PDA

View Full Version : Iran Admits Role Brokering Peace in Iraq


disrupter
04-06-2008, 12:03 PM
Iran Confirms Role In Brokering Iraq Truce
Ali Akbar Dareini, 05 Apr 08
TEHRAN, Iran — Officials in Iran confirmed for the first time Saturday that the country played an important role in brokering a recent truce between the Iraqi government and anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Iran's Shiite government helped end the clashes between Iraqi government troops and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia for the sake of Shiite unity, said a senior Iranian official who deals with Iraq.

"It is in Iran's best interests to see unity among Shiite factions," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki heads a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq, but has clashed with other Shiite factions in the country, including the one led by al-Sadr.

Al-Maliki sparked clashes with al-Sadr's Mahdi Army over a week ago when he sent government troops to Basra to crack down on Shiite militias. The fighting eased last Sunday after al-Sadr ordered his men off the streets and called on the Iraqi government to end its attacks.

The Iranian government helped broker the truce during high-level talks in Iran's holy city of Qom with Shiite Iraqi officials and senior supporters of al-Sadr, said a prominent Iraqi party official based in Tehran.

"Iran played a mediating role and helped ease things a lot," said the Iraqi official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"Given its influence over al-Sadr, Iran convinced the Sadrists to stop fighting," he said.

U.S. officials in Baghdad have acknowledged an Iranian role in the talks but also accuse Iran of providing much of the weaponry used during the recent fighting, including rocket salvos against the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said last Thursday that he wasn't sure the Iranians were instrumental in convincing al-Sadr to stop fighting "or whether they just didn't stop him from doing it."

The Iraqi government sent a three-member delegation that was headed by a prominent Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, Ali Adeeb, and also included two of his Shiite colleagues, Hadi al-Amri and Qassem Sahlani, said the Iraqi official based in Tehran. The meetings in Qom also included representatives from Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, he said.

Al-Sadr is believed to divide his time between Qom and Najaf, another Shiite holy city in Iraq 100 miles south of Baghdad. But Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham denied al-Sadr's presence in Iran on Saturday, saying "this is what the occupying forces claim to divert the attention from what is going on in Iraq."

Iran's role in hammering out the peace deal is believed to have boosted Tehran's influence among Iraq's majority Shiite community.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities have insisted the Basra operation was not aimed at al-Sadr's powerful political movement but was aimed at ridding the streets of criminals and gunmen who had effectively ruled the city since 2005.

But al-Sadr's supporters believe the crackdown was aimed at weakening their movement before provincial elections this fall. Al-Sadr expects to score major electoral gains against Shiite parties that work with the Americans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/05/iran-confirms-role-in-bro_n_95242.html

Look at how stingy & twisted Ryan Crocker's response is.

If he gave a shit about ACTUAL PEACE in Iraq he would greet this far more evenhandedly.

NeoCons are compulsive war mongers.
They just can't help themselves.
Their ignorant animal instincts outweigh any meager intellect function they might have.

Do we want to be the species of compulsive, destructive, crippling instincts or brilliant, graceful, empowering intellect & imagination?

Are we led by our imagined fears or is the imagination our tool to use to fulfill our dreams?

Bill
04-06-2008, 05:44 PM
I suspected Iran had snapped the chain on both Maliki and Sadr.

Iran is the big winner in this farce.

And the neocon hawks can't even get their dicks in a row to attack Iran.

Maybe McCain will have balls big enough to "Bomb Bomb Iran" if he wins.

That would be the best news ever.

Moby
04-06-2008, 05:52 PM
The reason that we put Saddam in power was to keep Iran at bay. In 1998 The PNAC decided that they wanted the oil but forgot about Iran. Now Iran can pretty much run the region.

disrupter
04-07-2008, 10:50 AM
Why do we need to arbitrarily make Iran our 'enemy'?

Oh right, i forgot, pea-brained idiots needs some tangible humanoid enemy to target all their irrational rage at.

Like the Universe isn't already throwing a freight train of REAL things we need to address, the NeoPeaBrains need to CREATE enemies where there are none.

Earth is an adult free zone.

Bill
04-07-2008, 06:44 PM
Why do we need to arbitrarily make Iran our 'enemy'?

Well, it's not arbitrary, Iran is the biggest threat to our attempt to control OPEC with permenant military forces based in the region.

Occupation is a high cost, low profit endeavor - I expect the corporations will make a lot more money off an air attack.

The neocon/corp alliance will never have a better chance than right now to attack.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Petraeus seems to be cooperating. The republicans are desperate. Things are looking good.

stefan segal
04-08-2008, 10:09 PM
Bill, do you actually believe that it is good to sent our kids off to kill and be killed in the interest of corporate power and profit?

You've made similar statements in the past, which I took for evidence of kinky millataristic humor...now I'm not so sure.

Are you so caught up in weapons superiority that you think its good to bomb Iran...I mean is bombing Iran your first choice of response?

If so, then do you also believe that our forces are in condition to take on a sophisticated army that is well supplied and manned with rested and supplied troops?

I believe we could make a wasteland of Iran...kill tens of thousands of Iranians, but at great cost to US and afterward, have no chance in hell of managing both Iran and Iraq's insurgents.

I believe by any measure, that to attack Iran would be a total disaster for our country and especially its armed forces.

The world is too small for such criminal wargames.

Stefan

Bill
04-08-2008, 10:17 PM
Stefan, I believe such an attack will destroy the republican party.

If the dems do it, it will destroy them, as well.

That's why I can accept it, if they do it.

Remember, in my model, nothing can stop this from being a century of wars. We waited too long, now we are trapped.

No matter what else happens, war is coming.

stefan segal
04-08-2008, 11:57 PM
Stefan, I believe such an attack will destroy the republican party.

If the dems do it, it will destroy them, as well.

That's why I can accept it, if they do it.

Remember, in my model, nothing can stop this from being a century of wars. We waited too long, now we are trapped.

No matter what else happens, war is coming.


Bill, what do you mean by: "No matter what else happens, war is comming."

Is this a testimony about human nature, or is it biblical?

I can't conclude its political, unless you have have some inside information:)

Stefan

Bill
04-09-2008, 12:18 AM
Bill, what do you mean by: "No matter what else happens, war is comming."


Competition for resources, Stefan. Energy, water, food, land, strategic metals and minerals, biologicals and fiber.

I suppose maybe people will just starve quietly, won't migrate, won't use all the weapons, won't mind watching their children die, and will look on wistfully while others keep the fresh water to themselves.

That might happen. In which case, peace at last.

stefan segal
04-09-2008, 10:51 AM
I note your point Bill. I only hope sanity comes to us in a whiplash reaction to our present position of being "led" by this uncommonly low rent amoral band of criminals in the whitehouse.

I also feel there is reason to hope that the weapons and equipments providers will be satisfied for a time with refurbushing our played out armed forces. I base this upon testemony of the billions required to refurbush and replace equipment already expended to bring units up to normal strengths.

My greatest unease in this regard is that butch will create a war condition before his lame duck term is up. To assess butch "strategy" overall, is enough to believe butch intends to kill this country before he relinquishes power. He has done everything possible to destroy the middle classs, which is the engine of properity of the masses. I won't mention foreign policy, as there is no need to remind anyone of his policies in that arena.

Bill, I simply prefer my cup half full...life seem less bleak from that stance.

Stefan