Iran ready for military ties with Iraq

[vector7]

Iran ready for military ties with Iraq



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says the Islamic Republic is ready to expand its military and security ties with neighboring Iraq.

In two separate messages to Iraqi Army Chief Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari and Acting Iraqi Defense Minister Sadun al-Dulaymi on Sunday, Firouzabadi expressed happiness about the withdrawal of US forces from the country.

He stressed that that the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq was the result of the determination and resistance of the Iraqi nation and government.

"We (Iran) hope the US has learned a lesson from its nine-year occupation and humiliating defeat in Iraq and never thinks about attacking another country," the senior Iranian military commander said.

During a meeting with the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Forces, Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, in Tehran on November 13, Lieutenant General Zebari called for more Tehran-Baghdad military cooperation.

The Iraqi general said that Iraq is facing some security challenges, and Baghdad needs to exchange views with Iran, which is a strong country in many areas, including security.

“The visit aims to develop bilateral relations, since Iran and Iraq are two friendly neighboring countries, which should have very close relations… The Islamic Republic of Iran is a capable country in many areas,” Lieutenant General Zebari added.

Brigadier General Pakpour welcomed the suggestion and said that Iran will make every effort to help Iraqis build a secure and safe country.

[Toad]

With local history what it is... FU-BAR waiting to happen. Serious. FU-Bar.

[Ryan Ruck]

I disagree. It wasn't because we removed Saddam. It was because we elected a President who's official policy was to tuck tail and run.

Iraq could have been an excellent Middle East outpost alternative to an increasingly hostile/radicalized Turkey. We quickly established a thorough military infrastructure, there are several major airfields capable of supporting heavy aircraft, and it has a viable sea port.

Instead we have essentially wasted all the sacrifice by our troops.

[American Patriot]

Removing Saddam was something that was going to happen one way or another. Iran absorbing Iraq is because of Obama's lack of foreign policy.

[vector7]

Obama Abandons Iraq without any Security Agreement and gives away a strategic location of interest with national security implications

I really thought about creating a special thread just about how Obama failed to come to any security agreement with the Iraqi government Bush help foster before pulling out of Iraq.

This subject also came up in the VP Debates and Biden scolded Romney for wanting to have some presence left in Iraq.

During the debate Biden also went unchallenged when he scoffed at Romney’s assertion that Obama erred by not leaving a residual 30,000 troops in Iraq to keep the peace and ensure a successful transition to self-government. This would have required negotiating a status-of-forces agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but Obama didn’t think it worth the effort. He was more interested in keeping his campaign promise “to end” (not win) the war. The result has been a predictable power vacuum, which was quickly filled by Shiites from Iran. Despite protestations to the contrary, Iraq air space is now filled with Irani transports carrying arms to Syria. Link

Biden reached a climax of hypocrisy when he boasted about the Iraq pull-out. What he did not say, however, was that pulling troops out too quickly allowed al-Qaeda back into the country and now threatens the carefully-constructed peace.
On top of that, the Vice President attacked Ryan on the Republican’s legacy of war. “No, we can’t afford that”, he apparently said when George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Too bad that, in fact, Biden voted in favour of both the Afghanistan and Iraq resolutions which authorised military action. Link

The Bush Administration gave Iraq on a silver platter to Obama, he allowed this strategic location next to Iran to slip right through his fingers.

All the lives and money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan to gain strategic influence on both sides of Iran was abandoned by Obama. We now have no influence in Iraq and have lost considerable credibility in the region.

Obama continues to weaken our national security.

Monday, September 24, 2012
Obama's Failed Exit From Iraq



From Michael Gordon, at the New York Times, "In U.S. Exit From Iraq, Failed Efforts and Challenges" (at Memeorandum):

The request was an unusual one, and President Obama himself made the confidential phone call to Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president.

Marshaling his best skills at persuasion, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Talabani, a consummate political survivor, to give up his post. It was Nov. 4, 2010, and the plan was for Ayad Allawi to take Mr. Talabani’s place.

With Mr. Allawi, a secular Shiite and the leader of a bloc with broad Sunni support, the Obama administration calculated, Iraq would have a more inclusive government and would check the worrisome drift toward authoritarianism under Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But Mr. Obama did not make the sale.

“They were afraid what would happen if the different groups of Iraq did not reach an agreement,” recalled Mr. Talabani, who turned down the request.

Mr. Obama has pointed to the American troop withdrawal last year as proof that he has fulfilled his promise to end the Iraq war. Winding down a conflict, however, entails far more than extracting troops.

In the case of Iraq, the American goal has been to leave a stable and representative government, avoid a power vacuum that neighboring states and terrorists could exploit and maintain sufficient influence so that Iraq would be a partner or, at a minimum, not an opponent in the Middle East.

But the Obama administration has fallen frustratingly short of some of those objectives.

The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized. Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country’s skies. A plan to use American civilians to train the Iraqi police has been severely cut back. The result is an Iraq that is less stable domestically and less reliable internationally than the United States had envisioned.

The story of these efforts has received little attention in a nation weary of the conflict in Iraq, and administration officials have rarely talked about them. This account is based on interviews with many of the principals, in Washington and Baghdad.

Continue reading.

And check JustOneMinute as well.

Yet another foreign policy disaster from President Clusterf-k. Will Americans even care? Probably not, if expert opinion on voter preferences is any clue. But as I argued previously, this year foreign policy is taking on an outsized importance, and history will judge this administration's failures.

I'll have more later...

[vector7]

10/22/2012 @ 11:19AM |1,653 views
Is Baghdad Becoming Tehran's Military Weapons Pipeline?

By Jamsheed & Carol Choksy


F-16 fighter jet. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Sale of weapons to nations who play both sides of international divides brings in much-needed revenue for the U.S. and other nations, but it also undermines the world order by empowering rogue regimes like Iran.

The porous border between Iraq and Iran, plus Iran’s considerable influence in Iraqi political and administrative circles, is ensuring that circumvention of U.N. and U.S. embargoes via Iraqi routes has become standard operating procedure for Tehran. Even the Obama Administration, which is notable for ratcheting up sanctions, acknowledges the cat and mouse game afoot as Tehran works nonstop to find ways of acquiring banned equipment and knowledge via its western neighbor.

The illicit flows are not one way either. Western intelligence agencies are of the consensus that Iraq also is the conduit for Iran’s outward shipments of armaments and personnel to sustain the Assad regime in Syria. Equally troubling, the two governments have been expanding their military cooperation after Iraqi Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari met with Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Mohammad Pakpour last November in Tehran.

Now Iraq has inked a contract for another batch of 18 F-16 fighters from the United States. The first order, worth $3 billion, was approved in September 2011 with delivery expected in three years. This second order, which will be delivered through 2018, brings Iraq’s shopping spree for American military equipment to $12 billion.

Granted, the F-16 is no longer cutting edge and its sale to over two dozen nations keeps Americans employed at General Dynamics during harsh economic times. But can the U.S. be sure this technology will not be passed on to or shared in some form with the Iran’s IRGC and air force whose own aircraft are even older?

Faced with a mounting struggle to maintain the combat readiness of its aging fleet of F-14 Tomcats, F-4 Phantoms, MiG-29s, and Mirage F1s, access to F-16 technology for reverse engineering (as Iran appears to have done with downed U.S. drones), would be very much welcomed by Iranian commanders. Iran, it seems, has already been endeavoring to obtain F-16 know-how from Venezuela.

Having access to the latest versions of the F-16, or even pilfering its hardware and software, would enhance Iranian defensive capabilities against U.S. and British forces stationed in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, it will bolster Tehran against Jerusalem, for the Israeli Air Force still deploys upgraded versions of the F-16.

Russia seems to have buckled under international pressure to abstain from directly selling weapons systems to Iran. Yet Iraq could be the indirect path from Moscow to supply Tehran, or at least turn a blind eye to such technology transfers. Baghdad has reached agreement with Moscow to acquire $4.3 billion in advanced weaponry. Soon, 30 Mil Mi-28 attack helicopters—the current standard for Russian forces in all-weather, day-night, operations—and 42 Pantsir-S1 short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft systems—again the latest in Russian technology and capable of defense against stealth aircraft—will be headed to Iraq. Tehran is no doubt eyeing those military purchases as possible windfalls, especially as it already has deployed at least 10 96K6 Pantsir-S1E obtained via Syria while the Coalition Forces were still in Iraq.

Russia is negotiating the sale of MiG-29s, capable of being armed with nuclear weapons, to Iraq as well. Access to that aircraft technology would provide Iran’s nuclear program with an alternative to the missile delivery system it is currently developing domestically. Additionally, Baghdad will be obtaining 24 L-159 combat and training aircraft from the Czech Republic for $1 billion.

Iraq is a sovereign nation with the right to ensure its armed forces are appropriately equipped to defend borders and citizens from external and internal threats. Yet it also has an obligation to ensure regional stability is maintained and international obligations are enforced. At present the Iraqi administration is proving incapable of preventing its soil and airspace from serving as transit points for Iran’s unscrupulous schemes. Providing Baghdad with weapons arsenals it probably would not be able to keep secure will likely compound those problems.

So unless Iran’s influence over Iraq’s military is excised and its access to Iraq’s roads, waterways, and airspace is shut down, a range of deadly technologies and possibly weapons themselves may very well end up on the IRGC’s bases. With such equipment in hand, Tehran’s politicians and generals will feel more emboldened than ever to continue weaponizing their nuclear program, threatening the West and Israel with devastation, collaborating with other rogue states, and interfering in neighboring countries. The resulting mess could eventually cost the U.S. and its partners much more in lives and cash to clean up than is generated from the current technology sales.

The US needs to parlay armaments for revenue and influence—but it must also be careful whom it entrusts with such destructive capabilities. And it should counsel other superpowers to exercise caution too.

[vector7]

Iraq PM 'Invites' Iran to Seize US Embassy in Baghdad

Iraq allegedly has agreed to allow 50,000 Iranian Basij militia to help suppress riots against the government and seize the US embassy.
AAFont Size

By Chana Ya'ar First Publish: 2/10/2013, 9:14 AM

Iraq allegedly has agreed to allow 50,000 Iranian Basij militia troops into the country to help suppress riots against the government and seize Arab and other foreign embassies, including that of the United States. The two leaders allegedly agreed to allow the Basij forces to attack and occupy the foreign embassies considered hostile to Iran in Baghdad, and to detain their staffs.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Iranian military commander Qassaem Soleimani, head of Iran's Al Qods Force, allegedly shook hands on the plan over the weekend at a meeting in Baghdad. Pledging 50,000 Basij military troops to help al-Maliki put down the nationwide riots against his government, Soleimani was quoted as saying "the Iraqi Front is the last front to defend the security of Iran."

The report, which appeared Saturday on the Voice of Iraq website and that of the Nashwan News, apparently offered enough evidence to create concern among analysts in the United States. “Even if there is a slim chance that the report is true, it should be published immediately,” commented U.S.-based Middle East strategy expert Mark Langfan.

U.S. embassies have become an increasingly popular target for disgruntled Islamists who wish to whip up popular support, attempt to terrorize Western leaderships or terrorize a local population into submission, such as last year's September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four American diplomats were killed -- including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

In 1979, Iranian radical Islamists seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took 52 hostages captive on November 4 to express their support of the Iranian Revolution. A U.S. attempt to rescue the hostages on April 24, 1980 ended in failure and the deaths of eight American soldiers, one Iranian civilian and the destruction of two U.S. aircraft. Three months later, Iraq invaded Iran, leading to negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for release of the hostages, brokered by Algeria. The hostages were not freed until January 1981.

The current alleged Iranian-Iraqi plot has been hatched against the backdrop of a greater strategy to put down Sunni-led popular protests against the Shi'ite-led government run by al-Maliki, who heads the Shi'ite Islamic Dawa Party.

A source quoted by Nashwan News reported, “after control of the embassies and the detention of its staff, go some Iranian forces (Basij) to the north and west of Iraq for the purpose of suppression of the demonstrators by force.”
At least six people were killed and 100 others wounded, including women, in a dawn attack on the Camp Liberty transit camp west of Baghdad that once was a U.S. Army base near Baghdad International Airport. At least 40 Iranian Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) members were among the wounded, along with a number of Iraqi police officers.

Attackers fired 35 mortar shells and Katyusha rockets at the camp, said a statement issued by the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), known also as the MEK. Supporters in London demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy on Saturday following news of the dead and wounded in the attack on the Iranian dissident camp in the Iraqi capital, police sources said.

The camp is home to some 3,000 Iranian dissidents, mostly members of the MEK led by Maryam Rajavi. The group calls for the overthrow of Iran's Islamic leadership. It was founded as the MKO in 1965 to overthrow the Shah of Iran, and fought alongside Iraqi forces in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iran's religious sector and government have been held under the iron grip of Shi'ite Islamic clerics since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attack, calling on Iraqi authorities to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations is currently in the process of determining whether the camp’s residents meet criteria for refugee status.