Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 2

Here is the next part of my research paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. relationship post 2003. If you'd like to read it in its entirety (and to dig my sources), check out my knol here.

In December 2004, almost two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Reuel M. Gerecht[5], a former member of the CIA and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (a neoconservative think-tank), wrote, “Iran’s primary objective is to ensure that Iraq remains destabilized, incapable of coalescing around a democratically elected government.”[6] He describes a condition of bitterness between the Shia of Iraq and the Shia government of Iran—“The Iraqi Shia retain enormous bitterness towards … Iran’s clerical regime, which did virtually nothing to help their Iraqi ‘brethren.’ He continues by saying that the Iranians are resentful towards the Iraqi Shia “given the damage the [Iran-Iraq] war did to Iran, that Iraq’s army was primarily Shiite, and that Saddam’s elite Sunni Republican Guards were on several occasions near the cracking point. When the Iraqi Shia felt Saddam’s wrath in ’91, there was more than a little schadenfreude on the Persian side.”[7] While there is perhaps legitimacy to many of these claims, Gerecht’s assumption (one that is shared by many in Washington) that “Iran ideally wants to see … strife that can produce an Iraq Hezbollah”[8] does not seem to hold much merit considering the present situation.

Raed Jarrar[9], an Iraqi from the American Foreign Services Committee, explains that the ruling parties in Iraq are directly tied with Iran, and fails to see the logic in an Iranian plot to keep Iraq in chaos. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Iranian supported Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Nouri al-Maliki of the Dawa Party (a party with Iranian origins) came from Iran in 2003.[10] “Why would Iran send special Iranian forces (called Al-Kud’s brigade) into Iraq to attack a regime that is run by their own people?”[11]

Though it is quite unlikely (and illogical to assume) that Iran desires a complete structural breakdown in Iraq, it is clear that Iran has specific goals for Iraq’s future. The International Crisis Group suggests that:

Tehran’s priority is to prevent Iraq from re-emerging as a threat, whether of a
military, political or ideological nature, and whether deriving from its failure
(its collapse into civil war or the emergence of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan
with huge implications for Iran’s disaffected Kurdish minority) or success (its
consolidation as an alternative democratic or religious model appealing to
Iran’s disaffected citizens).[12]

To accomplish this, Iran certainly desires a Shia dominated government in Iraq that is friendly to Iran. Professor Sabah al Nasseri[13] from York University suggests that Iran wants a stable, independent, and democratic Iraq, but only as long as its allies (the regime of al-Maliki and al-Hakim) are in power. But if “other political forces—secular forces, or maybe Al Sadr”—become popular and offer a “different kind of democracy,” Iran will oppose it.[14] Direct Iranian intervention is known to have occurred in the January 2005 elections in Iraq, where “Iran had played a significant behind-the-scenes role in assuring the electoral success of the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance—a coalition of mostly Shia groups … in particular, the Dawa party and SCIRI), and had a great deal riding on the UIA’s choice of prime minister.”[15]

In 2005, President Bush made an appearance on Israel’s state-owned news network, and made a comment with regards to a possible military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear aspirations: “As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and, you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”[16] Within the Bush administration, there is a commonly held belief that “Iran is the major threat in the region and … simply cannot be allowed to produce nuclear weapons, whether or not it intends to do so.”[17] Iran has declared that it aspires only for “a civil nuclear-power programme,” and denies allegations that it will use these advancements for weaponry.[18] In fact, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; furthermore, Mohamed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated that there is no nuclear weapons program being pursued by the Iranians.[19]

....I'll post the next part soon.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 1

Here is Part 1 of my study on the complex relationship of Iran, Iraq, and the United States post 2003. There are many misconceptions about the conflict in Iraq and Iran's role in the region (which is portrayed by the U.S. media and government as fanatical and malicious); this paper's intent is to shed some honest light on those issues, as well as to spark some serious discussion. Enjoy!


In 1979, Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, preemptively invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thereby started one of the “longest and costliest conventional wars of the twentieth century.”[1] The war was in response to “Iranian provocations” and Iraq’s aspirations to “enlarge its role in the Gulf,” and ended in disaster. Fresh out of a revolution, the people of Iran proved to be more of a challenge than Saddam had anticipated, and the Iranians were also incorrect in their assumption that the Shia majority of south Iraq would fight for their cause.[2] There was no true winner and each side suffered massive casualties—with “an estimated 400,000 killed and perhaps 700,000 wounded on both sides.”[3] The Economist perhaps put it best when it described the war as one that “should never have been fought … neither side gained a thing except the saving of its own regime. And neither regime was worth the sacrifice.”[4]

It is now 2008, and the situation between the two nation states has become something quite different—as a result of the United States government’s regime change in 2003, elements within Iraq’s complex political quagmire have established a much more friendly and productive relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The implications of such a relationship are wide reaching; it is certainly having a direct effect on the geo-political situation within Iraq—playing a key role in diplomatic efforts between various forces in Iraq. It also brings forth a dilemma for the United States and its confrontational policies towards Iran because while they are trying to deal with the Islamic Republic as a nation of “terror”—warning them against developing nuclear technology— they must also recognize the undeniable role that Iran is going to play in the future of Iraq.

The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship of Iran and Iraq post 2003, and how this affects the role of the United States in both the future of Iraq and its position towards Iran. What implications is this relationship having on the inner-politics of Iraq, and is there any legitimacy to the U.S. claims (by both the government and the mainstream media) that Iran is backing the insurgency? What kind of Iraq do the Iranians want to see develop in the coming years, and does this goal conflict with that of the United States—if at all?

Stay tuned for more.

My Letter to the Chairman of the DNC

Well I just wrote a letter that I plan to send to Governor Howard Dean—Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The document essentially explains itself, but I encourage anyone interested to read into the matters I go over, and to delve deeper into the unraveling of our democracy. Check it out:


Dear Governor Dean,

I am an 18-year-old freshman at Denison University in Ohio, and have been following the latest presidential campaign very closely. I've had a particular attraction to the messages of both Senator Gravel and Congressman Kucinich—men who, despite their controversial nature, are proven leaders and patriots. By this time you must have learned of the historical acts by Mike Gravel (filibustering the Draft, releasing the Pentagon Papers, the Alaskan pipeline bill, etc), and of Dennis Kucinich's unwavering message of peace that permeates through his legislation in Congress. I am severely alarmed because both of these American leaders have been silenced by corporate media and alienated by their own Democratic Party—this suggests to me that these bodies of mega-power have lost sight of the freedom and democracy that this country is supposed to stand for.

In previous debates, Senator Gravel met the same polling qualifications as other candidates, but did not have enough money to be included. The indication here is that if you are not a millionaire, you cannot have a shot at the presidency. The loyalty oath imposed on Congressman Kucinich by the Texas Democratic Party was a clear violation of the First Amendment—this instance, as well as his exclusion from the latest televised debate on MSNBC have yet to be addressed by you, Governor. Don’t the American people deserve to hear their unique and important views? Where was the voice of Democratic leadership? Where was democracy?

Whether or not these men align with Party doctrine should not be a factor in evaluating them as viable candidates. The American public has the right to hear their messages—to witness them questioning the policies of the leading candidates. For democracy to succeed, there must be a true debate—after watching the last Democratic debate, I can see that this is not happening. When leading candidates seem to agree on almost every major issue, it becomes obvious that something has gone terribly wrong.

For how long can we put on the facade of the “greatest democracy in the world" when our leaders are carefully selected by elitist Wall Street boardrooms and two political parties? This path of corporate censorship and political corruption will only grow worse if left unaddressed. Ultimately it will be up to the people to decide whether or not they wish to survive as a democratic nation, but without the leadership, that will never happen.

It is with great moral conviction and severe urgency that I write this letter. Please consider this cry for help.

Sincerely,
Skye Wallin

If anyone would like to express their own views on this matter, or on any other issue you can send a quick message to the DNC Chair at this link.

Water-Boarding: America's "Enhanced" Policy

I want to take a few minutes from studying for my history final to address the issue of water-boarding—the simulation of drowning. These days there has been much talk on the question of whether or not water-boarding qualifies as torture. The CIA calls it an “enhanced interrogation technique,” but many others call it a “terrible agony”—giving the feeling of complete disorientation, pain, and imminent death. My question: Is the United States government morally justified to use this method as a means to squeeze information out of suspected “terrorists”?

Before I continue, I would like my readers to watch this clip of a water-boarding demonstration. Keep in mind, this is not a real interrogation.



Recently, the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of interrogation tapes, which depicted instances of water-boarding. We may never know the truth behind this cover-up, but I will say that I am very suspicious. Why wouldn’t the CIA simply classify the tapes like they do with everything else they want to be kept secret? Perhaps the suspects within the tapes were found to have no information after their “enhanced” questioning. It is more than likely that innocent individuals have been water-boarded by the CIA, which leads me to wonder if the ends justify the means? As my source below explains, the practice has supposedly worked in at least two high profile instances—but does this justify the mistakes? Does this justify the practice at all?

There is no doubt that water-boarding is indeed a form of torture. Just ask the man in the video. But there are many others who believe the same. Former U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage (who was water-boarded during his military training) says, “Of course water-boarding is torture. I can’t believe we’re even debating it. We shouldn’t be doing that kind of stuff.” It is a dated practice that has been used as a means of inflicting pain for hundreds of years; it was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, and it’s torture today.

To me, this is truly an atrocity. This is the kind of tyranny that the government claims we are fighting against. Our leaders say that the United States does not torture, but it is clear to me that they are nothing more than liars—as long as they can make up the definitions, they can do whatever they want. When will we wake up and realize that people hate this country for a reason? They hate us because of things we do to them—because of our lies and disingenuous policies. We overthrow governments, rip off third world countries, invade countries, falsely capture and imprison, suspend habeas corpus, and torture living, breathing human beings. I thought we were better than that—I thought America was the nation of justice— I thought this country had standards.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7139708.stm

SHOWDOWN: Iran

Well, it’s been about 2 months since my last post, and I must say that I have no good excuse for the extended hiatus. I suppose there was a lot of energy and motivation when I decided to found the blog—I had a lot of ideas in my head that I wanted to express. Over time that initial sense of purpose sort of wore off. I took a week off, then a month, and now my break has gotten out of hand. But now I’m back—hopefully this time for good. Today’s topic: SHOWDOWN IRAN.

Today, an official U.S. intelligence report came out that declares Iran’s nuclear weapons program an indefinitely halted operation. In fact, it states that the program was halted way back in 2003. Iran is continuing its process of uranium enrichment, but as of now there is no evident intent to develop a bomb (confirmation of what the mullahs have been saying all along). So when President Bush stated in October that we could be facing the third World War, was he wrong? Apparently not—according to the White House.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley states that this report is in fact a confirmation of everything the Administration has been saying. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons…” So they were right all along, but Hadley doesn't want the American public to jump off the fear-bandwagon quite yet: “the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

What I don’t understand is how this administration claims that it has been right all along. In October of this year, Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program; the Vice President has voiced direct and pointed attacks and threats on the government; the President has assured everyone that the nuclear program is, without a doubt, active. Clearly these threats and accusations were either knowingly over-hyped or completely baseless—perhaps a reminder of many of the threats and accusations against Iraq, which were later found to be total fabrications. Perhaps Iran is actually developing nuclear power for the sake of developing the nation. Could it be that the mullahs aren’t lying? Maybe they aren’t the hostile terrorists that we make them out to be.

My fear is another war. The neo-conservative movement has already succeeded in waging one unjust war, and I have no doubt in my mind that they are fully capable to do it again. Our leaders do not seem to understand that the game they are playing involves millions of people. The current war has devastated Iraq—a terrible civil war has broken out, millions are now refugees, and God knows how many Iraqi civilians have been killed (some counts are up to a million). This is worse than reckless foreign policy—this is criminal. This cannot be accepted.

Sources: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/

We Must Listen to the Madman!

Today in my Modern East Asian history class, we analyzed a Chinese short story from 1918 written by Lu Hsun entitled “A Madman’s Diary.” It is a criticism of the traditional and feudal values of Chinese culture, and was a great influence among the citizenry—credited with being a main cause of the May Fourth Movement and the rise of the peasantry. The protagonist of the story looks at Chinese history and calls it a story of “people eating people”—a metaphor for the primitive and cannibalistic tradition of China that was destroying itself. People called him a “madman”—he was disregarded and ignored, even though he was right. Today a new “madman” has surfaced—in fact, he is a man running for the presidency of the United States of America.

His name is Mike Gravel (GRAH-vel), and has been labeled by the media as the “skunk of the pack” and the “crazy uncle” of the candidates. He is running for the Democratic nomination, yet he blasts Hillary and Obama for taking lobbyist money and not doing enough to stop the War in Iraq. He is fresh and energetic in the debates and has brought to light the hypocrisy and lies that come from his fellow running mates—he speaks truth and tells the American people how it is. But why has former Senator Mike Gravel remained one of the darkest of the dark-horse candidates?

The issues Gravel brings up today are nearly identical to the ones he brought up in the 70s as a Senator of Alaska. For those who are wondering who to thank for not being drafted into military service, you can thank Mike Gravel. In 1971, he led a one-man filibuster against the reinstatement of the Draft (a filibuster is a way to delay or completely prevent a vote on a piece of legislation). No one else stood up. Gravel kept the filibuster going day after day for 5 months, and the Draft was expired. Also in ’71, the rogue Senator put the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. These were Top Secret government documents detailing the lies and deceit of U.S. foreign policy in South-East Asia—essentially confirming the immoral and unjust nature of the Vietnam War. Gravel could have gone to prison, but he exposed the documents nonetheless. Here is Gravel and his emotional response to the report:



Gravel exposed a corrupt foreign policy and ended the Draft—all against the will of most of his colleagues and his Party. He refused to let up, and he beat the system. They called him crazy. He was the “skunk” and the “nutty Senator from Alaska.” His own Party took away his nomination for re-election in 1981—they were concerned over his unwillingness to conform to Party ideology. Mike Gravel left politics that year—heartbroken and disgusted over a truly corrupt system. He left and didn’t look back. But now he has returned—this time to fix America for good.

The former Senator now finds himself in a strikingly familiar situation. There is a terrible war going on—a war that never had an honest purpose and has dragged on for far too long. Our leaders manipulate fear as an instrument to drive policy. Corruption and K-Street politics are rampant. Congress is crippled. Gravel wants to fix these things. He wants to use diplomacy. He wants to get us off the oil. He wants to empower the citizenry to pass laws and override Congress—a way to keep the system in check “by the People.”

Just like traditional China, the system of the United States has become a system of “people eating people.” Let us not accept politics as usual. Let us not forget that the people have the power in this country. Gravel was considered an outcast in the 70s just as he is now. But people look back at what Gravel did and applaud his accomplishments—they say, “Wow, that Gravel really had guts.” Today he is doing the same thing. Don’t let Mike Gravel get scurried under the rug by the media. Remember what he has done and listen to what he has to say. We must not ignore Mike Gravel—this time we must listen to the “madman.”

Unity '08: The Answer to the Problems?

In the Presidential election of 1860, a relatively new political party offered something new to the United States of America. The country was dominated by two parties that had lost the faith of the American people—the newcomer that changed everything and united the nation was the Republican Party—its candidate was Abraham Lincoln.

A movement known as "Unity '08" uses this example as a comparison to America's current politics. They argue that today is much like 1860. The system is broken. The top-tier candidates take extreme positions. Lobbyists dominate—corruption plagues our government. Two parties have controlled for too long, and it’s time for change. Perhaps Unity ’08 is the answer.

Unity ’08 is a political party formed specifically for the 2008 election—it has no long-term aspirations, and has absolutely no corporate ties. Founded by bi-partisan moderates, it seeks to break through and disrupt the power-hold the Republicans and Democrats have on our government. How they plan to do this is truly revolutionary. By utilizing the vast influence of the Internet, Unity ’08 will hold the first ever online presidential convention. Members (YOU) will vote for the issues they believe are most important; they will hear out the candidates and decide for themselves who will be most suitable to lead the country—choosing a President, Vice President, and even cabinet members. It gives the vote back to the voters.

Unity is currently trying to recruit as many people as possible—it will be quite a task to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states. Many distinguished politicians have endorsed Unity ’08, and it has been rumored that Mayor Michael Bloomberg will go for the Unity ticket. Even Sam Waterston, the actor from Law & Order, has become a spokesman (not a candidate) for the movement. Check out his brief video:


The Internet Revolution has brought us to this point—the point at which the Web can trigger true change in a democracy. Perhaps this is our opportunity to become an effective part of how this government is run. Maybe, through Unity '08, the people can enact true change and to reform a terribly corrupt system.

I encourage you to check out what Unity ’08 has to offer at: www.unity08.com …read up on it and research what it seeks to accomplish in further detail. Check out its videos on YouTube. Maybe this is what our country needs--maybe not, but it's definitely worth a consideration.