Iraq resistance leader: Iran is the main enemy

[Severian]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301792.html)

Over the course of a 90-minute interview, a leader of an armed Sunni group in western Baghdad described his hatred for Iran and the current Iraqi government, while outlining the dimensions of an armed insurgency that extends well beyond al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organization that U.S. officials routinely identify as their central enemy.
....
"I personally don't have a hatred of the American people, and I respect American civilization," he said. "They have participated in the progress of all the nations of the world. They invented computers. Such people should be respected. But people who are crying over someone who died 1,400 years ago" -- referring to Shiites and their veneration of a leader killed in the 7th century -- "these should be eliminated, to clear the society of them, because they are simply trash."

"The real enemy for the resistance is Iran and those working for Iran," he went on. "Because Iran has a feud which goes back thousands of years with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq."
....
In May, at least 14 U.S. soldiers working in Amiriyah were killed, a sharp increase over previous months. After those losses, U.S. commanders began working with Sunni residents, including some members of the Islamic Army, to help capture or kill those from al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Abu Sarhan, who lives in the nearby Khadra neighborhood, dismissed this cooperation with Americans, saying it represented temporary divisions rather than a widespread acceptance of U.S. forces.

"Right now I think that the Islamic Army has split into two factions. Some are cooperating with the Americans against the rest of the Sunnis, while some have remained as they are," he said.
...
Still, he did not advocate an immediate U.S. withdrawal, but rather a gradual drawdown of troops to coincide with a reconciliation with Sunni insurgents.

"Lift the barriers. Move the checkpoints. Build a hospital. And release the detainees from the area. And you will witness very quickly a tangible difference. The hatred and the strikes against the Americans will be wiped out or greatly reduced," he said. "The solution is political, not military. And then the American soldiers will be able to walk down the streets without their protective vests."

But when the Americans do eventually leave, he said, "the future will be dim."

"There will be a fierce civil war, a grinding civil war, because Iran will always be there," he said. "But the Sunnis are ready for such a day."

Discussion?

[Noah]

Of course Iran has it's big fat hands all over Iraq, what could be better than gaining a close ally (puppet government more like) in one of the most oil-rich countries in the world!

Furthermore, Iran is just as imperialist as America and does want to spread its ideology beyond its own borders, seeing as Iraq is majority Shia - that's a good place to start.

Truth is, if the Shia's are in power Sunni parties will be terrorists and vise versa, the civil war has started. We need a strong people's movement, they need to get the oil money going again and with that a worker's government needs to rebuild the country and kill all the suspected terrorist on the spot.

2 thoughts about the Iraq war:

1) As long as Iraq will not settle for an oil law which will allow American corporations to take Iraq's oil for a certain amount of time through one sum of money (so a license) the insurgency will continue.

It's in America's direct interest to keep the insurgency going, until Iraq is so on it's arse that they won't be in a position to influence and oil bill and just accept it...Isn't that what happened with Russia's gas after the fall of the SU?

2) America (or neighbouring countries) is arming the Sunni resistance!

3)Iran is arming the Shi'ite resistance!

(Obviously because no armed resistance has the money to make so many bombs, pay their man to kill himself, cars, bribes and what not - car bombs are expensive no one could be making that type of money in Iraq right now!) Does anyone here watch Arabic news channels?

4) A civil war is going to continue (America isn't getting it's oil and Iran has Islamo-imperialist interests in Iraq), Iraq has become a battleground for two big players.

[TC]

This was the leader of the Islamic state of Iraq's "Omar Brigade" thats tasked with fighting the Badr Brigades, if i remember from the longer version of this article, right?

In which case, it just sounds like a specialist saying that his own specialty is the most important; he doesn't necessarily have the ability to make the predictions he's making.

I think *most* Iraqis would say that the Americans are the main enemy and that they should leave immediately.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:30 am


I think *most* Iraqis would say that the Americans are the main enemy and that they should leave immediately.
If polls mean anything a vast majority of Iraqis think just that.

[hajduk]

Iran works for Bush and the rest of his pack, guys.They will split the war pray beetwen himself.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 16, 2007 07:21 am--> (Pawn Power @ July 16, 2007 07:21 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 06:30 am


I think *most* Iraqis would say that the Americans are the main enemy and that they should leave immediately.
If polls mean anything a vast majority of Iraqis think just that. [/b]
Which polls? I haven't seen any recent Iraq opinion polls. Can you link one?

Most stuff I've seen from the "resistance" says, well, pretty much what this guy says. Interestingly, it seems to be taken up by more and more of the "resistance"s fans internationally, like Hajduk, spouting the really bizarre conspiracy theory that Iran and the U.S. are in cahoots. Yup, while the U.S. is obviously gearing up to attack Iran, the "resistance" is claiming they're conspiring together.

Noah's much more reality-based here. The only disputable assertion in his post is whether the U.S. is arming the Sunni resistance....though some neighboring countries, like Saudi Arabia, probably are. And the U.S. is very openly arming Sunni tribes that will oppose al-Qaeda....and which will also use those weapons against the Shi'a in the civil war.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

spouting the really bizarre conspiracy theory that Iran and the U.S. are in cahoots.

...or that Iran is imperialist!!!

[Guerrilla22]

Typical sectarian bullshit. Last time I checked Iran is not occupying Iraq.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And here are the latest figures for the make-up of the resistance: no Iranians anywhere in sight:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/ano...bites-dust.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/another-one-bites-dust.html)

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Its a pattern ive noticed for about a year. The US ***** about Iran for decades, recently they were all *****ing at Iran for wanting nuclear energy. The US is still unable to do anything about it (read: attack Iran), and now more "proof" comes that Iran is a "threat" because they are in Iraq. Soon the US will come with new "evidence" that Iran is linked with Bin Laden or that they are responsible for 9/11 and once again the Yanks will go to war!

[Guerrilla22]

When all else fails, blame someone else for your foreign policy mishaps. The Iraqi government and Iran are especially convient targets for blame.

[Severian]

Hm. I'm wondering what any of that has to do with the thread topic.


Originally posted by CdeL
...or that Iran is imperialist!!!That'd be a purely terminological quibble in this case, since it seems that Noah's referring to Iran's tendency to exert influence in Iraq and the region...which is undeniably real. And driven by capitalist interests, I might add.

[Noah]

1) Iran doesn't need to be there to influence it. All they need to do is supply money and their ideology of Political Islam (and weapons!). Iraq is full with desperate angry men, why would Iranian insurgents need to be present!?

They obviously want a piece of the cake, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

[Severian]

OK, let me say a little about why I posted this interview.

Since most of the responses don't want to deal with it.

This interview is a little snapshot of what the "resistance" is really all about.

It is not primarily about opposing U.S. occupation. Note this guy actually wants it to continue for a while.

It is about fighting a civil war, in which the other side is demonized primarily as agents of Iran....the degree to which this is true is largely irrelevant. Certainly they believe all kinds of ridiculous things in order to whip themselves up for sectarian pogroms: that Tehran and Washington are in cahoots, that Sunnis are a majority of Iraq's population, that Farsi is being enforces as the official language in parts of southern Iraq....truth is unnecessary.

The different sides of this civil war will increasingly compete for Washington's favor, Washington's assistance against their rivals. For example, Sunni sheiks and even some resistance groups are being armed by Washington as long as they oppose "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".*
(This interview further confirms these reports, BTW: "Right now I think that the Islamic Army has split into two factions. Some are cooperating with the Americans against the rest of the Sunnis, while some have remained as they are," he said." The Islamic Army is one of the resistance groups with elements reportedly cooperating with the U.S. against al-Qaeda; the 1920 Revolution Brigades is another.)

This is a problem for the Maliki Shia-theocratic government, of course, but tough cookies: what have they done for Washington lately?

Iraq's a long way from a stable government that can serve as any kind of "beacon of freedom"™ or even a useful regional client policeman....but it's even further from representing any kind of road forward in the fight for national liberation, never mind socialism.

[peaccenicked]

The civil war is not news but saying the resistence is not whipping US/UK ass is a bit wrong.

[ComradeOm]

I remember being pilloried on this very forum a few years ago for not blindly supporting the insurgent groups. Its refreshing to see that a fresher and more critical approach is growing in popularity.

Its also unsurprising to see the US begin to play "tribal politics". Its taken them long enough to realise the bankruptcy of their previous approach. This is a page right out of the British imperial manuals and I have to concede that this is also much more likely to succeed. For now the US can sponsor the Sunnis while in a decade or two they'll start selling arms to the Shi'ites. Once the Iraqis are busy waging their own civil war they'll be much more malleable to Washington's ends.

[MYSTIC OWL]

THIS IS NO RESISTENCE LEADER!!

This is a foreign proxy - (I will let your own imaginations do the work) :unsure:

The leading lights of Al-Qaeda such a Ayman al-Zawaheri have been trying to make common cause with Iran.
Only the US has anything to gain by civil/sectarian strife because it would then provide a reason for staying there to manage the chaos . . . (which they helped to create).

Iraq as a modern state is a British colonial relic and its border is entirely arbitrary. The real borders are the cultural ones, as the United States has found out to its cost.

The shia versus sunni conflict in this part of the world started in 2003 - only minutes AFTER the US invasion when there was a power vacuum created by a lack of post conflict planning. Now that the occupation has failed, the US can use this unfortunate situation to its advantage by creating a more convincing pretext for staying.