Re: "... Iran tells Baghdad to push U.S. out"
Of course. (Just as the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government signed a *defense pact* with Iran, and cooperates with their intelligence services.)
"If Iran did intervene militarily in Iraq, the overwhelmingly Shi'ite nation would be expected to assist the Shi'ite majority against a wave of violence perpetrated mainly by the Sunnis, who lost power with the ouster of dictator Saddam Hussein."
Yep. They would support the Iraqi Shiites, and counter-act the financial and resupply support given to the Iraqi Sunnis by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and many other Sunnis nations.
(I've long said that by toppling Saddam, we handed Iran the greatest of strategic gifts, increasing their power in the region... although other things were achieved as well.)
So, why exactly is it 'in our strategic interests' to stand in the middle of the Shi'a / Sunni civil war in Iraq, having both sides take pot shots at us... instead of removing ourselves (after all: we have achieved our objective, Saddam is gone) from the area, and standing back and *benefiting* from the inter-Islamic civil war, which would divert the attention of extremists on both sides from focusing their ire on the West... and might actually result in the political failure of extremism and fundamentalism all around, and ultimately allow for the emergence of an Islamic Reformation, and the success of political moderation and religious pluralism?
There is always more then one way to skin a cat. |
