For those of you who have been following this paper, thanks! It took a long time and a lot of research. If you'd like to read the whole thing, or to look at my Works Cited, go HERE. Also, I'd like to know how people liked the essay. Was it interesting enough? Did it help broaden your understanding in any way? Give it a rating and a comment if you want! Well here it is... the conclusion:
...With respect to the United States’ position towards Iran and its affairs with Iraq, the situation is quite complex. The neoconservative mission to establish regime change in Iran is certainly coming to odds against the idea that Iran is going to be a prolonged and even vital part of the future of Iraq. It seems as though the neoconservatives did not anticipate that the regime change in Iraq would drastically change the regional situation and make Iran more of a necessary force. Whether or not this fact will put a hold on the agenda is another matter.
It seems that Iran would not have much of a purpose to support insurgency efforts directed at undermining the Iranian-backed Iraqi government, no matter what U.S. officials may say—there is no solid evidence, and it is not a reasonable assumption. It is true that Iranian weapons are being used by people outside the “circle of Iranian and U.S. allies, but that doesn’t prove people’s loyalities. Saying that al-Sadr is loyal to Iran because his militias had some Iranian missiles is equivalent to saying that … [he] is loyal to the Soviet Union because they had some AK-47s.”[41]
But even if the Iranians were supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, on what basis does the United States have the right to criticize? The U.S. preemptively invaded a sovereign nation, and is now an occupying force—Noam Chomsky says that in that situation, “you can’t have a serious discussion on whether or not someone else is interfering.”[42] It is a matter of imperial arrogance that drives this policy—the neoconservative belief in a new Middle East that is pro-United States. As a neighboring country, Iran certainly has more at stake in the future stability of the region—and that is a fact that should be respected. Iran will continue to be a vital presence in the future of Iraq, and the United States can either maintain its drumbeat towards another war, or it can turn to Iran for help in re-stabilizing the region that it so disrupted.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just some of my thoughts on the essay as a whole. It not that organized just so ya know.
It is not that far fetched that Iran is helping the Iraqi militants, It would greatly benefit Iran in the sense that if they have a militant hold and a political hold on Iraq then it would make it very difficult to have a government that is a close ally to the U.S. Which is Irans main goal. They want to have their sphere of influence with no wetern influence at all. That is why the are also in the political arena. The reason why the Shia in Iraq and Iran did not help each other in the Iran-Iraq war was b/c they did not look at themselves as Shia but rather as Iraqi or Persian. They don't want to see Iraq in total chaos indefinetly, but with Iraq unstable they would be able to infiltrate the Iraqi political system without being noticed as much as they would be with Iraq stable. Also b/c now the people of Iraq see themselves as Shia and Sunnis not as Iraqis. Also Iranian made weapons and other materials have been found in caches in mostly southern Iraq. There are a large number of different Shia militias in Iraq. Many are armed with Iranian weapons either by way of black market or directly from the Iranian government. Many of the IED's found and ones that have killed G.I. in the recent past have been Iranian made, capable of penetrating up-armoured vehichles. It's similar to the situation in Vietnam. where the french were selling weapons to the Chinese, Viet Cong and NVA. This made our job a hell of a lot more difficult than it could have been. With Iran it is similar, we are trying to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure but we can only do so much when we are getting shot at while doing it. Construction crews won't work, investors won't invest when bombs are going off and people are getting killed. Al- Sadr went to Iran when we turned up the heat to try and take down his Madhi Army. It doesn't mean that the Iranians totally are loyal to Sadr or vice versa but if he can be a tool to get the U.S. out of Irans backyard then it is a viable means to an end. The cease-fire greatly helped the violence in Iraq and in the past year and a half great progress has been made in rebuilding and trying to stablize Iraq. All the different factions in Iraq all have different agendas and so does Iran. The U.S. can't know what every agenda is. But has to hope that the Iraqi people will see that we aren't trying to be like the british or french and be there for a hundred years in a military sense. Yes, the U.S. government wants a government that it friendly and a government that we can trade with and have an Ally if need be. As we have seen the Bush administration has started to change their position on Iran. We need to use Iran, but would that be best in our own interest? Since 1979 the American- Iran diplomacy has not been that great, sure Iranian people don't totally support their government, but we aren't dealing with the Iranian people when it comes to diplomacy, we deal with the Iranian government.
what the shit
i definitely thought IED was actually IUD for a second.
Hey guys,
I'm new here.
Btw, I happen to be a [url=http://forums.all-battery.com/index.php?showuser=9062 ]lawyer[/url], too. :D
Hopefully I can contribute here!
Post a Comment