. One wonders how important the division of Islamic sects will play into what the dominate partners will be between Iraq,Iran, and Syria when all the cards fall on the table and the coalition troops cede over all the ranes to a new Shia dominated Iraqi Government.

Certainly Iran, and Iraq share a degree of commonality with both countries being majority followers of the Shia sect that evolved after the assassination of Ali in Karbala in the late 6th century. Still today hundreds of thousands of Shia Iranians make the pilgrimmage to the mosque of Ali in Karbala .The British troops that maintain a presence in Karbala say that it is all but impossible to determine if there are trouble makers among the Iranians that make that pilgrimage to Karbala which is located in Southern Iraq.

Though the Islamic worlds majority are by far Sunnis'. (80 Pct.)The Sunni control over Iraqi Shias under Saddams Baath Party is surely not lost on Iraqis.

The insurgents that have come out of Syria to attack Coalition troops and have ended up killing thousands of Iraqis has to give way to a possible more friendly lean by Iraq towards Iran over the next few years short of a civil war even after the 7 year war that Saddam conducted against the Iranians that cost more than a million lives.

Syrias dictator Bashar al-Assad appears to be in trouble with his party. The Sunni dictator has angered many after the assassination of a former Lebanese leader at which the Lebanese demanded that Syrian troops leave the country after being a destabilizer in the Beka Valley for decades.

One can be concerned that if the Iran,Iraq ties become to friendly with the Iranian mullahs,could there be a backlash against the Western world from those influences? And if Syrias Bashar falls will there be an even greater despot to take his place?

Posted by: Mackie at October 11, 2005 11:21 AM

I am not sure Iranian influence in southern Iraq is really so bad. It is abundantly clear that the US and UK cannot remake Iraq into a secular democracy. Shia in Iraq are being slaughtered wholesale by Sunni death cultists. Iranians, though they are ruled by a fundamentalist anti-western government, by and large are fed up with Islam being forced down their throats. Someday, the mullahs will fall and Iran will become a totally reasonable country. Any Iranian encroachment has to be judged against this possibility. Consider the long-term effect of Iranian cultural influence on the Iraqi Shia. It might not be all bad.

Though we may dislike Islam as an ideology, no one should be killed as the Iraqi Shia are being. Clearly the US/UK forces cannot protect them. Plus, southern Iraq is a bone in the coalition's throat. Why not make it a bone in Iran's throat? Let them have their influence.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at October 11, 2005 11:43 AM

Whatever leaves a situation in which Shi'a Iran must worry about Sunnis in Iraq, and Sunni volunteers pouring into Iraq (or attacking Iranian diplomats and interests abroad), and Sunni oil revenues being used against any perceived Iranian allies or potential allies-- and in Saudi eyes that would include all Shi'a everywhere -- is a good thing. Whatever uses up the resources and attetion of the Iranian government in such a way is a Good Thing. for such a diversion (and the Iraqis, even the hideous Moqtada al-Sadr, are not all inclined to become simply a satrapy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of haughty Persians lording it over the Arabs whom many Iranians, even the most fervently Muslim, regad as a lesser breed), is a good thing.

Any such attention, any diversion of manpower, will lessen the ability of the Iranian government to proceed with quite as much single-minded alacrity on its nuclear weapons project, or with as much ferocity in its repression of internal dissent. And instead of prolongign the life of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the mess of Iraq, a war in Iraq that would require Iranian attention, could unsettle (in Washington such a beautiful word as "unsettle" would never be used -- they prefer "destabilize" for those well-versed in bureaucratese feel comfortable only with such words). And that, too, is a good thing.

Indeed, if Sunnis and Shi'a go at it in Iraq, and the Iranians intervene and the Saudis and Jordanians and the "real" Muslims in Syria (not the Alawites, but the real Muslims -- the ones kept down, kept locked up, intermittently killed, by those same Alawites) also do so with men and money, we should watch, and hope that others, Infidels and Muslims, are also watching. The Infidels, so that they will begin to get the idea that the more division and dissension and demoralization there is within Islam, the better for Infidels, not least because Infidel governments need to buy time to educate their own populations on Islam. The Muslims, because one would like the Sunni-Shi'a split to cause problems, radiating outward from Iraq, in Hasa province of Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Bahrain, in Pakistan, where even the newspapers tell us that Sunnis have been killing Shi'a as a sport and a pastime for a long time.

Don't let phrases about "Iranian plots" in southern Iraq scare you. Welcome those plots. Hope that the Sunnis have counter-plots.

Yes, let the plots thicken. But in order to do that, the American cooks should remove their bullet-proof aprons, put down their high-caliber whisks, and get out of the kitchen. Not because they can't stand the heat: they can. But because too many cooks might fail to spoil the broth. And we want that broth well-spoiled -- that broth known as Islam, and the Jihad.

Instead of stirring and adding spices, and tasting tasting tasting, and bemoaning the fact that one had not whirled enough, and added thyme, the American cook should leave now.

That geopolitical equivalent of a three-star Michelin rating -- the Mackinder Cup, will be awarded to that Infidel government that first shows a reasonable awareness of the nature and menace of Islam, and acts accordingly. Australia seems to be a shoo-in for 2005.

But if the American troops can start leaving right after that December 2005 election (assuming the Iraqi constitution is not rejected this Saturday), and be entirely out within, say, six months (save for the special case of a few bases in Kurdistan) then the United States has a fighting chance -- by ceasing to fight in the wrong place for the wrong goal -- of being awarded the Mackinder Cup for 2006.

Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2005 1:32 PM

Quiybo:

The Saudis didn't oppose the overthrow of Saddam because they liked him, but because they fear a Shiite "crescent" that could potentially take in not only the most of the rich oil producing areas of Iraq (which naturally excludes the Khurdish region), but also SA's own eastern provinces, which are predominantly Shiite.

As with Iraq, little of the petroleum resources lie in the Sunni strongholds, and SA's Shiites are, as you might have guessed, held in extreme contempt by the Sunni/Wahhabis in control. There's an oil war being fought in Iraq alright, but not in the way Michael Moore and his ilk see it.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 11, 2005 4:22 PM