http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/mor...c=nl_headlines
Printable View
BEIRUT, Lebanon—Iran deployed Revolutionary Guard forces to fight in Iraq, helping government troops there wrest back control of most of the city of Tikrit from militants, Iranian security sources said.
Two battalions of the Quds Forces, the overseas branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that has long operated in Iraq, came to the aid of the besieged, Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, they said.
Combined Iraqi-Iranian forces retook control of 85% of Tikrit, the birthplace of former dictator Saddam Hussein, according to Iraqi and Iranian security sources.
They were helping guard the capital Baghdad and the two Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, which have been threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an al Qaeda offshoot. The Sunni militant group's lightning offensive has thrown Iraq into its worse turmoil since the sectarian fighting that followed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Shiite Iran has also positioned troops along its border with Iraq and promised to bomb rebel forces if they come within 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, of Iran's border, according to an Iranian army general.
In addition, Iran was considering the transfer to Iraq of Iranian troops fighting for the regime in Syria if the initial deployments fail to turn the tide of battle in favor of Mr. Maliki's government.
The Iraqi government has signaled to the U.S. it would allow airstrikes against insurgents and asked Washington to speed the delivery of promised weapons.
That raises the prospect of both the U.S. and Iran lending support to Mr. Maliki against ISIS insurgents, who are seeking to create a caliphate encompassing Iraqi and Syrian territory.
Gen. Qasem Sulaimani, the commander of the Quds Forces and one of the region's most powerful military figures, traveled to Baghdad this week to help manage the swelling crisis, said a member of the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.
Qassimm al-Araji, an Iraqi Shiite lawmaker who heads the Badr Brigade bloc in parliament, posted a picture with Mr. Sulaimani holding hands in a room in Baghdad on his social-networking site with the caption, "Haj Qasem is here," Iranian news sites affiliated with the IRGC reported on Wednesday. "Haj Qasem" is Mr. Sulaimani's nom de guerre.
At stake for Iran in the current tumult in Iraq isn't only the survival of an Shiite political ally in Baghdad, but the safety of Karbala and Najaf, which along with Mecca and Medina are considered sacred to Shiites world-wide.
An ISIS spokesman, Abu Mohamad al-Adnani, urged the group's Sunni fighters to march toward the "filth-ridden" Karbala and "the city of polytheism" Najaf, where they would "settle their differences" with Mr. Maliki.
That coarsely worded threat further vindicates Iran's view that the fight unfolding in Iraq is an existential sectarian battle between the two rival sects of Islam-Sunni and Shiite—and by default a proxy battle between their patrons Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"Until now we haven't received any requests for help from Iraq. Iraq's army is certainly capable in handling this," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afgham said Wednesday.
Despite those assuring comments, measures by the Iranian government in the past day indicated that an air of crisis had enveloped Tehran. Iran's army and border guards have been placed under full alert along the country's long border with Iraq, Iranian media reported.
Iran's President Hasan Rouhani cut short a religious celebration on Thursday and said he had to attend an emergency meeting of the country's National Security Council about events in Iraq.
"We, as the Islamic Republic of Iran, will not tolerate this violence and terrorism….We will fight and battle violence and extremism and terrorism in the region and the world," he said in a speech.
Iran's chief of police, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, said the National Security Council would consider intervening in Iraq to "protect Shiite shrines and cities."
ISIS's rapid territorial gains in the past few days appeared to have caught Iranian officials by surprise and opened a debate within the regime over whether Iran should publicly enter the battle, citing the country's strategic interest and ideological responsibility. Iranian officials also privately expressed concern about whether Mr. Maliki was capable of handling the turmoil.
"The more insecure and isolated Maliki becomes, the more he will need Iran. The growth of ISIS presents a serious threat to Iran. So it would not be surprising to see the Guards become more involved in Iraq," said Alireza Nader, a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corp.
Quds Forces have been active in Iraq since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and have helped create, train and fund Shiite militias that fought U.S. military forces. Their reach and influence extends from Iraq to Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories.
The two IRGC battalions moved to Iraq on Wednesday were shifted from the Iranian border provinces of Urumieh and Lorestan. Their task is to help secure the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf and tighten security around Baghdad, according to IRGC members in Iran.
Revolutionary Guards units that serve in Iran's border provinces are the most experienced fighters in guerrilla warfare because of separatist ethnic uprisings in those regions. IRGC commanders dispatched to Syria also often hail from those provinces.
That's a twist I wouldn't expect.
Gee, Iran might not be the Great Satan it was sold to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
This reminds me of US politics whenever a 3rd party starts making waves.
It is always possible with having a new president and Ali Hosseini Khamenei getting old. He will be 75 in July. Gaddafi mellowed in age, maybe the Ayatollah has as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Maybe they weren't as bad as advertised in the first place.
No, they were very bad. I will never agree with your assertion. Only that things always change, and maybe they did change for the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
As bad as what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The worst?
What makes them so bad in your opinoin?
better load up on gas now, tbh...
As you know, I'm not going to play your game. No matter what I say, you will find a reason to troll, as you are a master-baiter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What makes them so bad in your opinion?
Not necessarily. One thing Iran is very good at, is getting rid of dissidence. Look at their capital punishment rate per capita.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Bad argument. Look at the US imprisonment rate per capita.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
US: 707 per 100,000
Iran: 284 per 100,000
Its peaches v pears.
Imperial USA is VERY GOOD at crushing dissidence at home and abroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Iran executes the serious crimes them rather than wasting good money jailing them. They have the 2nd highest executions in the world behind China, but being so much smaller in population, their execution rate is the highest in the world.
I'll bet it's a good deterrent keeping many people from committing crimes.
Some presidents add to it with their terrorist style attacks of cruise missiles and drones.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Or all out invasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Nice work, Bush. Taking out the motherfucker who kept those Muslim cocksuckers in check. Yet another shit sandwich he feeds us.
Repugs will blame Obama for 100% of Repug fuckup of Iraq
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
uh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Jon Stewart: Turmoil-ridden Iraq is finally ready to greet us as liberators
Stewart was also upset to find out that ISIS forces had forced the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to not just retreat, but leave behind their uniforms and weapons in the process. Correspondent Jason Jones also said the situation in the country was deteriorating.
“There has been some talk — some lower-level parliamentary talk — of running faster,” Jones explained. “With less clothes.”
Things were getting so bad, Jones said, that people were considering applying the saying, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a truly horrible guy with a gun.” Shortly afterwards, he popped his Hawaiian shirt open to reveal a military-style top, adding a fake mustache and black beret to transform himself into a Saddam Hussein look-alike.
“You’re talking about returning an oppressive, strong-armed dictator to power,” Stewart said.
“Exactly,” Jones confirmed. “Or as they call it here, Iraq Classic.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/1...as-liberators/
"Heckuva job, dubya!"
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/58016/thumbs/s-BUSH-large.jpg
1000s American military and 100ks Iraqis dead, US$3T wasted (pocketed by the MIC), and US/UK oilcos don't get that oil.
As Iraq Implodes, Neocons Still Have No Plan Except ‘Blame Obama’
Divided between neoconservative ultra-hawks and libertarian isolationists, today’s Republican Party is hardly a steady influence on American foreign policy. But there is one thing that can be reliably expected from every right-wing faction in Washington: Whenever disaster threatens, they eagerly cast blame on Barack Obama – and utter any falsehood that may be used to castigate him.
As the failed state of Iraq strains under attack from a jihadist force – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – all the usual suspects are popping up on the Senate floor to denounce the president. Ignoring more than a decade of miserable history in which most of them played ignominious parts, these politicians now claim that if only the president had listened to them, the current disaster would have been averted somehow.
“Lindsey Graham and John McCain were right,” said the Arizona senator, praising himself and his South Carolina sidekick. “Our failure to leave forces on Iraq is why Sen. Graham and I predicted this would happen.”
Nobody with a functioning memory can take such arguments seriously.
By the time our troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, the war had inflicted such immense damage on our military and our communities that Americans were in no mood for further misadventures. Not since Vietnam had a ruinous policy come so close to breaking America’s armed forces. The fiscal damage was equally serious – trillions of dollars in current and future costs, mostly borrowed from China.
The American people wanted out.
Even had we wanted to stay, however, the Iraqis no longer desired our presence – as they had made absolutely clear in their electoral choices and their subsequent negotiations with both the Bush and Obama administrations over keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.
It was Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in December 2008 that set a deadline of January 1, 2012 for the departure of all U.S. forces – unless the Iraqis negotiated and ratified a new deal to maintain our troops there.
No such deal was ever made, however, because the Iraqis wanted our troops out – even the tiny force of roughly 3,000 advisors that Obama hoped to provide. He was left with no choice because the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to grant legal immunity from prosecution to any U.S. troops.
Imagine what McCain and Graham would have said had Obama decided to leave American officers and troops vulnerable to arrest and imprisonment by local Iraqi warlords – especially when such an incident inevitably occurred.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/iraq-implodes-neocons-still-plan-except-blame-obama/
You are such a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
When Obama was taking credit for the troops leaving Iraq, you and other libtards agreed. He was the hero for getting our troops out, where we conservatives were the only ones mentioning the SOFA that president Bush signed.
You guys gave Obama full credit for getting us out, therefore, you and Obama own the mess it's in today.
You can't just change this on a whim, and change your argument when you dislike the results.
You repeatedly argued Obama got us out. Therefor you should be blaming him.