Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - U.S. policy on Iraq Shi'ites could aid Iran: report

Janett_Reno · 11-14-2007, 09:24 PM

U.S. policy on Iraq Shi'ites could aid Iran: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/...LxvCRmnaJg.3QA

The Bush administration's courtship of the biggest Shi'ite party in Iraq could worsen a dangerous rift between rival Shi'ite groups and ultimately give Iran a greater political role, a think tank said on Wednesday.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, or SIIC, a cornerstone of the political alliance behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has enjoyed close relations with Washington since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, unlike the rival Shi'ite movement led by anti-American cleric Moqtada al Sadr.

But the International Crisis Group urged the United States to adopt a more evenhanded approach to the majority Shi'ite community, saying in a report that Shi'ite rivalries are likely to have more influence on Iraq's future than the sectarian conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis.

"The U.S. has fully backed (SIIC) in this rivalry. This is a risky gambit," the Belgium-based think tank said.

It warned that U.S. reliance on fighters from SIIC's Badr Organization as a counterweight to Sadr's Mehdi Army militia is "bound to backfire, polarizing the Shi'ite community and creating the foundations for endemic intra-Shi'ite strife."

"While Washington is intent on stabilizing Iraq, for example, (SIIC) is bent on ruling it," the report said.

It described SIIC's rivalry with Sadr as a class struggle between a Shi'ite merchant elite represented by SIIC and the far more numerous Shi'ite urban underclass devoted to Sadr.

SIIC members are believed to make up a sizable segment of Iraq's security forces, and the party holds about one-quarter of the parliament seats occupied by Maliki's ruling Shi'ite Alliance.

But SIIC could not prevail alone in free elections and would face a tough challenge from the Sadr movement even if it sought power at the head of a coalition of political parties, the think tank said.

"SIIC's empowerment through U.S. protection and support may open the door to greater Iranian involvement, especially once U.S. forces begin to withdraw," it said.

"SIIC's control over government security forces is far from complete and is challenged by many. As a result, it may seek even greater Iranian support in its battle for power."

SIIC was founded in Iran in 1982 by Iraqi Shi'ite exiles who returned to Iraq after the 2003 invasion toppled Saddam.

Although the party has tried to bolster its Iraqi credentials, the International Crisis Group said SIIC has not quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a sectarian agenda.

It said the United States should force SIIC to undergo fundamental change, including a purge of members involved in sectarian killings, torture and divisive rhetoric.

The think tank also urged the Bush administration to help move SIIC away from demands for a Shi'ite super region spanning Iraq's nine southern governates, an idea that has stirred widespread opposition, notably from Sadr, who portrays himself as a nationalist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just like i have reported for months. By over throwing Sadam because you are pissed at him that he doesn't share his oil and he was stubborn and of course the riffs with daddy Bush and Sadam, you take him from power and make Iran a huge player in the middle east making them stronger. I thought we wanted to weaken Iran and Syria, not streghten them. Now who has the most influence over the Iraqi people, Sadam or Iran? Pretty scarry if you think about it but the neocons also thought we would sweep thru Iran and Syria as well and wouldn't have to worry with those problems.

Now when your tax dollars go to Iraq and Syria(to help the children from Iraq) and to rebuild Iraq, well Iran and Syria thanks us all the way to the bank. No more Sadam, no more fear of Iraq to them, run most of the people off to other countries and as we scale down, they will try and come in more to influence the people left, the gov and police and even military, with our money rebuilding the country.

So you invade to remove Sadam and all the people moved to Syria, Iran, Jordan and now make the country a warlord country and like how Ahganastan use to be. Now i hope i am wrong and i hope the article is wrong and the best happens but go look at a map and see who is next door to Iraq and who has the most to gain to influence the people, where they can move into Iraq. Now it won't be a cake walk for Iran and Syria because it is other countries(middle eastern) that want Iraq also.

11-14-2007, 09:24 PM	#1
Janett_Reno Platinum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,150	U.S. policy on Iraq Shi'ites could aid Iran: report U.S. policy on Iraq Shi'ites could aid Iran: report http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/...LxvCRmnaJg.3QA The Bush administration's courtship of the biggest Shi'ite party in Iraq could worsen a dangerous rift between rival Shi'ite groups and ultimately give Iran a greater political role, a think tank said on Wednesday. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, or SIIC, a cornerstone of the political alliance behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has enjoyed close relations with Washington since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, unlike the rival Shi'ite movement led by anti-American cleric Moqtada al Sadr. But the International Crisis Group urged the United States to adopt a more evenhanded approach to the majority Shi'ite community, saying in a report that Shi'ite rivalries are likely to have more influence on Iraq's future than the sectarian conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis. "The U.S. has fully backed (SIIC) in this rivalry. This is a risky gambit," the Belgium-based think tank said. It warned that U.S. reliance on fighters from SIIC's Badr Organization as a counterweight to Sadr's Mehdi Army militia is "bound to backfire, polarizing the Shi'ite community and creating the foundations for endemic intra-Shi'ite strife." "While Washington is intent on stabilizing Iraq, for example, (SIIC) is bent on ruling it," the report said. It described SIIC's rivalry with Sadr as a class struggle between a Shi'ite merchant elite represented by SIIC and the far more numerous Shi'ite urban underclass devoted to Sadr. SIIC members are believed to make up a sizable segment of Iraq's security forces, and the party holds about one-quarter of the parliament seats occupied by Maliki's ruling Shi'ite Alliance. But SIIC could not prevail alone in free elections and would face a tough challenge from the Sadr movement even if it sought power at the head of a coalition of political parties, the think tank said. "SIIC's empowerment through U.S. protection and support may open the door to greater Iranian involvement, especially once U.S. forces begin to withdraw," it said. "SIIC's control over government security forces is far from complete and is challenged by many. As a result, it may seek even greater Iranian support in its battle for power." SIIC was founded in Iran in 1982 by Iraqi Shi'ite exiles who returned to Iraq after the 2003 invasion toppled Saddam. Although the party has tried to bolster its Iraqi credentials, the International Crisis Group said SIIC has not quite managed to shake off its past as an Iran-bred group of exiles with a sectarian agenda. It said the United States should force SIIC to undergo fundamental change, including a purge of members involved in sectarian killings, torture and divisive rhetoric. The think tank also urged the Bush administration to help move SIIC away from demands for a Shi'ite super region spanning Iraq's nine southern governates, an idea that has stirred widespread opposition, notably from Sadr, who portrays himself as a nationalist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just like i have reported for months. By over throwing Sadam because you are pissed at him that he doesn't share his oil and he was stubborn and of course the riffs with daddy Bush and Sadam, you take him from power and make Iran a huge player in the middle east making them stronger. I thought we wanted to weaken Iran and Syria, not streghten them. Now who has the most influence over the Iraqi people, Sadam or Iran? Pretty scarry if you think about it but the neocons also thought we would sweep thru Iran and Syria as well and wouldn't have to worry with those problems. Now when your tax dollars go to Iraq and Syria(to help the children from Iraq) and to rebuild Iraq, well Iran and Syria thanks us all the way to the bank. No more Sadam, no more fear of Iraq to them, run most of the people off to other countries and as we scale down, they will try and come in more to influence the people left, the gov and police and even military, with our money rebuilding the country. So you invade to remove Sadam and all the people moved to Syria, Iran, Jordan and now make the country a warlord country and like how Ahganastan use to be. Now i hope i am wrong and i hope the article is wrong and the best happens but go look at a map and see who is next door to Iraq and who has the most to gain to influence the people, where they can move into Iraq. Now it won't be a cake walk for Iran and Syria because it is other countries(middle eastern) that want Iraq also.