U.S. 'surge' is working, but so is Iran's
If a picture speaks a thousand words, then the pictures and film footage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki holding hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak volumes.
“The two leaders walked in to an ornate meeting room holding hands,” noted one of several reports. This picture, only the latest evidence of an extremely close relationship between the U.S.-supported Iraqi government and the Iranian regime, appeared on the U.S. evening news broadcasts on Wednesday night.
It raises the question: what are we fighting for in Iraq if the government there is closely tied to, perhaps dependent for its survival on, the terrorist state of Iran?
Some observers are saying that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq is making a difference and that we might even “win” the war.
But the key issue is the political character of the government in Iraq we are supporting. If the goal now is simply a stable Iraqi government, no matter how closely it is tied to Iran, then that outcome may rest in large part in the hands of the Iranian government.
Are we now sacrificing our blood, sweat, tears and money to assure the survival of a regime that is or will become a satellite of Iran?
Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute warns, “Until Iran is defeated, Iraqi leaders will always cater to the edicts coming from Tehran.”
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI've always maintained that while dealing with Saddam and his Ba'athists was right, it was not of highest priority. The Mullahcracy of Iran ought to have been dealt with first. Then the coalition could've dealt with Saddam in its own good time.