ayatoilet1

Once again I agree with some facts you state BUT...

...the conclusions you draw still don't follow from true facts stated.  

ON IRAN RESUPPLYING IRAN 

Thus, you correctly state that Iraqi civil aircraft, its airport and its air traffice control system were built by us and that they are being used PARTLY to aid Syria and at our intent.  What doesn't follow is we wanted it that way. It is in the inherent nature of such things that they can have dual use if Iraq wants to put them to such use.  Still, the intended use remains primary.

WHY DOWNSIDES OF SUPPLYING ASSAD OUTWEIGHT ANY UPSIDES

Another area I disagee here is you can't just consider the short run upside for Iran.  You've got to consider the downsides as in the case of increased travel between Iran and Iraq  by civilians.   Think about those downsides:

1. Supplying Syria accelerates economic problems at home but also enrages the population.   To what extent does Iran make these weapons?  To what extent does it pay for them?  If it can't replace them, will it miss them come the domestic explosion.  Meanwhile it's like thorwing cash down he drain.  Weapons or no weapons, Assad is doomed.   The best such aid can accomplish is to keep him in power a bit longer than would happen otherwise.

2. Russian aid is more important.  (Doesn't it strike you as hilarious that that Putin and Khamenei should howl about "foreign aid to the rebels" when shipping such things to Syria where they are foreigners?  Can anyone miss the the hypocrisy?)

3. Like aid to Lebanon Hezbollah, such aid is resented in Iran in Iran where the economy grows worse while money continues to flow out to these lost causes.

4. Don't forget the great boomerang consequences that will continue long after Assad is gone.

A. Russia: For more than five decades and regardless of regime changes in Russia, Syria has been Russia's most consistent regional ally.   What's likely to happen to that when Assad goes down?

B. The Sunni Arab World: How much of a pariah will the IRI and Russia be in the region once Assad falls.   That aid, which enabled so much slaughter, won't be forgotten by Sunnis long after Assad is gone.

C. Radical Islam Discredit Once Again: Recall how Al Queda and the IRI once enjoyed popular approval until muslims got a closer look at the underside.  That's what happens when new ideologies come along until the gloss wears off.   How many adored the Russian Revolution until news of the purges, intentional famines and general economic incompetence got out.    

Nobody is doing more to discredit radical Islamists ideas than the two factions who put them in practice.  The Erdogan countermodel is icing on the cake. Nothing beats first-hand exposure to hell itself.  Rhetoric can impress for a time, but it's hard to fool people for long with empty facades.

Observe the reforming effect on the Muslim Brotherhood already, especially when it has to attract voters now aware of the Bad News About Radical Islam. Excluding old-line reactionaries  (incorrigible) the Brotherhood must convince voters that It is not planning an Al Queda or IRI-style hell.  

My thesis is that obstinate support of Assad by Russia and the IRI, a bad thing in the short run, may prove a good thing in the long run.  Similarly, an upcoming post will look at why an event yesterday suggests hard liners in Iran are unlikely to back down, domestically or externally, and demonstrates why that may be more of a good thing than a bad one.  Stay tuned for that.  

OIL LEAKS & THE LACK OF COMPLETELY TIGHT SANCTIONS 

It's never possible to make sanctions airtight but we aren't doing badly, as the screams from IRI insiders suggest.  

As for Iraq helping export some Iranian oil, you are right but a) facilities are limited, and b) Iraq can only go so far.  That is, it can explain away some increased exports as consequences of improved production but only so far.  Thus, the advantages Iran reaps from any such trade are far short of what it needs to evade the harsher consequences of sanctions.

RE: "THE MULLAHS ARE SHREWD"

Yes in short-run thinking only.  No in long-term thinking where the only exception lies in the way hard line Islamists gradually took control of the revolution and achieved their dreams of monopolizing power.   Having done so, they find themselves sweating blood and under assault from all fronts.   Another nice irony, eh?

FG - thanks for your more reasoned response

One point I made, and keep making is that Iran is resupplying Assad by flying across Iraq. And that Iraq's air traffic control system is built, and managed by the U.S. air force (HASCOM) and that in effect, US is blessing Assad's ressupply effort.

This has to be a deliberate U.S. policy, No?

Iraq could very easily say, we want to be neutral in this affair, and would not like Iranian military cargo jets to use our air space.

Another, interesting point to consider is that since all oil looks the same, there are some reports that Iran is evading sanctions by trucking oil across to Iraq and having it blended with Iraqi oil and having it sold (i.e. exported) via Iraq. And there has been a resent uptick in Iraqi exports, that is unexplained by recent well production reports.

And while on the topic of oil, it was very strange how Europe decided to impose sanctions, then created a whole bunch of exceptions for certain refineries. These exceptions are not limited in time, but indefinite.

I could go on and on. But, its that same old story. These sanctions are not "tight"; and there is a lot of rhetoric about them, but in reality Iran's mullahs keep humming along.

One old case in point: for over 20 years (while there were sanctions on Iran), Iran was importing gasoline. Iranian opposition forces were telling Western governments, you can topple the regime by just banning gasoline exports to Iran. They, said okay we'll do that. Then they waited and waited until Iran built its own catcracker, and then announced gasoline sanctions. It was a joke.

Many say this is all because the Mullahs are shrewd. I say, they are being coached. And all these 'exceptions', all this 'oversight' or 'errors" are deliberate. Its just too pervasive.  The West is not that dumb. We, Iranians, are the stupid ones for not figuring all this out. The Mullahs are in their pockets and serve their interests.

6 ways you are over optimistic as to Iran' regional prospects

You write: If Assad remains in power, most Middle East scholars predict the rise of a Shiite Iran-Iraq-Syria axis.

1. You start with "if Assad stays in power"--a 5% probability under 5 percent.

It would make more sense to concentrate on repercussions from the 95% probability. 

2.  Let's assume the 5% possibility prevails. Then what?

That would require a total military victory by a demoralized, worn down Syrian army loaded with defectors and which has been highly ineffective against hit-and-run tactics  present ineffectiveness completely.  

But assume they pulled it off.  To remain afloat, the regime would have to successfully suppress mass suppression almost forever since, as in Iran, there seems no prospect whatsoever of regaining widespread popular support. Any "winning" military campaign would have made popular scorn even worse. 

Yes, the axis you mention might continue to exist but how effective would it be when undermined by domestic problems in all three countries and economic and diplomatic isolation in two of the three.  Who else in the Middle East or the world is going to wrap loving arms around the IRI or Syria?

3. Would Iraq be a reliable long-term ally for Iraq or a potential morass? 

Iran needs a stable Iraq if any alliance is to have value.

The desired stability would be far more likely IF Iraq were more homogenously Shia, IF Al-Maliki was not almost as bad as Khamenei in his treatment of minorities, IF Iraq minorities were not a hundred times better armed than Iranian minorities. and IF such minorities did not have easy access to external assistance.   

Sunnis and Kurds have become even more alienated from Baghdad as Americans were from Britain after 1776 with no prospect of a reversal.  Ironically, the closer the Iraqi government moves toward Iran, the greater the centrifugal forces grow. I'm sure Al-Maliki is well aware of that danger.

The Sunni Minority--It is already excluded pretty much from government.  One result is that Al Queda--on its heels after the US left--is reviving.   It's less likely to play by accepted rules of warfare than Americans.

The Kurds--The are gradually ignoring the government.  Just this week they signed an oil deal with Turkey which has the Iraq regime furious.  All it can do is protest impotently.  I suspect Turkey will intervene if Al-Malaki resorts to force.  Who has the better air force?  Whose army is demoralized by internal repression.  Who is in worse economic shape to take on a war?   

If, not when, look for extremist fighters to flock into Iraq from Syria.  If Iran intervenes, it will be more bogged down than Americans who were far better equipped.   in Syria will be encouraged to move to Iraq.  Of course, Iran may intervene to "save" the regime against that threat but they'll just bog down.  If it was a problem for the Americans with vastly superior equipment, how can the Iranians manage to pacify that threat, especially giving the regime's internal domestic turmoil.  

4. Iraq may look like an Iranian client state but observe how Iraq goes its own way where national interests diverge.   

For all practical purposes, increased Iraqi oil production functions exactly like increased Saudi oil production when it comes to undermining IRI's hopes that high oil prices will force the West to cave in on sanctions.  Iraq needs the revenue for the same reason it trades with neighboring Iraq AND (please note) the rest of the world: To rebuild.  It doesn't need to make external enemies and and many reasons not to do so.

5. Ironically a friendly relationship with Iraq's government hurts Iran in some ways at present.

If it were less friendly, the IRI would surely resort to the usual means of cutting Iraq oil production (blowing up pipelines). 

6. You cite the volume of Iranian tourist and pilgrims traveling to Iraq as a total plus for Iran but you the potential minuses.

Travel to Iran provides a potential escape for Iranian visitors.  It costs Iran badly needed revenue while enriching Iraq.  Iranian travelers can evade all pervasive censorship of the internet, foreign newspapers and TV.   Iraqis traveling the other way get cheap bargains and a close-up peak of the downside of Iranian rule.   Which of these is a plus for Iran?

Atoilet and Batava: My point went right over your heads

You miss my entire point and when you take it for a personal attack.  

RE: FG brings a new low to IC by his/her first sentence in his/her response.   As Ayatoilet1 said, maybe we can leave the family out of our fight here on IC.

"Are you STILL beating your wife?" is the most frequently used example of how to "beg the question" in argument.  Hence, it is oft cited as the perfect example in logic texts or in law school courses.  

Let's try another example to help you grasp the point.  Someone asked you "Are you STILL gay?" Can't you see WHY it is a trick question?  I demonstrated how it works and even explained the whole concept.  What else can I do?  

Thus your original header confused your personal opinion with proven fact and asked readers to take it from there.   If you want your premise to be accepted as (fact) then proving it to be so is a prerequisite.  Alas, can't you see why your subsequent evidence fails to do so for reasons shown here:  

ALLEGED "PROOF" USA HANDED IRAQ TO IRAN'S MULLAHS

--The Iran/Iraq trade is booming.

--more than 1.4 million Iranians traveled to Iraq last year.

--Air travel has increased tremendously.

All three are true and indisputable.  But how do they support your premise...UNLESS you are suggesting that the Iraq regime is a total American puppet with no will of its own in which case its actions would have our approval.  

If that's your point.  However recognize that, it is an opinion only unless proof of puppet status can be provioded.  

You suggest--without stating so outright--that the USA has the power to grab hold of Maliki and force him to change policies, as if Iraq were Dubcek's Czechoslovakia and we enjoyed Brezhnev's grasp on that state.  You imply the US has capacities that don't exist--economic , militarily and politically and then berate us for not employing what we lack.    

Onlike our policy makers, you also fail to consider likely problems if we did so--not just with the Iraqi government but with Shia militias armed and trained by Iran. How about the extremely negative reaction from the Arab press and the likely flood of volunteers flocking to Iraq to fight the sort of imperialism you appear to be advocating here. 

You propose such things as if they were a piece of cake.  Implied: We can stop Iraq from trading with Iran, ban Iranian pilgrims and tourists from Iraq and order a halt on air travel either way.  How?  By command?  With a few hundred thousand troops?  

I guess our failure to accomplish the near impossible PROVES we are handing Iraq over to the Mullahs.  Bear in mind we didn't elect this Iraqi government. Like it or not, the Iraqi people did.   Should we simply cancel results we don't like?  If so, you can't criticize Khamenei and Ahmadinejad doing the same.

Note the reaction they reaped.  Given free and open elections, total independence at a will of their own, Iraqis not only choose to do what we or the Iranian people might prefer.

too much time and effeorts

dont spend them, save it for another day!! the answer to your question is , they did not have another choice!!

I wear an Omega watch

Thanks Bavafa...

I agree with you, either the U.S. is acting completely moronically, or this is a deliberate policy. I just can't believe with all the resources and talent at U.S. disposal that they can act so moronically ... so I am concluding its deliberate. If so, why? I keep asking in my blog, why?

If US. airforce officers are controlling air traffic in Iraq, and Iranians are resupplying Assad. Then this must be a deliberate policy. No?

All this trade is going unoticed. No? Surely not.

I am concluding its deliberate. If so why?

All things in the middle east circle back to Israel somehow. No?

Sadly to see...

FG brings a new low to IC by his/her first sentence in his/her response.  As Ayatoilet1 said, maybe we can leave the family out of our fight here on IC.

I am not sure if I agree, in fact I can see I disagree with the premise of this blog that these are all to challenge Israel.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Iran is being supported in “creating a bomb” if that is meant to be an atomic bomb just as there is no evidence that Iran is building one.

  IRI has simply tried to be resourceful in finding new ally and lifeline in terms of its economy in the face of all sanctions, but I do agree that US with its moronic/criminal policy in Iraq not only strengthen Iran, it also weakened US by feeding the image of a warmongering nation.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

FG - Please Stick with the facts?

1) true or false: Iran and Iraq will enjoy record trade this year? (Clue - You don't think Jordan or Saudi Arabia have cement mills, or power plants???)

2) true or false: Iraq is allowing Iranian military jets to resupply the Assand regime? (Clue - Who do you think operates Iraqi air traffic control/ who do you think built Iraq's aire traffic control after the war? Yes - guessed it US Air force officers; and HASCOM is directly responsible still for managing Iraq's air traffic control systems)

3) true or false: China has be doubled Oil imports from Iran this month (clue - 5 ships filled with oil, sitting in the persian gulf as a hollywood show that sanctions are hurting Iran, does not actually mean sanctions are hurting Iran). See my previous blog on Chinese oil imports.

I could go on and on. But, my core point is that sanctions are not working, were never meant to work, and the U.S. and its allies remain covertly behind all this. Sanctions these past 30 years have been a joke. The hatred between the Mullahs and the West is all rhetoric and show. The facts on the ground speak a totally different truth. For all the closure of embassies, and hot air - the Mullahs in Iran keep ruling unimpeded. It seems to me that the West does not really want them out. Why?

Iranians are not stupid. The Media in the West may be speaking to a stupid audience. But these facts are absolute,  and real. And undeniable. And speak volumes.

Finally, FG, please refrain from bringin people's namoos (i.e. family) into these discussions in any form. This type of rhetoric with people's namoos - is always a shit tactic used by people that don't want to argue real facts. i.e. don't have an argument.

Iraq is part of the Graeter Iran!

Iraq is part of the Graeter Iran!

Why is Ayatoilet STILL beating his wife?

Possible answers: Yes or NO.

Note the problem.  This technique is known in logic as "begging the question."   You slip in an UNPROVEN premise, hope no one will notice, and guide their reasoning from that dubiouis starting point unless someone notices the card trick and calls you on it. 

Let's deal with facts instead:

1. The US did no such thing.

2. The US had no interest in doing any such thing as well.  Indisputably, it loves neither Al Queda, nor Al-Sadr nor the Iranian mullah government.  Indisputably it has been a target for all three with no respite then, now or later.  

3. Maybe Iran and Al Queda did have such an interest.

4. Maybe, just maybe, Iran in particular was in a far better geostrategic position to pursue their interests   Al Queda had gotten itself in a relatively bad position by the time US forces less but has since recovered with help from Al-Malliki's persecution of Sunnis.  It should do even better when Assad falls and the new Syrian government encourages such types to head for Iraq.  In doing so, they take a page from the Saudis.

NOTE: Conspiracy theories are so easy to propose whereas no one can prove the negative. Thus it is a waste of time trying.   The obligation lies with the accuser for that reason.