Here's how Iran might triumph in Iraq

Newsday.com ^ | May 25, 2004 | James P. Pinkerton

[F14 Pilot]

My plan is working well.

When I, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ruler of Iran, launched my plan to get you Americans to do our work for us - to destroy our personal enemy, Saddam Hussein, and also to destroy our historic enemy, the country of Iraq - I could only pray that my plan would work so quickly. Our weapon of mass destruction, of course, was Ahmad Chalabi.

Please don't confuse me with my predecessor in power here: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who died in 1989. I've been the supreme leader ever since. And if my name sounds similar, I am also similar to him in my physical appearance and ideo-theological outlook. But whereas Khomeini expelled the Americans from Iran, it falls upon me, Khamenei, to expel the Americans from Iraq. Although, of course, to get the Americans out, first we had to get them in.

Maybe I should explain. Iraq is Arab. We Iranians are Persians. We've been fighting each other for 14 centuries. In 1980, Hussein's Iraq attacked us along our common border; in the eight years of fighting that followed - with the Americans helping Hussein, big time - some 600,000 Iranians were martyred.

So that's what we think of Hussein and Iraq. Do you know the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Enter Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who dreamed of replacing Hussein. When he wasn't defrauding banks in Jordan, he was schmoozing - that's a fun word I learned in the course of Operation Baghdad Trojan Horse - the American neoconservatives in Washington. Chalabi told them what those folks wanted to hear: that a Chalabized Iraq would be friendly to the Satanic West. And so with tens of millions of American dollars, they established the Iraqi National Congress, allegedly a sort of government-in-exile. But, of course, the only would-be governor Chalabi worried about was himself. And, after the Americans conquered Iraq last year, the future looked bright for him.

Yet all along, Chalabi figured that he could strengthen his position if he made friends in Tehran. Why? Most Iraqis, and almost all Iranians, are Shia Muslims. And so Chalabi figured that if the dominant religious figures in the region gave him at least some support, that theocratic endorsement would aid his rule. We Iranians were happy to say "yes" to that, of course; talk is cheap. Once Hussein and his secret police - all Sunni Muslims - were gone, we could flood Iraq with Shia "pilgrims," carrying weapons as well as Qurans.

Yes, Chalabi gave away many American secrets in return, but that was just icing on the cake, as you say. After the Americans entered Baghdad, his mission was completed. Because, to us, he was a bee; his mission was to sting Hussein, fatally, and then die himself.

And now, Washington is in turmoil, as the pro- and anti-Chalabi factions inside the Bush administration finger-point at each other. Chalabi himself calls America's crusade in Iraq "a failure." Indeed, the after-taste of Iraq will make it hard for the Americans to get any enthusiasm for future "Bush Doctrine" missions against Iran. Thanks to our Chalabi-tool, we will have succeeded. We will be free to continue work on our nuclear weapons program.

Meanwhile, your president makes speeches about "staying the course." Let him talk to Americans. The Shia of Iraq are listening to us. And while the youngster Muqtada al-Sadr gets the headlines, the truly popular leader in Iraq is our good friend, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Thanks to al-Sadr's radicalism, Americans think al-Sistani is some sort of moderate. After we help install him in power - Sistani can win a democratic election - the Yankees will go home, declaring "Mission Accomplished."

But did you know al-Sistani was born in Iran? The only question that remains is whether our fellow Shia will gain complete control of Iraq, or only partial control of the southern provinces. You Americans shouldn't think that Santa Claus is the only white-bearded man capable of a big belly laugh.'And now, Washington is in turmoil, as the pro- and anti-Chalabi factions inside the Bush administration finger-point at each other.'

[F14 Pilot]

FREE IRAN

[F14 Pilot]

[Ready4Freddy]

It's tough when the 'enemy you know' becomes intolerable, like Saddam did. My take on the probablilties for government in Iraq in the long run:

1) - Shia mullahtocracy
2) - Balkanization of Iraq into 3 relatively autonomous areas
3) - Sunni thugocracy
4) - whatever it was that 'we' wanted but didn't have a clue how to implement

[F14 Pilot]

Don't know if this is joke, sarcasm or a serious article.

[Ready4Freddy]

I think it's the author's way of syaing that we don't really have a clue who the players are over there, pilot.

[Atlantic Friend]

Whatever it is, it's clever - and very appropriately byzantine.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Although, of course, to get the Americans out, first we had to get them in."

Sure....of course. Now take your lithium and try to focus.

[cake_crumb]

Right now, Iron is in our sights, too. If Kerry wins in November, Iran will have won, though the revolution will probably take place anyway. If President Bush is reelected, the revolution will take place anyway, but we have the chance to make sure that the regime which replaces the thugacracy will be better, not worse. That will equally benefit the people of Iraq.

Of all people, President Bush has the best chance of succeeding and ensuring freedom for the people of Iran as well as for Iraq. He won't stand for much more meddling from Iran in Iraq or elsewhere.

The press is oversymplifying the problem of Iran in Iraq, due to the Vitenam filter through which they view the entire war on terror, which is NOT over anywhere, including in Iraq.

[swilhelm73]

Maybe I should explain. Iraq is Arab. We Iranians are Persians. We've been fighting each other for 14 centuries. In 1980, Hussein's Iraq attacked us along our common border; in the eight years of fighting that followed - with the Americans helping Hussein, big time - some 600,000 Iranians were martyred.

It is amusing that prior to 1991, we didn't do enough for Iraq and we did far too much for Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Remember the Iran-Contra affair?

But since GW1, Leftist thought has flipped. Now, apparently we did far too much for Iraq and not enough for Iran.

Well, Reagan skillfully played both sides to produce the draw we wanted. It was a masterful bit of diplomacy. A few weapons to Iran, a little bit of intelligence to Iraq, and the two are kept busy with each other.

Not that you will *ever* hear the leftists in the press give Reagan his due for this...

[R. Scott]

It seems to be a long verbose way of presenting one possible outcome to our war.
Our “esteemed” media convinces enough people that the war is wrong.
These people bring enough pressure to bear that we withdraw from Iraq.
Syria and Iran divide up the country.

[tm22721]

Our real agenda is to get at the Wahabbis and their financiers in SA. Iraq is simply a convenient staging area.

We don't really care what pack of Arabs runs Iraq. All we need is to maintain a viable military base close to SA.

BUMP

[bondjamesbond]

How does this BS ever make it beyond the High School newspaper or the pages of DU? To call it moronic is an insult to morons.

BTW, we did not help the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war "big time". This is a lie repeated over and over that gets no more true with each re-telling. The Iraqis were a client state of the Soviets, not the US.

Of course, it's not any fun to bash the Soviets anymore, now that they are out of business and all...

[MJY1288]

I'm surprised Jim Pinkerton would write such Horse Hockey, Pure 100% unadulterated Horse Hockey

[ThanhPhero]

!

[SE Mom]

Uh-oh...Jim's slipping..perchance to dream.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Pinkerton wrote this?

What is going on with him?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!