in Iraq is for the benefit of peace and the people. The puppet regime answers to the Unites States' every wish. This is but one more step in the so-called road map to peace.

Nothing but a farce. The new Iranian President has enough sense to see through this. There will be handshakes in front of cameras, long speeches to the world, and nothing more. Decades of bloodshed are not easily forgotten, let alone forgiven.

Severian
18th July 2005, 17:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:36 AM
The new Iranian President has enough sense to see through this.
And preconceptions are disappointed by reality once again:
UPI (http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050718-113026-9209r.htm)
Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari Iran is ready to help restore security and order in Iraq.
The Iranian News Agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad Monday as saying "the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready for full cooperation with the Iraqi government to restore peace and stability and rebuild Iraq and combat terrorism."
"Terrorist activities only serve the interests of the enemies of Iran and Iraq and give the enemy a pretext to attack Muslims," Ahmadinejad said.

More importantly, the man with the real power in Iran:
(Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/19/2005&Cat=2&Num=010))
In a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari in Mashhad, the Supreme Leader expressed pleasure over the establishment of a popularly-elected government in Iraq.

He called al-Jaafari a virtuous, religious and intellectual figure, and the Iraqi nation a real brother of Iranians.

Ayatollah Khamenei recounted the Iraqis’ hatred of the former Baath regime during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, saying the downfall of Saddam Hussein pleased the Iranians as much as it did the Iraqis.

He underlined that the new Iraq faces enemies which oppose its security and progress.

“There is a will that seeks to obstruct the establishment of stability in Iraq through bitter incidents and blind terrorist acts.

“The Zionists are probably involved in planning these events but the Iraqi nation and government can reconstruct Iraq as deems fit in view of their natural and human resources and through a strong will”.

The Supreme Leader noted that the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq has troubled people in the country and the region.

“The new Iraq has many supporters in the world of Islam, and Muslim nations and Islamic governments are dissatisfied with the U.S. behavior in the country”.

Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the drafting of a constitution as the most important issue facing Iraq.

“The Iraqi people have shown that they seek a constitution based on Islam and hopefully their representatives in the National Assembly will revive Iraq’s high position in the Islamic world by drafting such a constitution”.

He advised the Iraqi nation and government to remain vigilant about plots intended to create discord among the Shia and Sunni communities, adding the Iraqi people should attempt to reconstruct the country together and neutralize the conspiracies of colonialist powers.

(Edited 'cause I found an article with a better translation.)

On the material fulfillment of these words, Forbes reports (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/07/18/afx2142289.html):
Iran and Iraq are planning to build three pipelines, at Iran's expense, to cover Iraq's urgent need for petroleum and refined oil products, said Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh.
....
Iraqi Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Ouloum, who was accompanying the prime minister on his visit, said on Saturday that a memorandum would be signed in the next few days: '150,000 barrels per day of crude will be transported from Iraq to Iran and 50 mln litres of refined products from Iran to Iraq. The project will be operational within a year.'

'For the moment, only Iranian companies are expected to take part in the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry,' he said.

Imperialist reaction:
Washington's response is so far vague and subdued. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2005/49753.htm) It's past propaganda line about Iranian support for the insurgency is apparently falling flat in the new situation.

The right-wing Jerusalem Post has a vitriolic and inaccurate denunciation of the visit (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1121653127635)

Severian
18th July 2005, 23:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:31 PM
The idea of Iranians "training" Iraq's "new army" is something of a joke in itself...Iranians (except for a small Arab minority) do not speak Arabic and Iraqis do not speak Farsi at all.
Uh....unlike the current trainers, the U.S. military, all of whose soldiers speak Arabic fluently?

redstar2000
21st July 2005, 05:43
Originally posted by Severian+Jul 18 2005, 05:31 PM--> (Severian @ Jul 18 2005, 05:31 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 11:31 PM
The idea of Iranians "training" Iraq's "new army" is something of a joke in itself...Iranians (except for a small Arab minority) do not speak Arabic and Iraqis do not speak Farsi at all.
Uh....unlike the current trainers, the U.S. military, all of whose soldiers speak Arabic fluently? [/b]
Quite so.

The occupation forces couldn't train a cat to use a litter box.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Toussaint
22nd July 2005, 09:49
I agree about the refusal US autorities will oppose to such a cooperation, at least for a while.
But, i don't think languages could be an obstacle. In no way. Arab neighbors learn quickly to speaf the persan language and the persians learn quickly to speak arab. Not to mention technical and military terms are often simply taken from english...

Severian
22nd July 2005, 15:54
As projected during the visist: Iran, Iraq sign oil swap deal (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_8344.shtml)

Even if not everything else is followed up with deeds as quickly, the words alone greatly raise the destabilizing consequences in Iraq of any U.S. attack on Iran.

More imperialist response:
liberal and ex-radical columnist Robert Scheer's column is titled (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19376) Iraq's dangerous new friend: New alliance with Iran threatens to further destabilize region

Knowlegeable liberal academic Juan Cole on Salon.com: (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/21/iran/)"The Iraq War is Over and the Winner Is....Iran"
I'm having trouble accessing it, but there's an excerpt on Cole's blog (juancole.com):
the Bush administration cannot have been filled with joy when Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and eight high-powered cabinet ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week. The two governments went into a tizzy of wheeling and dealing of a sort not seen since Texas oil millionaires found out about Saudi Arabia. Oil pipelines, port access, pilgrimage, trade, security, military assistance, were all on the table in Tehran. All the sorts of contracts and deals that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney had imagined for Halliburton, and that the Pentagon neoconservatives had hoped for Israel, were heading instead due east. Jaafari's visit was a blow to the Bush administration's strategic vision, but a sweet triumph for political Shiism.

From the ultraright site antiwar.com:
Iran Sitting Pretty in World's Most Dangerous Region (http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=6722)
and
Iraq: What Are We Fighting For? An "Islamic republic," that's what (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6725), a temper tantrum by the site's Buchanite editor-in-chief.
Behold the good works of our brave soldiers. They're building schools that will indoctrinate future students in the aphorisms of past spiritual and political leaders – especially the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the object of the Iraqi prime minister's adulation. They're building roads that will one day link up the Shi'ite party militias in Iraq with their brethren across the border, the Iranian military and "Revolutionary Guards."
Etc.

Meanwhile, official Washington response continues to be muted and most of the establishment pundits aren't saying much, either. I think they'd prefer not to think about this too much.

mo7amEd
22nd July 2005, 17:46
I don't think al-Jaafari could collaborate with the Iranians even though he wanted.

Paradox
22nd July 2005, 19:34
Meanwhile, official Washington response continues to be muted and most of the establishment pundits aren't saying much, either. I think they'd prefer not to think about this too much.

Indeed. After all the "Iran is part of the axis of evil" talk, their puppets go and make up deals with the "axis of evil." Coming out and criticizing their own puppets and saying that they would not allow such developments would not help convince people of Iraq's new "independence."

Still, I wonder how far they'll actually get.


As projected during the visist: Iran, Iraq sign oil swap deal

Even if not everything else is followed up with deeds as quickly, the words alone greatly raise the destabilizing consequences in Iraq of any U.S. attack on Iran.


One of Iran's key complaints has been that several thousand members of the People's Mujahedeen armed opposition group remain cantoned in a camp in Iraq under the supervision of US troops. "The Iraqi government policy is that it will definitely not allow any armed militia group or any armed foreign militia group to operate from Iraqi territory against any neighboring country," Zebari said, adding that the group has been "disarmed".

This is one of the main parts I'm looking at. The MEK, it says, has been "disarmed," and that they are "cantoned in a camp." Is this a new development? That they've been disarmed? I remember reading that the MEK, though in a camp, invite US troops, officers, etc., into their camp, and that the CIA had been linked to them. Was it you, severian, who provided those links about them in another thread? I think it was. Anyway, I still wonder about attacks on Iran. I mean, it says that they won't allow any militia to operate from Iraqi territory. Couldn't they just move the MEK out of Iraq and use them from some other place? What about that proposed base in Azerbijan? How's that coming?

And the idea of Iran helping train and "modernize" the Iraqi military seems very doubtful to me, not because of a language barrier, but because Iraq is occupied by the US. I can't imagine Iranian and US troops both training Iraqi troops. That would be quite a site to see.

Anyway, I don't think the US can totally prevent ties with Iran, as it would contradict their presentation of Iraq as a newly "independent" and "self-determining" state. But some of these ideas, like the military one, just seem highly unlikely.

Severian
22nd July 2005, 20:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 12:34 PM
This is one of the main parts I'm looking at. The MEK, it says, has been "disarmed," and that they are "cantoned in a camp." Is this a new development?
Nah, that pretty much describes the situation since the invasion. Which is consistent with the theory that Washington's keeping the MEK in reserve for possible use against Iran (or debating such use.)

The only thing new here is the Iraqi government's statement they wouldn't cooperate with/"allow" any attacks on Iran.


I remember reading that the MEK, though in a camp, invite US troops, officers, etc., into their camp, and that the CIA had been linked to them. Was it you, severian, who provided those links about them in another thread?

Yup. But IIRC it's more people in the Pentagon, and some members of Congress who are supportive of the MEK, rather than the CIA.


I mean, it says that they won't allow any militia to operate from Iraqi territory. Couldn't they just move the MEK out of Iraq and use them from some other place?

Potentially. Afghanistan comes to mind. Probably a worse infiltration route and certainly a much worse invasion route. (And the logistics!)


And the idea of Iran helping train and "modernize" the Iraqi military seems very doubtful to me, not because of a language barrier, but because Iraq is occupied by the US. I can't imagine Iranian and US troops both training Iraqi troops. That would be quite a site to see.

Yeah, as I posted originally, the Iraqi Defense Minister has denied that this was part of the agreement. That Iran is willing to offer, though, increases the maneuvering room of the Baghdad government and strengthens those who are pressing it to call for U.S. withdrawal (including 80+ members of its parliament and probably many more of those who elected it.)