The Iran-Iraq palship visit

The Bush foreign policy reached a new height of insanity with our client Iraq’s warm welcome to the anti-American President Johnnie of Iran. Diana West remains alive to the psychopathy of it all. She is one of the very few. Personally, I’m so turned off, burned out, and tuned out by everything to do with our Islam, Iraq, and Israel foreign policies (they’re not foreign policies, they’re foreign idiocies that make Neville Chamberlain in Munich look like a historical giant) that I can’t be bothered to think about it anymore. It gets tiring saying the same thing over and over again when it has no effect and the mainstream remains dead. So, until reading West’s column I didn’t notice the madness of Johnnie’s warm and brotherly visit with the Iraqis and what it says about our all-out commitment to building up that country.

How long can people be expected to pay attention to politics when insanity, lies, and appeasement of enemies are the rule, and there is no opposition? Sure, the Democrats “oppose” Bush’s Iraq policy, but they have nothing intelligent to say about it. They just want us to leave. If there were some organized intelligent dissent to Bush, that would give one a reason to follow the issue, but there isn’t, because the lapdog pubbies don’t want to criticize a pubbie president, at least with any force and seriousness, and the left doesn’t care about consequences in Iraq , they just want us out of there. As a result there has been no useful national debate on Bush’s policy since 2003.

Below is West’s article.

Whose side is Iraq really on?
March 7, 2008

By Diana West—I can’t think of a point of historic comparison to the figurative bed we have made for ourselves in Iraq—particularly now that our Iraqi allies have welcomed our Iranian enemies right into it.

Maybe the way to understand international affairs is to turn not to history but to pulp fiction—namely, the old love triangle. The good guy (us, natch), has been betrayed by the love object he supports and defends (Iraq), having been left to watch and stew as she gallivants with his rival (Iran).

In real life, of course, Iran is responsible for many of our nearly 4,000 war dead in Iraq, many of our nearly 30,000 war-wounded in Iraq, along with murders, kidnappings and torture of Americans throughout the Middle East over the past quarter-century through its terrorist proxy Hezbollah.

This all makes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Baghdad a stinging Mesopotamian slap across the American face. And don’t forget that Iran’s leader, the classic heavy in our plot, was quite possibly a participant in the 1979 Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and ensuing 444-day hostage crisis.

As a potboiler, such triangle stuff works. As post-9/11 US foreign policy, it’s certifiably insane. We are living and dying for a ward-like “ally” who is happy to cozy up to our worst enemy. Weirdly enough, no one seems to notice.

So let’s review. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—nuke-seeking Holocaust-denier, homosexual-and-apostate-slayer, and wanna-be destroyer of both the Great (United States) and Little (Israel) Satans—was just this week the honored guest of the Iraqi government. And yes, that would be the same Iraqi government the US taxpayer is supporting to the tune of $200 million a day.

The countries share more than a border. As USA Today pointed out, “Saddam Hussein was replaced by a new crop of Shiite leaders, many of whom were groomed during years of exile in predominantly Shiite Iran. Many of Iraq’s Kurdish leaders have also spent years in exile in Iran and retain close ties there.” And some, including Iraq’s senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have never given up Iranian citizenship.

This may explain why Iraqis rolled out the red carpet (literally) for Ahmadinejad, but not why we are sappy enough to pretend nothing significant happened—beginning with the infuriating fact that Ahmadinejad, on his ceremonial arrival in Baghdad, required minimal security compared to the furtive security gauntlet American leaders must run. There’s a reason, of course: Iranian-supplied bombs and rockets endanger American presidents, not Iranian ones.

At the Iraqi presidential palace, Mr. Ahmadinejad was greeted with multiple kisses from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. (Blech.) An Iraqi military honor guard—make that a US-trained Iraqi military honor guard—saluted the two leaders. An Iraqi military band—make that a US-trained Iraqi military band—also played the Iranian and the Iraqi anthems. “Call me Uncle Jalal,” Mr. Talabani told Ahmadinejad. “Iraqis don’t like Americans,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told the world.

And so went Iran’s “brotherly” visit to Iraq, as if US protests (and U.S. casualties) over Iran’s violent subversion of the country didn’t exist. There were political meetings, gas, oil and electrical agreements, and an Iranian interest-free $1 billion loan. To cap things off, Iraq and Iran issued a joint statement condemning Israel, America’s bona fide ally in the region, for taking belated action in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing Iranian-supplied rockets into Israeli towns. (Did I mention Hamas gets Iranian support?)

It’s not a question of which side Iraq is on. Certainly, as Iraq becomes what Radio Free Europe analyst Kathleen Ridolfo described as “economically, if not politically subordinate to Iran,” that becomes increasingly clear. More disturbing is why we think we’re on the same side—why we think there’s a future for us in this and similar relationships.

The fact is, this unsuitable ménage isn’t unique to Iraq. Desperately naive American courtships across the Middle East follow similar patterns of hypocrisy, deceit and danger. From Saudi Arabia to Egypt, artificial, if costly, American “alliances” are mocked and trashed by such countries’ aid and abetment of jihad.

Just this week, The Washington Times reported that oil-rich Qatar is massively underwriting Hamas. At the same time, Qatar—which hosts a colossal pre-positioning base for the U.S. military—is supposed to be a “moderate” Islamic ally of ours. What next—permanent U.S. military bases in a Shiite-Kurdish satellite of Iran? I wonder whether we will ever walk out on these destructive relationships and recover our self-respect.

- end of West article, end of initial entry -

Randy writes:

Most conservatives continue to support the “war” because, for us to leave, would mean defeat and leave in the eyes of the Islamic world. It would lead to chaos in the middle east and eventually threaten the oil supply. In light of Diana’s article it would appear that whatever happens if we pull back or leave would not be as dire as we might think. If we leave, there will be some renewed violence but the Shiites are the majority and now in control, so it would be quickly put down. Maybe Iran would step in and “help out”. Besides, I don’t care how many Muslims die at the hand of other Muslims. Is this any worse than what we have now? Iraq is going to be an ally of Iran so there is no reason for us to protect anything (except oil). We have no intention of really fighting or opposing Islam.

As far as the oil, we could let the world (including our supposed Arab allies) know that if our oil supply is threatened (ie Saudi) we will defend it. We will let them know that we are there for one reason, to protect the oil supply. If our Islamic “allies” threaten us, we will advise them that if they cause our economy to collapse, THEY will pay a price. We should state unequivocal support for Israel and offer assistance as needed. We should encourage Israel to do what they have to do to secure their country. We should then oppose all aspects of Islamic expansion and expel them from the US. This would counter the idea of our “defeat”.

One last thing, we should put a $2.00 to 5.00/gallon tax on Middle East oil then refund it at year end as an offset to the income tax. This will cause the market to adjust away from dependence on Islamic oil.

Whoa, I just woke up. Now back to reality.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 07, 2008 09:12 PM | Send