The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend…Even the Iranians

This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network

What puzzles me about the last election cycle was how Bush’s team depended on the “flip flopper” label to undermine John Kerry’s candidacy. All of a sudden it became the worst thing ever to change ones mind in light of new facts. Well, in a true Bush Administration Moment, it looks as if they are indeed changing their minds and opting for a new strategy regarding the war in Iraq. In what can only be described as, “Thank God the average American citizen doesn’t pay attention to the news or has chronic Attention Deficit Disorder", the US is now looking to Iran of all countries, to help stabilize Iraq in order for US forces to withdraw from that country sometime within the next few years. Now ain’t that a kick in the head?

According to Newsweek, President Bush gave US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, explicit permission to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran in order to help secure Iraq after US troops’ pullout in phases. Mr. Khalilzad stated in the press that, “I’ve been authorized by the president to engage Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly.”

Ambassador Khalilzad has worked with the Iranian’s before. Khalilzad has in the past made deals with Teheran in Afghanistan, most notably at the Bonn summit of Afghan factions, which shaped the nature of Kabul's government after its liberation from the tyranny of the Taliban in 2001. It appears the Mr. Bush is looking at Khalilzad to rekindle that old magic again with our friends in Iran.

As I’ve stated previously, at this point there are so many reasons against going to war with Iran, nukes or no nukes, that dialogue and co-existence actually seem like a bold and rational strategy. Iran, as we all know by now, is indelibly tied to Russia, China, Venezuela, and as of late, India.

In fact, there are now reports that India’s view of Iran’s nuclear policy is not only nearly exactly the same as the Russians but there strategy to solve the nuclear dilemma and not refer Iran to the UN Security Council appears to be bearing fruit.

According to the Hindustan Times, “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday that India's strategy to resolve the Iran nuclear issue within the IAEA jurisdiction and not allow it to go to UN Security Council seems to be working.

"Our concern has been to find a solution of the problem and not allow it go to the UN Security Council and resolve it within IAEA. I am glad to say that our strategy as of now seems to be working", he told reporters accompanying him on a three-day visit to Moscow.

He said India has been talking to various players including European Union, Russia and China to find a solution to the problem.”

Having said that, it is quite clear that the US really has no viable or sane recourse but to engage the Iranian’s and hope that the aforementioned countries can get the mullahs to see reason, even if their rhetoric regarding “Zionists” never changes.

Unfortunately, as of this writing, the mullahs are pulling their usual shenanigans, not committing to a dialogue with the US. It seems that the collective personality of the Iranian government is like a jilted girlfriend. They have something the desire of you but won’t exactly tell you what it is and you have guess. When you guess wrong, they get all pissy. But they don’t want to break up per se, they just want to throw a good tantrum and make you sweat.

Anywho, according to, The Financial Times, “Iranian officials have given a mixed response to Washington's recent decision to authorise Zalmay Khalilzad, its envoy in Baghdad, to speak to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad.

Hamid-Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday Tehran saw "no need" to discuss Iraq with the US, and Ali Larijani, the top security official, on Saturday dismissed the idea as "propaganda".

But Mohammad-Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister, said that while "the general instructions are not to talk to Americans", Tehran could consider the US initiative.

"We'll think about it," he said, after giving a speech to the Gulf Dialogue, a conference in Bahrain organised by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

In his address to an audience including US civilian and military officials, Mr Bagheri said Iran had been bitterly disappointed by its inclusion in President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" despite its active co-operation with Washington in Afghanistan over the toppling of the Taliban regime.

He said Tehran was nonetheless willing to help stabilise Iraq - without specifying how - and that it expected a "sincere" reaction to its role.”

The fact of the matter is that Iran has as much to lose in Iraq descending into full on civil war as the rest of the world does if not more. First and most obviously there is the proximity Iraq to Iran. No nation wants to see its neighbors in total chaos. This insurgency serves Iran well so long as it drives the US out of the Middle East and then promptly ends. Russia wouldn’t mind the absence of US troops from Central Asia either. However, if the insurgency were to mutate into an Iraqi civil war, it would eventually blow smack dab into Tehran. Chaos is funny that way.

The bottom line for Iran as well as all of the countries in the region from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to India, Pakistan, Russia and China, is that hot wars in this new global economy are actually bad for business. All of the above countries and many more are looking for massive financial investments and trade opportunities. With technology being what it is and the terrorist organizations being wildly unpredictable, a nation allowed to collapse is a recipe for knocking over the rest of the dominoes in the region. In short, where Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East and Central Asia.

The current Iraqi government (not the people, the government) simply will not allow their country to descend into madness. The simplest reason being that if it does they’ll all lose the tenuous grip on power they already have. Now we all know just how easily people like to give up power…that is to say not at all. There’s money and power to be had so long as at least the ruling class doesn’t faction off from each other. Same with Iran and the gang, there’s money and power to be had in the Middle East/Central Asia so long as they can keep the street violence down to a dull roar and nobody detonates a nuke.

Though the mullahs fostered a great deal of the violence against US troops, their intent was to drive their enemy out of what they consider their region. I believe that they had no intention to see that country split into 3 smaller countries or God only knows. Contrary to popular belief, I am of the opinion that people have learned from the societal collapses of the Congo, Haiti and Rwanda and realize that the damage those places suffered engulfs the surrounding nations as well. It is to be avoided for the benefit all and that is what makes a long-term insurgency the enemy of the mullahs. That in turn, for now, barring any unseen calamity, makes the Iranian’s our friends.