Mohammed at Iraq The Model has this post tomorrow about Iran's adventure in Iraq and the direction it's headed.
Iran’s “project” in Iraq has recently been facing one setback after another. There are an increasing number of signs that the “project’s” prospects for success, for realizing Iran’s ambitions in Iraq, do no point upward anymore. It simply isn’t having much success lately in undermining Iraq’s emerging democracy through politics and force.
In the past Iran has employed several tracks to interfere directly and indirectly in Iraq. The mullahs celebrated several achievements in the project. They rejoiced when pro-Iran powers took over a big part of the Iraqi government. In this they saw the real chance of a satellite Islamic state in Iraq offering them a strategic extension into the western front. It seemed as if the project of exporting the Islamic revolution designed by ayatollah Khomeini was reaping fruit after decades of planning. The dramatic fall of Arab nationalism in Iraq and the potential transformation of Iraq into a Shia theocratic ally would mean the fall of the last geographic wall between Iran and the allies in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territory. It would make the dream of Tehran’s dominance in the region a reality.
While Iran couldn’t secure a majority support in Iraq’s political arena, it definitely secured enough clout to impede the secular democratic project. This costly -in lives and treasure - policy could, in the minds of the mullahs, force America to forsake her goals in Iraq.
That, at least, was the plan. But a number of interesting developments in Iraq in the last few weeks may mark the beginning of failure for Iran’s plan. The developments listed here were collected from both large and small stories in local Iraq newspapers. Perhaps none of them are significant alone, but putting the pieces together allows one to sense that a sea change is underway in this country and the tide is moving against Iran.
I'll leave the details of the sea change for you to read yourself.
At the same time I've heard reports out of Iraq (Christopher Hitchens on Hugh Hewitt's radio show is one) that attitudes among the Iraqis has changed since the announcement of the Surge and the change in tactics that accompanies it. Hitchens reprted that where the American and Iraqi armies used to clear an area of insurgents and then leave that area, now they're staying to patrol, much like beat cops. The residents have become cautiously optimistic, where they used to be pessimistic.
It's not a full-blown success at this point, but it seems the tide has changed in Iraq, and that's good news. Here's how Mohammed ends his post:
All in all, things are not going the way Khamenie or Nejad were dreaming of just a few months ago. Overall the course of events recently in Iraq indicates the beginning of a severe fall for Iran’s stocks in Iraq.
Of course we shouldn’t expect Iran to just sit back and not respond. I think an escalation in attacks by militias loyal to Iran will take place soon, especially outside Baghdad.
8 comments:
CF,
Dennis Prager has said that people on the right (that would be me) see people on the left as wrong. People on the left (that would be you) see people on the right as bad. Based on your various comments on my blog, you would fall right into this category, much more than many of the other commenters who disagree with me.
It's very hard to have a conversation with someone who seems to prefer the use of a bludgeon as a conversational tool.
What do you want me to tell you about River? Do you want me to say that your source in Iraq is better and more accurate than mine? That she has a better sense of the pulse in Iraq than Mohammed and Omar? Do you expect that I'll excuse the rape of Sabrine as a necessary sacrifice on the road to stealing all the oil out of Iraq?
Sorry, but I'm not a puppet brainwashed by Blood-for-Oil masters. And I'm not any of the names you have called me.
You don't know me. You don't want to know me or how I got to the viewpoints I hold. You only want to attack, and that's not my idea of a good time.
You're more than welcome to continue commenting, if you can behave yourself. But if you can't (or won't), then I'll be ignoring your comments in the future (unless I can figure out how to block your comments, if you keep coming back with the bludgeon).
In the meantime, I pray the Lord will fill your heart with peace.
CF,
Thanks for stopping by. It's been enlightening.
Excuse me for butting in - I'll try and be brief.
I sure would like to see a whole post on the Prager theory on how the right is respectful of the left! I don't listen to Dennis much but I think I have to - that is absolutely incredible, given the gigantic right-wing media industry predicated on pumping outrage over all things liberal, the well-developed and profitable sport of pilloring all things liberal. I must be have misinterpreted the whole deal with the rhetoric regarding being a traitor| teasonous|America-hating|faggot| baby killing |bringing on the wrath of god |destroying the culture|comforting our enemies| etc| etc |etc... You go right on thinking that such rhetoric comes a good place in the hearts of conservatives if that's what it takes to sleep at night.
Oh, and if I were to critique your original post, I'd question why you're sticking by anyone from Hewitt's circle, who have been saying things have been going swimminly all along: in other words, their record on these matters is dismal and they have proven themselves to be profoundly un-serious.
Take care - by the way, your place looks great.
PAW,
You really haven't listened to Dennis Prager, have you? The words, "traitor| teasonous|America-hating|faggot| baby killing |bringing on the wrath of god |destroying the culture|comforting our enemies| etc" have never come out of his mouth, except maybe in condemnation. (OK, maybe "destroying our culture" has, but not the rest.) I think you'd find his show interesting, since it's more about non-political topics than political ones.
There's nothing in what Prager said--or what I said--about the right being "respectful" about the left. The point is that the right and the left don't see each other the same way or feel the same feelings about each other.
The left sees people on the right as bad, evil, ill-intentioned, hateful, etc. (generalities, of course).
The right sees people on the left as wrong, misguided, ill-informed--albeit probably good-intentioned.
Back to respectfulness, go ahead and take a look at the comments over the past week or two that ConfusedForeigner has been visiting, and let me know which of us has been respectful to the other. My first comment on this post is the most disrespectful that I've been, because I finally had it up to here with him.
He's told me I hate people ("the OTHER"), that I'm not able to come to independent conclusions, that I won't ever be able to think for myself, that I pontificate with ignorance, that my hate is all I'll ever have--and that's just here in this post.
I'm wondering if you'll still tell me that the non-right (wouldn't want to assume anything) is where the respect is.
And if you wouldn't like me to paint all non-right people with CF's brush, then perhaps you might also do me the same honor of keeping that "hateful right-winger" brush away from me until you see something hateful from me here.
I'm not sure who you mean by "Hewitt's circle." ITM? Christopher Hitchens? I don't hear Hugh's show often enough to know what anyone says consistently. I hear about 5 minutes a couple times a week and just happened to catch the Hitchens interview.
I like to hear encouraging news from Iraq, partly because we don't get much of it from the MSM, and also because some of the Marines who attend my church are deployed, and I'd like for them to come home safely. A little good news makes the tough news easier to take. After all, it's not ALL bad news. Even in Iraq. Even by the worst, most pessimistic polling data.
You're more than welcome to butt in. It's been a pleasure.
I do know Prager from Savage, I just don't know Prager well. He makes me kind of sleepy...
I used the "respect" tag as shorthand for his argument that you introduced. I could have been more clear but I was hoping you'd spot me that one.
"traitor| treasonous..." I assign that not to Prager but to the "right" which he is attempting to glorify and prop up. That's a tough sell, from my perspective.
"I'm wondering if you'll still tell me that the non-right (wouldn't want to assume anything) is where the respect is." Is it a zero sum game? I don't think so. I only reject that the right is so magnanimous. I'm not saying anything about "the left".
Now CF, that's a real interesting point. Almost made me start a post on my own blog. I prefer to act like a guest when I'm out and about. I don't disagree with his approach, though. I frequently reassess what I'm doing out here, if I'm doing any good or simply fulfilling the oppositions expectations. When one post may call my position treasonous, faggy, and indicative of a psychological condition, I really question the value of leaving a comment that tries to stick to an issue. As if I'm giving a pass on the insults, willingly keeping my gun harnessed and bringing a knife to a gun fight. It doesn't bother me to see someone like CF bring a gun to a gun fight, sometimes even drawing it first, following people home.
PAW,
I was hoping you'd spot me that one.
Sorry, I tend to be very literal. It helps me on my job, but elsewhere...
I think you're mixing up the lunatic fringe with regular folks who fall on the politically right side of the divide. You've run to the extreme of the right-wing rhetoric and then implied that all people on the right believe and say those things.
We don't. Any more than you would get in someone's face and scream at them that they're baby-killing, fascist, homophobic, racist, hate-filled tools of Big Oil, and they should have been aborted when their mother had the chance. At least, I would hope that you wouldn't.
Should I assume that because some on the left really would scream these things, that everyone else on the left would too? It's not a fair assumption.
And yet, CF definitely (and possibly even you) has made this kind of assumption about me. And probably about plenty of other reasonable people who hold differing views than his.
I don't call people names (except once I spelled Ahmadinejad as Ahmaddamatree), and I've only blown my top twice that I can remember--once on Malott's Blog or maybe Logic Lifeline, and the second time right here in this post, in my first reply to CF.
So, if you think my blog is a gun fight that warrants the heavy artillery, then I'd hate to find out what you'd call the blogs where they use the language you mentioned.
Are you doing any good here (in right-wing-land)? I would hope so. You're engaging in conversation in a way that helps promote understanding between the two sides, even if neither side is able to move the other very far. You're helping reduce the demonization of the opposition that happens too often on both sides.
You're welcome back anytime.
PAW,
By the way, I can understand how Prager might have a sleepifying effect. He tends toward the calm side.
And for the record, I can't stand Michael Savage. He's way too angry.
This ain't no saloon, ma'am. There be occasional gunfire in the general vicinity, though.
Coulter, Limbaugh, OReilly, etc - these people use that language - indeed they often put that language into play - and they are certainly not at the finge of your movement. But even so I wouldn't paint all conservatives with that brush. From what I understand of the Prager quote, though, that's exactly what he's doing, getting out the great big brush.
I'd still like to work the Prager quote because I think there's a lot there. But isn't it bad luck to work a post that has fallen off the front page? I'll keep my antane up.
Post a Comment