Posted on 06/15/2014 4:56:29 PM PDT by maggief
Oh, for the Sake of Pete
Too late. It appears that Al Malaki has handed off control of the military to Irani Al Quds leader.
Andrew Neil (Chairman Spectator Magazines (London); ITP Magazines (Dubai); World Media Rights (New York). BBC presenter.) reports via twitter.....
>>Major-General Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran’s elite Quds force, is now running operations, say Iraqi officials.<<
Ah, I get it.
The Iranians save our Iraqi bacon and Obama spins is as, “I succeeded in proactively ENGAGING IRAN…”
Right?
Something like that.
Sort of like, “It’s not a bug, it’s a FEATURE…”
Too late bozos.
FLASHBACK:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/26/Valerie-Jarrett-Chicago-and-the-Iran-Deal
VALERIE JARRETT, CHICAGO, AND THE IRAN DEAL
26 Nov 2013
Last week, the Times of Israel reported that senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett had been leading talks with Iran in secret for a year before the formal negotiations in Geneva this month. While the White House denied the report “100 percent,” the existence of back-channel talks has been confirmed by other reporting. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that President Barack Obama had “personally overseen” the talks.
Bet Kerry is busy selling the farm (mmm, giving away the farm).
I never thought I’d have to resort to AlJazeera TV to get updates. Sickening.
Obama’s America...
Dialogue??? HaHaHaHaHaHaHa! Only the stupidest, narcissistic, self-deluded idiots could possibly think any kind of conversation with Iran over the security of Iraq would be a “dialogue”. Oh, yeah. I forgot who the POTUS and SECSTATE are. The Iranians are going to really enjoy this, laughing their butts off after having a “dialogue” with the United States of Obama.
so Obama and Jarrett are Shia ?
ValJ was born in Shiraz, back when the Shah was in charge.
Apparently there were a lot of Bahai folks there pre-Ayatollah.
Not really sure what her allegiance is, her maiden name is Bowman.
Obama never knows who the sucker is at the card table ...
By the time they’re done with him, and he’s done `master-minding’ this situation, we’re really gonna be in the s***.
See, he agrees with them that the USA is the `Great Satan.’
Surreal world, surreal possibilities. Remember in Braveheart where the Irish allies of King Edward suddenly abandon Edward and merge with Bravehearts forces? Obama thru Jarrett have spent a lot of time with the Iranians. Will a joint Caliphate be formed to deal with infidels including specifically the US and Israel? Sunnis and Shiites often unite against the common enemy and put their differences temporarily aside. The great success of capturing the Iraqi US Embassy and its staff for Isalamic ransom and political purposes is an unpreceded plum, greater than the Iranian capture of the US Iranian Embassy in the seventies. Maybe someone is golfing because the outcome is already known. Surreal, maybe not. The VP is about to go to Guatemala, Kerry is out of the country and the chief is in California golfing. Jarrett may be on duty.
Again, surreal. We do not live in interesing time, we live in surreal times.
Iran and Iraq will become the Shia buddies that House of Saud isn’t gonna like one bit.
We have to take all of our Democrats over to Iraq. We take them to these places of slaughter. You grab them by the back of the neck with your left hand and rub their nose in the gore while whacking them on the head with a rolled-up newspaper and yelling, “Bad Democrat! Bad, bad Democrat! Don’t ever do this again!”
It’s the only way to teach them. They’re too stupid and greedy to learn any other way.
That’s what you do with a dog, a dog can learn.
Probably best to just shoot them, to “encourage the others”.
Well I’ve done extensive reading on this a few really insightful deeply analytical articles out there on the interwebs, search,search,search:
1)Limited American military involvement would be seen by the Sunni world as US approval of the Shia religion and would draw Sunni’s to the conflict like a magnet. This is not inline with US plans and wishes.
2) Iran should be able to handle this with military assistance and save Iraqs bacon, but due to economic sanctions Iran’s money is tight and there may be choices between military and economic resources for Syria versus resources for Iraq.
4) The US invaded Iraq with BushII in the interest of national security and one of those goals was to keep Iran out of Iraq in a post-US withdrawal time. Those fears seem to have dissipated...and analysts aren’t explaining these things out. We historically dont want Iran in Iraq except in limited ways...why/how has this reasoning changed.
So all of a sudden, and not explained, it doesnt seem the US fears Iran with either increasing influence,troops or even control over Iraq and any fears of Iran siezing Iraq and tripping over the line into Saudi Arabia are not brought up. Iranian hegemony seems to be a thing of the past.
In my little opinion the US should stay out of Iraq again, unless they are the only and best hope to salvage the situation and we are not...Iran is.
Perhaps what is missing from all the analysis is that we feel we can control Iran economically such that they can be expected to behave in Iraq...Maybe this is so but no one states it or even brings up the subject.
Well there’s two alternatives for the US if they are determined to be involved in the Middle East, they can work with the Shiite Iranians or their arch-rivals the Sunni Saudis.
The Iranians haven’t actually attacked the US in about thirty years, Iran, despite being an Islamic Republic tolerates other religions, there are many Christians and indeed Jews living peacefully in Iran. Last year the Iranians elected a president with the specific mandate of ending Iran’s isolation and reaching out to the US. The Iranians are supporting the democratically elected government of Iraq, the democratic government that the US spent billions and thousands of lives getting installed. Iranians are much more open to the west and used to be America’s best friend in the region.
Or the US could continue to what it has being doing for decades; using its military as the House of Saud’s foreign legion, protecting the oil fields the feeble Saudi military could not defend, while the Saudis, who loathe America and the west, fund the Sunni and Wahabi extremists who are currently fighting in Syria and Iraq.
Oh and the men who attacked America on 9/11 were not Iranians but almost to a man Sunni Saudis led by a Sunni Saudi.
Yeah, I can see why the US wouldn’t want to side with Iran in this fight, er, maybe.
It won’t be a dialogue but negotiations at best. The IRGC commander who is in Iraq now is Qasem Soleimani. He is also an Iraq-Iran War (1980s) veteran. Since ISIS also consists of many former Saddam loyalists, there will be no love lost. It is in Iranian regime’s interest to ensure ISIS at least doesn’t takeover the Shi’ite parts of Iraq. Soleimani is also the guy who has been helping fight ISIS in Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.