Baghdad and Tehran pledged on Wednesday to strengthen ties and put the past behind them, even as Washington accuses Iran of supplying new and more lethal weapons to anti-US militias.
Iran and Iraq, which fought a 1980-1988 war that was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the past century, killing an estimated one million people, have drawn closer since the US-led invasion of 2003.
But US officials have expressed concern at the Islamic republic's growing influence in Iraq, which is strategically important to both Tehran and Washington.
One, just removing Saddam Hussein's Sunni Arab-minority government--which invaded Iran in 1980--would lead to improvements in relations.
And with 10,000 Americans--at best--to remain in Iraq after this year, of course Iraq wants to make some sort of deal with Iran that lessens their support for armed factions within Iraq. A little hedging is to be expected.
But there are limits to Iran-Iraq detente.
One, American influence through our military, if nothing else, will continue as Iraq rearms with American weapons. Don't discount the level of our influence. Iraq is our friend. We have friends and enemies within the Shia community. The Kurds like us. And the Sunni Arabs need us. Iran is seeking influence in Iraq where we already have it.
Two, there is a basic level of hostility and tension between Arab Iraq and Persian Iran despite the common Shia religion of Iranian and Iraqi majorities. The length and brutality of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War should be a reminder of that. Basra was shelled repeatedly by Iran during the war despite the fact that it is a Shia city. And Iran's support for inciting civil war within Iraq this last decade is hardly forgotten in Iraq. If you think none of that matters because both are largely Shia, you're nuts.
So other than Moqtada al Sadr and other Iraqi Shia hand puppets of Iran, even Iraq's Shias don't want Iranian control over Iraq. And the Shia are the best shot the Iranians have for influence. The Sunni Arabs don't want Iranian influence and the Iraqi Kurds are no friends of Iran, which oppresses Kurds inside Iran.
Three, Maliki himself stomped on the Sadrist Mahdri Army a few years ago. If we offer enough support so he doesn't feel he must cut deals with Iran's sock puppets rather than beat them down, he'll be an Iraqi first.
And four, Iran can't help themselves in treating Arabs like dirt. Iran won't be able to avoid doing something in the future that will annoy and anger Iraqis. If we're still there as an alternative, Iraqis won't just accept what Iran does to them.
So unless we completely walk away from Iraq and simply let Iran have an open shot at Iraq, we will continue to be the dominant foreign power inside Iraq. Not that they will be our puppet. But we don't want that, right?
Once Iraqis get a certain comfort level as they get used to living without the support of a large American military presence, they'll see that we are still with them (we will still be with them, right? I guess I need that comfort level established, too) and they'll stiff arm Iran a little more.
But as neighbors, Iran and Iraq will always have sizable trade and cultural ties as long as they aren't actually shooting at each other. If we really want to do something about those ties, don't try to end ties that both countries need. Instead, why don't we try to change the regime in Tehran so we'll be happy to see close ties between Iran and Iraq? And why don't we take advantage of closer Iraqi-Iranian ties to bolster Iraqi influence in Iran? Might not a functioning democracy in an Arab country be a little insulting to Iranians who have none?
We can play in this game. We have a strong hand. Stop looking for reasons to fold and go home.
UPDATE: Our new Defense Secretary is in Iraq to discuss US troop levels and to encourage the Iraqis to go after the Iranian-supported Shia militias. And Panetta addresses my basic concern:
"We're very concerned about Iran and the weapons they're providing to extremists in Iraq," he told a small group of soldiers on his first visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief.
"We cannot sit back and simply allow this to continue to happen" he said. "This is not something we're going to walk away from. It's something we're going to take on head on."
Good words. I think he means it. Does his boss?
