world

U.S. skeptical about Iran's intentions in Iraq

42 Comments
By ROBERT BURNS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments
Login to comment

If Iran can help Iraq remain in some kind of shape a viable state after the US broke it, shouldn't this be desirable? At the very least, Iran is likely to do much less harm than the US already has.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Iran is also very likely to touch off a civil war. You still going to be saying: "it's those disgusting Americans!" when that happens?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

US General is worries that the industrial military complex will not be able to deplete old ordnance and deliver new procurements.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Iran is also very likely to touch off a civil war.

Is that not what's already going on, "touched off" by the US illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Does Iran really need nuclear energy? Or is it for other uses?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Dempsey said U.S. military officers have tried to push the Iraqis into installing more competent commanders.

There were very competent commanders in Iraq before the invasion. They were fired, and lost their income and status. Now they are helping IS.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

But why does the U.S. need to state concern over a local nation fighting its own local war? Surely IS in Iraq bears far more relevance to the Iranians than it does to a continent on the other side of the planet (the US).

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Funny that.

Some people are equally "sceptical" about America's intentions in Iraq....

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Is that not what's already going on, "touched off" by the US illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

So you just want to dismiss the majority of the violence was committed by Muslims, you just want to gloss over that? So let's focus on the invasion itself or you want to focus on the real cause of the carnage?

It's a NO brainer that more and more people are doubting Iran's intentions. How can they not, given the countries long history dealing with terrorism. This is going to blow up big time in everyone's faces, including Obama's.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"“It won’t be enough to defeat (the Islamic State) just inside Iraq,” Dempsey said" - article

So, after George W. Bush's wars of profit the job's been left undone, or worst? That's Texas subcontracting in a nutshell. Looks like the old TV series 'DALLAS' should have a re-boot called 'BAGHDAD'.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's already blown up in everyone's faces. We traded one big scumbag for an ever-changing group of smaller scumbags in a destabilized and dangerous region that requires an ongoing commitment to the tune of thousands of lives (tens to hundreds of thousands on the other side) and billions, if not trillions, of dollars. No end in sight a decade after "Mission Accomplished!" but everyone can pretend this erupted a couple of years ago with nothing setting the stage. And for what? What has been gained compared to what's been lost?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Iran is also very likely to touch off a civil war.

Is that not what's already going on, "touched off" by the US illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

So you just want to dismiss the majority of the violence was committed by Muslims, you just want to gloss over that?

What does the last comment have to do with the first two? Absolutely nothing. The topic was on what touched off the civil war in Iraq, not who committed the violence. The fact is, the illegal, unjustified invasion of Iraq, done under false pretenses full of lies, is what precipitated the civil war we are now seeing.

It's a NO brainer that more and more people are doubting Iran's intentions.

On the contrary, more and more people are questioning whether Iran's intentions are actually as bad as the propaganda has stated they are for decades.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A bit rich coming from him given that the US created the power vacuum in the Middle East that has led to a resurgent Iran through its Shia proxies.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Iran is also very likely to touch off a civil war.

LOL, if what is happening today is not a Civil war, how else would you define it?

I think if US is way beyond skeptical , they must be paranoid, scare stiff and sweating buckets by now. All the Iraq war succeeded in doing was create a satellite state for Iran.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Rich Westerns like to throw blame around on each other regarding the Middle East,

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Iran is also skeptical about U.S intentions in Iraq.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It's a NO brainer that more and more people are doubting Iran's intentions. How can they not, given the countries long history dealing with terrorism. This is going to blow up big time in everyone's faces, including Obama's.

Iran has faced a long history of dealing with terrorism. It began with the overthrow by the US and UK of a democratically elected government and persisted with the US military support for Iraq's war against Iran, then after that with crippling sanctions, the constant threat from US military bases that surround their country and cyber attacks.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A good start would be to recognize the legitimacy of Iran's interests in the region. Instead of the sole stick America has used since the overthrow of the Shah, add some carrots for better behavior. Iran and America have many common interests that could be exploited to the benefit of both were it not for the hardliners on both sides.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So you just want to dismiss the majority of the violence was committed by Muslims, you just want to gloss over that? So let's focus on the invasion itself or you want to focus on the real cause of the carnage?

Yes, let's focus on the real cause of the carnage, which was George Dubya's mis-search for the culprits of 9/11 in Iraq instead of in Saudi Arabia, along with a double cause which was Bush jnr's Saddam hunt on behalf of Bush snr. In other words, a complete mistake invading Iraq but it looked good at the time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Seeing as it is actually Irans neighbourhood, I think they have a lot more justification getting involved in sorting this mess out....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

LOL, if what is happening today is not a Civil war, how else would you define it?

Let's call it a Sunni-Shiite war that Iran will start then. You haven't seen Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan get involved yet. US flips over one nutter and the entire region collapses. Wasn't very well built, if you ask me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Its just a wack a mole tyrant now that the big tyrant Saddam and friends are not longer there. Yes, the U.S. (specifically George W, Paul Brenner, Wolfawitz, and other Republican friends) were mostly responsible for starting the whole mess.

All the little tyrants like ISIS and big tyrants like Iran are now taking charge in the void left by an ineffective Iraqi government, which is ineffective because the tribes are still fighting each other for power.

Iran may be a good neighbor for Iraq, but it ultimately wants to form its own caliphate by joining with Iraq. Is that bad? Not sure. Iran hasn't been the best actor in the world and could end up as a one or two nation sized ISIS with the wrong Mullah in charge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good grief, "sceptical"?? Iran´s intentions are very clear: It wants to turn Iraq into a Teheran client state, and ultimately become the superpower in region and Shiism the dominant part of the islamic world. And yes, wipe Israel off the map, but that is another story.

It should not be necessary to point out that the Sunni Arabs do not agree to this agenda and actually agree with Israel in regard to the Teherans nuclear bomb.

Well, maybe it is is necessary to point this out to the politicians in the White House and Brussels, alas, since it appears they are blissfully ignorant of the mess they are meddling with.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Iran is trying to help Iraq get rid of IS, because Iran will be next. Even though Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war a quarter century ago. It is strange that Iran is just another country in Japan. Tour groups there are rather popular.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gokai_wo_manoku:

" Iran is trying to help Iraq get rid of IS, because Iran will be next. "

Are you joking? ISIS is a Wahabi Sunni organization; they would have a snowball`s chance in hell in in the Shiite parts of Irak, not to mention Iran! "Iran will be next"... LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's call it a Sunni-Shiite war that Iran will start then.

The Shia-Sunni war has been going on since the US led invasion. Have you forgotten about hundreds of bodies floating down the Tigris on a daily basis almost 10 years ago. Iran need not start anything its been going on for years.

You haven't seen Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan get involved yet.

They have been involved one way or the other, arming Sunni militias and their citizens bankrolling the ISIS. The day these countries become involved formally, it will no longer be a civil war.

Wasn't very well built, if you ask me.

I wish Dubya and his war mongering cronies had asked you about it before invading Iraq. In fact they could have asked anybody with double digit IQs(probably few single ones also) they would have predicted the same.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ulysses:

" The Shia-Sunni war has been going on since the US led invasion. "

Stop right there. The Sunni-Shiite war has been going on since the death of Mohammed, i.e. for 1500 years. This obsession by some with GWB is beyond ridiculous. For that matter, the Iran-Iraq war preceded even GWBs term of office. Really now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This obsession by some with GWB is beyond ridiculous.

Dubya created an anarchic state where people were 'free' to go about killing each other as much as they please. The denial of this by his loyal fans is even more ridiculous.

And the problem does not end with just the Shias and Sunis, it extends to Christians, Yazidis and all other minorities who are disappearing from Iraq at a furious pace.

As I said before, just because Dubya saw WMDs in his dreams hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered and the entire demography of a region has changed forever.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Let's call it a Sunni-Shiite war that Iran will start then. You haven't seen Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan get involved yet. US flips over one nutter and the entire region collapses. Wasn't very well built, if you ask me

Really? Sunni and Shia have been at war for years. All 3 have been involved, arguably Saudi have supported most of the Sunni insurgencies across the ME and AfPak. It wasn't well built indeed. If cuilt at all it was so by UK and France post WW1. More likely it evolved. It may have been a tip but it was a semi peaceful one. look at it now since the Bushes dis their worst.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ISIS must have some state support, in terms of financing, weapons etc.

And that state is US ally Saudi Arabia.

Funny how US foreign policy works;

Iran fights ISIS and gets chastised by Washington.

Saudi Arabia arms and finances ISIS but Washington is silent.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

What does the last comment have to do with the first two? Absolutely nothing. The topic was on what touched off the civil war in Iraq, not who committed the violence.

Don't try to conflate the two! We are NOT at the neighborhood Kindergarten! You want the argument for what started the civil war, then you need to factor EVERYTHING and NOT cherry pick whatever grievances you have with the previous admin. The majority of muslims that were butchered and murdered were by other muslims. Funny, I never heard a single lib shouting at the rooftops about that! For some reason to you guys, that's completely excusable and forgivable but for the US and coalition forces trying to remove a tyrant wasn't?! You guys NEVER cease to amaze me!

The fact is, the illegal, unjustified invasion of Iraq, done under false pretenses full of lies, is what precipitated the civil war we are now seeing.

Here we go again. 14 resolutions, UN article 1441 gave us every reason to go in a remove Saddam, he was warned, he had time to leave, he chose not to, we all know what happened and good, NO one misses the butcher of Baghdad. But let's go back to the atrocities that were committed by muslims against other muslims. So where is your outrage about that or do you just wanted to display your anger ONLY to the US and let the real perpetrators off?

Rich Westerns like to throw blame around on each other regarding the Middle East,

And many libs as well as many in the Middle East refuse to take responsibility or even try to acknowledge that they are mostly or should I say, the religious strife is the problem that NO ONE EVER wants to address. But I understand, blaming someone else is always easier.

ISIS must have some state support, in terms of financing, weapons etc.

Yes

And that state is US ally Saudi Arabia.

Yes

Funny how US foreign policy works;

Funny how the majority of the people have no idea of the complex knots and ties that make up geopolitics.

Iran fights ISIS and gets chastised by Washington.

1) Do you honestly think that Iran is good intentioned by fighting ISIS for the stability of the region???? 2) As to why Iran is being chastised, even though Obama is trying to make a deal with a country that is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism beats the heck out of me.

Saudi Arabia arms and finances ISIS but Washington is silent.

So what is Iran doing in and controlling Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Aden?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

then you need to factor EVERYTHING

Let me know how many civil wars were fought in Iraq before the two Gulf wars.

Funny, I never heard a single lib shouting at the rooftops about that! For some reason to you guys

Funny how anybody who dares to speak the truth becomes a lib for your guys.

14 resolutions, UN article 1441

Based on lies which are clear for all to see, except those who pretend not to see.

But let's go back to the atrocities that were committed by muslims against other muslims.

Muslims are free to commit these atrocities because a few arm-chair warriors dreamed of WMDs and wanted to have a short, cheap and easy war which would make their dreams go away. A decade later, a few hundred thousand lives lost and there is no end to the war. The atrocities are great, more brutal, so tell me what was the war for.

Funny how the majority of the people have no idea of the complex knots and ties that make up geopolitics.

What is funny is that Dubya and his cronies had no idea of these 'complex knots' that you talk about. Everybody else had.

Obama is trying to make a deal with a country that is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism beats the heck out of me.

Actually Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor or terrorism but your 'dear leader' dubya had no qualms in courting them, just because they secreted oil from every pore.

You have a problem Obama talking to Iran but you had no problem Bush sleeping with the Saudis.

And finally

NO one misses the butcher of Baghdad.

Tell that to the Yazidis and the Christians, they must be worshiping the 'butcher' because at least he kept them safe.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Damn it, Saddam had all these Shiites and Kurds and even the Kuwaitis under control, then the Bushes had to come along and screw everything up...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

UN article 1441 gave us every reason to go in a remove Saddam, he was warned, he had time to leave, he chose not to, we all know what happened and good

Trying to whitewash history again are you?

Saddam was given an ultimatum: give the weapons inspectors unfettered access in Iraq, or face invasion. Saddam gave unfettered access to the inspectors, and the U.S. Invaded because he wasn't giving them the WMDs they 'knew' he had. Well we all know now why he didn't give up the WMDs - they were non-existent. The U.S. was lying about Saddam having them. Yet they invaded Iraw anyways, based on blatant flat out lies. And the UN didn't back the invasion, because Saddam was complying (case in point why we need to follow due process).

So no, there weren't any UN articles giving the U.S. any justification or right to invade Iraq.

But this is all a side point, seeing as what we were talking about is which country touched off a civil war in Iraq (hint - it wasn't Iran).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Funny how the majority of the people have no idea of the complex knots and ties that make up geopolitics.

Very true. And part of the problem. But conveniently forgetting how the Bush neocons and Powell lying at the UN got us into this, is not helping.

The 1953 coup in Iran by the CIA shows our commitment to destabilizing the area. Many of the problems today should be traced back to that point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Funny how anybody who dares to speak the truth becomes a lib for your guys.

That depends on what YOUR interpretation of the truth is.

Based on lies which are clear for all to see, except those who pretend not to see.

So now you are saying the UN doesn't know what it's doing after all? So then I was right all along, the UN is a useless body of empty spineless nations.

Muslims are free to commit these atrocities because a few arm-chair warriors dreamed of WMDs and wanted to have a short, cheap and easy war which would make their dreams go away. A decade later, a few hundred thousand lives lost and there is no end to the war. The atrocities are great, more brutal, so tell me what was the war for.

I'm sorry, but I was asking, how do you feel that muslims were the ones and still are the ones that are causing all of this mayhem carnage, brutality and murder, so how do you feel about that? Please stay in the present time, we can't go back in the past, if we could, I would have wished the country would not have elected this clown, but it doesn't help thinking about the past it's just petty garrulous nonsense.

What is funny is that Dubya and his cronies had no idea of these 'complex knots' that you talk about. Everybody else had.

I never denied that and as for the Mullahs, can you please explain to me how they went from disingenuous to being....uhhh...lol..trustworthy?

Actually Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor or terrorism but your 'dear leader' dubya had no qualms in courting them, just because they secreted oil from every pore.

Ok, so you say Saudi and I say Iran are the biggest sponsors of terrorism, one a Sunni nation and one a Shia, all the same, both sides are killing one another and one gets supported by the US, the other by Russia, but it is our president that tries to play both sides and doesn't understand the world as it is, but as how it THINKS it should be and this deal that he is trying to put together is the absolute worst thing that he is of late trying to do, out of all the other mess and lies this guy has committed, he couldn't stoop any lower and he has proven and shown that he only cares about himself and not the country or any of our allies. Again only 609 days until this guy is just a mental dream.

You have a problem Obama talking to Iran but you had no problem Bush sleeping with the Saudis.

No, I didn't. The Saudis weren't trying to blow Israel to oblivion and they weren't threatening to destroy the US and they weren't crossing into Iran to slaughter thousands of them and Bush wasn't dumb to think that he was above the entire human race and a Mr. know it all that he is THE ONLY person that can make a deal. But Obama knows everything more than anyone else, he's the smartest politician, the smartest when it comes to military strategies, never was enlisted, but he knows it all and that's with everything you come at him with. There is NO human that is as knowledgable or as trustworthy than Obama, we know, we know....

Tell that to the Yazidis and the Christians, they must be worshiping the 'butcher' because at least he kept them safe.

But life under Saddam wasn't great for them either, ask the Kurds.

Trying to whitewash history again are you?

No, I leave that to the Dems.

Saddam was given an ultimatum: give the weapons inspectors unfettered access in Iraq, or face invasion. Saddam gave unfettered access to the inspectors, and the U.S. Invaded because he wasn't giving them the WMDs they 'knew' he had. Well we all know now why he didn't give up the WMDs - they were non-existent.

And why did Saddam lie, NOT the US Saddam, based on secret intel that the Brits, Germans, Israelis, French and the Russians had, so all of them had the same intel and that means all of them lied, so if you want to condemn someone, there is your list and please start with Saddam.

The U.S. was lying about Saddam having them. Yet they invaded Iraw anyways, based on blatant flat out lies. And the UN didn't back the invasion,

As if the UN could! The UN can't even agree on what terrorism is. Saddam was given an ultimatum to leave, he didn't, Bush took the case to the UN and article 1441 was drafted giving the US the Green light to remove him, should he NOT comply, but Saddam did lie also to make Iran think that he had WMDs which would make a lot of sense, looking back in hindsight.

because Saddam was complying (case in point why we need to follow due process).

Saddam in the end, did NOT comply and after 15 resolutions time and time again.

So no, there weren't any UN articles giving the U.S. any justification or right to invade Iraq.

Of course there is, now if you want to discount article 1441 and make believe it is something now, you go and do that, but This is what they drafted, Bush followed, Saddam didn't and in the end, he chose to stay behind in that spider hole and good that's he's gone.

But this is all a side point, seeing as what we were talking about is which country touched off a civil war in Iraq (hint - it wasn't Iran).

I agree, so it was the Maliki (Shia and basically a Saddam in reverse) that basically lit the fuse that started the domino effect that basically turned all this upside down.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

our commitment to destabilizing the area.

Wrong. We don't want a destabilized mid-east. We want a subject mid east.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TigersTokyoDome at Mar. 10, 2015 - 09:21AM JST But why does the U.S. need to state concern over a local nation fighting its own local war? Surely IS in Iraq bears far more relevance to the Iranians than it does to a continent on the other side of the planet (the US).

Oohh, you are sooo good at making a point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iranian influence in Iraq is far more preferable to the insanity of the cartoon characters "Islamic State" (which is neither a state nor Islamic, just a bunch of dupes who are fighting for the fraudulent moron Al Baghdadi and his Cal-laugh-ate).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the terrorist activities of the USA in Iraq, Libya and Syria and the long lasting one in Afghanistan Iran can hardly be accused of support of terrorism. And we should not forget the tens of thousands Iranians gassed to death by Iraqis with US supplied chemical weapons. So who is the terrorist?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

frontcentre:

" Iranian influence in Iraq is far more preferable to the insanity of the cartoon characters "Islamic State" (which is neither a state nor Islamic, j "

It is most definitely islamic (if not, tell us what it is.... Catholic, perhaps??) and while it does not have all the trappings of a state, it has the most fundamental ones, like a territory, a government, a legal system (albeit not one you would want to live under), and a large unified population (last but not least because minorities have been ethnically cleansed). So this slogan about the Islamic state being not islamic is really getting old.

" After the terrorist activities of the USA in Iraq, Libya and Syria and the long lasting one in Afghanistan Iran can hardly be accused of support of terrorism. "

Oh really now. It never occurred to you that there can be more than one terrorist? Beside, regardless of how utterly stupid, misguided, and sometimes illegal the US (and European) government actions are, the "terrorism" label is misguided. If you stretch the definition of "terrorism" so wide, then everything is... i.e. nothing is. This is cheap rethoric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So then I was right all along, the UN is a useless body of empty spineless nations

.If you said that you were right. The UN is made up of spineless US cronies who parrot whatever speech the policymakers at Washington give them.

the smartest when it comes to military strategies, never was enlisted,

Like your decorated war hero, dubya, made the most brilliant strategy of all by invading Iraq. A decade later, hundreds of thousands of lives lost and the world is still paying the price.

But life under Saddam wasn't great for them either, ask the Kurds.

Care to compare the number of Kurds in Iraq under Saddam and now. Also compare the number of Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq to now. Facts might open your eyes, unless they get in your way.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites