in Iraq?

I'm guessing it's not Harry and Nancy.

Among the foreign policy delusions of the past six years, one of the worst is that Iran and Iraq are somehow on opposite sides of the war on Islamic terrorism. In both its cost to America and in its stupidity and depth of denial, it's up there with judgments that Vladimiar Putin is an honest friend, or that Pervez Musharraf is a courageous visionary. Every influential Shiite in the Iraqi government has years or decades of Iranian backing. Prime Minister Maliki is one example, but he's just the tip of the iceberg. Bush has said that "in his heart or hearts", Maliki thinks that Iran's role in Iraq isn't constructive. That is sheer nonsense, contradicted from top to bottom by Maliki's pro-Iranian biography. Maliki himself said that Iran is "a very important country, a good friend and brother."

Moreover, it is contradicted by major agreements between Iran and Iraq. Iran opened a bank branch in Iraq. It agreed to build an electricity power plant in Sadr City. And it agreed to educate Iraqi oil engineers in Iran. So it's as obvious as the Macy's Parade that Iran isn't surrendering to anyone in Iraq. You might as well say that the US "surrendered" in Nicaragua when it stopped sending weapons to the contras.

But the delusion persists, fed from the top. Bush really wants to believe that Maliki and Ahmadinejad are on opposite sides. (Because, how would Roosevelt have looked if Churchill said that Nazi Germany is a good friend and brother?) So this party line has led to black comedy skits in Iraq in which Americans arrest Iranians who are there on official business. Later of course they quietly let them go.

Never let it be said blogs aren't educational. Absent the prior comment, for instance, I wouldn't have known the AP had stringers in Bizarro World.

Many Bizarro worlds lately, hard to keep track of them all.

My favourite is the world inhabited by a party which pledges to meet our kyoto targets while smultaneously denouncing nuclear, our only baseload alternative. Odly, 'don't mention the war' seems to also be a common narative. I guess Rudd doesn't want to be tagged to this mess either.

Eh, I wouldn't call it surrender either, but an Iranian shift to peaceful cooperation, even if it has ulterior motives, will serve everyone's interests.

Eh, I wouldn't call it surrender either, but an Iranian shift to peaceful cooperation, even if it has ulterior motives, will serve everyone's interests.

"Iran opened a bank branch in Iraq. It agreed to build an electricity power plant in Sadr City. And it agreed to educate Iraqi oil engineers in Iran."

Iraq, like other underdeveloped economies, needs all the foreign direct investment and trade that it can get. Fortunately, it has managed to attract a lot from Turkey, China and Iran recently. The security dividend from the "surge" will catalyze even more deals.

Furthermore, Shiites, as in the past, will continue to take cash from Iranian and American players all the while focusing on their own self interest. It would be delusional to expect that they'd behave otherwise.

I wouldn't call it surrender either, but an Iranian shift to peaceful cooperation, even if it has ulterior motives, will serve everyone's interests.

This does have some truth to it. If American interests were properly framed, then it is true that peaceful cooperation between Iran and Iraq would be a way forward. However: (a) Not all of this cooperation is or ever will be peaceful; it will also includes cooperation on political Islam, armed militias, terrorism, opposition to Israel, and using oil as a weapon. (b) There hasn't been any "shift" towards cooperation. Iran and Iraq instantly became allies the day that the Thomas Jeffersons and George Washingtons of Iraq moved in from Iran because we overthrew Saddam Hussein. And (c), Iran-Iraq cooperation can only help the US if the US recognizes it. Instead, the White House is casting Iraq as a proxy war with Iran.

Furthermore, Shiites, as in the past, will continue to take cash from Iranian and American players all the while focusing on their own self interest.

You're casting this as all normal and wonderful, that Iraqi Shiites will just continue to accept support from both the US and Iran, which on the other hand is cast as another leg of the axis of evil. Why are we fighting a war and spending $100 billion per year for a shotgun marriage with Iran?

As for China and Turkey, Turkey is making deals with Kurdistan, not Iraq. Kurdistan is mostly doing well, but only because it is seceding and taking oil with it. China, for its part, is perfectly happy to pick up the pieces and extend its soft power wherever and whenever American interests fall apart. Again, is this the "victory" which comprises more than half of the total of American foreign policy? Why is Chinese, Iranian, and Turkish soft power our top world objective?

Jim, were all dumber now having read that...thanks.

link has ... preceding

link has ... preceding

Thanks, Sam, fixed.

In other words, "Jim Harris" couldn't be bothered to comment on actually what I was posting about, because he's smarter than all of us (with the arrogance to go along).

Geez, Rand, was I supposed to tell you that your URL was hosed? I just edited it myself in the URL field of the browser. Of course I started by reading Mike DeVine's ramble about Iran being responsible for this and that. (I also neglected to fix his incorrect spelling of Petraeus. Quelle horreur!)
DeVine jumps to the same wild conclusion that you do, that Iran has surrendered to somebody --- of course it hasn't.