Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit

Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit

www.bbc.co.uk

Iran influenced Baghdad's decision to refuse to allow the US to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC.

Under the current agreement, the US must withdraw all its remaining forces from Iraq by 31 December.

The admission will fuel speculation about Iran's growing influence in Iraq, as US forces leave.

Iraq's decision was a humiliating moment for the United States.

Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would allow the US to keep a contingent of several thousand soldiers in

(visit the link for the full news article)

Firstly, yes- the article headline is slightly misleading.

So, all 30,000 odd U.S soldiers are to be withdrawn from Iraq within six weeks and the MSM continues to relentlessly put Iran within our fields of thought and concern.

With escalating tensions in the region between Iran and Israel(/the U.S) it is of my opinion that a strike from Israel and/or Iran will need to happen within this time frame to acquire U.S ground support.

This quote from Michael McClellan, spokesman for the US embassy in Baghdad is interesting;

"We are not being pushed out and I don't think it's at the behest of Iran. Since 2003, our objective here has been to have an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant.They are sovereign because they did make their own decision. We did not just come back at them and say: 'Sorry but we're going to keep our troops here anyway.'"

Is Iraq sovereign, stable and self reliant OR is Iran now playing the same role as the U.S were- puppet masters? Also interesting that he plays down the involvement of Iran after an Iraqi adviser admitted that Iranian sensitivities had played their part.

I don't see any logic in 30,000 soldiers returning to the U.S only for the U.S to have to then provide troops on the ground in support of Israel, perhaps they will be moved to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 'standby'.

Good on Iraq for making their own decision and not bowing down to the occupation

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Most likely they won;t be going home...but to one of the many bases and or conflicts in the immediate region just waiting for the next war to start.

Who gives two rat's asses if Iran told them it was a good idea to get rid of the occupying forces. It IS a good idea for Iraq.

Whatever happened to "Love thy neighour"?...

Give me one country not influenced by their neighour?

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


What a load of bbc rubbish, total bs IMO, sorry for being so damn blunt. The US invaded Iraq and took over the damn country! Does anyone truly believe that the USA would honestly let Iran play any part in its withdrawl from Iraq? Totally Ridiculas.

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


Honestly this shouldn't surprise anybody.
Iran has had their hands in the Iraqi insurgency for the past 6 or 7 years needlessly extending the conflict and causing untold amounts of civilian casualties. Iran as well as the Saudis have been arming, training and equipping apposing sides in the Sectarian violence in Iraq.

So now this story comes out and people seem to be surprised? Headsup: I have a feeling now that this has been exposed the Saudis will be stepping up their efforts in support of Iraqi Sunni vs Iranian supported Shiites.

Stay tuned.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics

 

Honestly this shouldn't surprise anybody.
Iran has had their hands in the Iraqi insurgency for the past 6 or 7 years needless extending the conflict and causing untold amounts of casualties. Iran as well as the Saudis have been arming, training and equipping apposing sides in the Sectarian violence in Iraq.

So now this story comes out and people seem to be surprised? Headsup: I have a feeling now that this has been exposed the Saudis will be stepping up their efforts in support of Iraqi Sunni vs Iranian supported Shiites.

Stay tuned.

Aye, it's all dependant on which sect of the greater religion is in power or fighting for it there ie; Sunni and Shi'ite. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I fear I may be) I thought that the American insurgence implemented a puppet Sunni government? If so, then why would they be adhering to sensitivities from a primarily Shi'ite state (Iran)?

Anybody care to wager on where the U.S troops will end up exactly?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Stay tuned indeed.

The final battle for Iraq is about to begin... could lead to war with Iran

Saudis backed militias vs Iranian backed militias. It's gonna be bloody.

reply to post by jjjtir


Uh…I see about 15 people there. Looks like Iran has a lot of support.

Oh wait…..found this video of 1,000,000 Iranians protesting AGAINST Iran. Never mind!!

For the conspiracy theorists out there listen to this one The US did invade Iraq with the goal of withdrawling for the next setup in the great chess game of the world.

Everyone knew Iran would take credit that was going to be a given but not so fast the game is set up for the next Iran-Iraq war because we all know the history between the two and here comes the kicker.

We leave after a period of time Iran attacks Iraq and then the Iraqi's will come crawling to the US to come save them much like how the US backed the first war.

This time however all the stops will be pulled and it will be straight on to Tehran.,

The setup is complete most people play checkers but some of us are playing chess and we are 10 moves ahead.

Originally posted by neo96
For the conspiracy theorists out there listen to this one The US did invade Iraq with the goal of withdrawling for the next setup in the great chess game of the world.

Everyone knew Iran would take credit that was going to be a given but not so fast the game is set up for the next Iran-Iraq war because we all know the history between the two and here comes the kicker.

We leave after a period of time Iran attacks Iraq and then the Iraqi's will come crawling to the US to come save them much like how the US backed the first war.

This time however all the stops will be pulled and it will be straight on to Tehran.,

The setup is complete most people play checkers but some of us are playing chess and we are 10 moves ahead.

edit on 15-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Great perspective, I think you are bang on the money there mate

Question; what will be the catalyst for Iran to attack Iraq? It will draw a tidal wave of negative scrutiny and backlash from the international community and Iran would surely have to know this.

Is this what they want though? Do they have a face card tucked up their sleeve that nobody will see coming?

I feel the previews are playing with the main show to begin shortly, but exactly when?

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


When who knows or why but there is 1 game changer which makes the most sense as to why Iran wants the nuke when they get them and are ready they will go unchallenged which will be the only thing that stops that war.

It's coming the questions are how bad is going to be? and "conventional warfare" will go out the door nukes will do that and considering we are talking about an Islamic Theocracy martyrs will be the status quo.

That's my take anyone is free to disagree with that.

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


The problem and weakness with the American stance has been the requirement that the New Iraqi Government be "Inclusive" for all Iraqis. Which brought elements [previously kept separated under Saddam to prevent them from killing each other outright] together. So now, they have been thrown together for the first time in Iraq's long history in an attempt to create a true representative Government instead of the previously dominating BAATH party.

What we find now is all the various factions involved have been positioning themselves and their interests so as to have the greatest pull on the political direction of Iraq. If Iran presses too hard then you'll see even more and worse bloodshed this next time around between Sunni and Shia because previously the US and other International forces have been playing COP between the two for the last 3 or so years.

NOTE: Most of the violence in Iraq these last 2 or 3 years has been mainly directed at each other and not at the US/International forces as much as many here at ATS would have you believe.

So, If it comes to blows there will be no middleman to run to next time.

I think some should give Neo96's theory a good looking into...

reply to post by neo96


I think you have smashed the proverbial nail on the head, all that's left is the minor details to sort out ie; reason to validate an attack from Iran, dates etc.

Your theory has merit, the U.S would have had this planned before any american boots touched Iraqi soil..possibly including the first gulf war.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Cheers for the clarification! Yes, when it comes to it it will be a no holds barred, all out war between Iraq and Iran- the consequences will not be pretty and will reach worldwide, the question is how wide the drag net is and who else will become involved- every potential to be the "WW3".

No need to look further in to Neo's theory- it is clearly stated and doesn't require 500 references, it is common sense that the rest of us haven't taken enough steps away from the forest to see the trees, until now.

Good work lads

reply to post by jjjtir


I see what 7 or 8 people assembled there? I suppose anybody could take a picture of the Westboro Baptist group, and claim all of America was cut from the same cloth.

If they march 40 or 50,000 people up to our embassies, then I'll pay attention, anything less than that is just propaganda.

I could drive up to the Tallahassee Capital Bldg tomorrow, and I could take a handful of pics from whatever people are protesting that day and tell you all hell was breaking loose here, but the rest of the folks in Tally wouldn't even know it ever happened.

ETA:
I did a quick Tallahassee Protest google search and I found this Occupy Tallahassee Youtube Clip! I drive past the Capital everyday, and I work for the government, and this is the first I have heard of this protest, LOL! I knew we had a group here, I saw 3 folks interviewed on the news one night, but this "protest" didn't even make local news. I wonder if that Iranian one made their local news?






More:



Hey, I"m actually in this photo!!


and I"m pretty sure I'm sitting on the steps in front of this crowd, but I can't see myself for sure.


Point being, you can't take snapshots and call it a protest and assume it means anything, even when it looks impressive.

Iraq is being prepared to be the western orchestrated battleground between Saudi + Iraq Vs Iran.
Why else do you think we've been building an army of iraqi's?
We've built outposts, bases and structures all over the eastern deserts of Iraq.
Saudi is logistically IDEAL for us, its capable of protecting the strait, its bordering Iraq meaning it can supply endless fighters and munitions, and its in our back pocket.

Your spot on Slayer, Iran has been playing its fiddle in Iraq since 2003. Al Sadr anyone?

Nothing will start until the US assasinates this man.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Iraq is being prepared to be the western orchestrated battleground between Saudi + Iraq Vs Iran.
Why else do you think we've been building an army of iraqi's?
We've built outposts, bases and structures all over the eastern deserts of Iraq.
Saudi is logistically IDEAL for us, its capable of protecting the strait, its bordering Iraq meaning it can supply endless fighters and munitions, and its in our back pocket.

Your spot on Slayer, Iran has been playing its fiddle in Iraq since 2003. Al Sadr anyone?

Nothing will start until the US assasinates this man.

Another excellent perspective/piece of insight.

Will he be assassinated via a covert op or built up to be a terrorist leader to justify the assassination/operation to remove Al Sadr.

This would stir up a massive hornets nest as, he is one of the most influential political and religious leaders as well as being a verified direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad.

A very interesting character indeed.

Iran did influence the Iraqi government in their decision to follow the US force withdrawal. I can recall quite recently when Shiite Cleric, Moqtada Al-Sadr, gave the Iraqi Government an ultimatum about this very topic months ago.

Iraqi cleric threatens to bring feared Mahdi Army militia out of retirement if American soldiers don’t leave

After he and his Mahdi Army got their behinds kicked they all went to Iran, and I can assure you it was not for strictly a religious retreat. He went there to get his marching orders. Sadr came back to Iraq and immediately got involved in politics. He and his private Army have been alleged to have instigated the sectarian violence that rocked Iraq some years back when hundreds of people were killed daily. He opened his big mouth about it and the Iraq government hesitated and eventually decided to scrap the idea of an extension for US involvement in Iraq.

They knew by pushing for US troops to lose their immunity in Iraqi courts there would be no objections by the US to adhere to the withdrawal deadline. That is exactly what happened. Iran is and has been a major player in Iraq during the worst of the war and even now. Just more geopolitical manipulation by another power over another nation. Iranian influence in Iraq is only obvious given the large Shiite population and their geographical location being on Iraq's doorstep. Plus, the evidence is widespread as well from Iranian weapons being found among insurgents and Iranian agents being arrested. The title of the article is only obvious.