Iraq and Iran: US looking for love in all the wrong places
Recently, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry held closed-door top-secret meetings to persuade the US Senate foreign relations and banking committees to end sanctions on Iran. The next day, Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki visited the White House to ask for assistance against terrorist insurgents. Trying to curry favor with either Iraq or Iran is a losing proposition.
Having served in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you it’s well recognized that Iranian influence is heavy in providing weapons, especially explosive force penetrators (EFPs) and training to groups fighting against our deployed men and women. We also know that Iran is led by radical theocrats with one goal in mind: destruction of the smaller Satan (Israel) and the greater Satan (America). We must understand their concept of returning the Mahdi, the hidden Imam, and what that means for the global Islamic revolution and global conquest.
When the world was polarized by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the theory of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction ensured there would never be a solely nuclear confrontation that would guarantee no winner. It was a practical and rational theory. However, when dealing with Islamic totalitarians, especially the mad mullahs and ayatollahs, it is not about rational thought but rather an irrational religious ideology rooted in 7th century precepts, and commands.
Amidst this backdrop, the belief that the US would be able to have successful negotiations with the revolutionary Islamic state of Iran demonstrates a naïveté not seen since Sir Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps if Lew and Kerry studied Islamic history and law, they would understand the impetus behind the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, circa 626 AD, which was supposed to ensure 10 years of peace but instead led to Mohammed’s Conquest of Mecca a year later, and the concept of “taqiyya” or concealing one’s beliefs (i.e. lying). Iran will use negotiations as a stall tactic, quite similar to Hitler’s negotiations with Chamberlain, but press on with their nuclear objectives.
On the following day, Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, came to the White House to beg US assistance against resurgent Sunni terrorism. It was just two years ago that al-Maliki refused to support a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to allow a continued US presence. However, it was a typically disinterested President Obama who did not strongly pursue the SOFA nor advocate for a residual force to remain. It is obvious that al-Maliki is seeking favor from President Obama to fight against a common enemy, al Qaeda –supposedly “decimated” according to Obama.
President al-Maliki has viciously attacked the People’s Mojahedin of Iran or the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a group openly seeking to overthrow the Iranian regime. President Obama has backtracked on promises to protect the MEK in Iraq. But this group is our friend.
We have turned our backs against the Kurds and Assyrians in Iraq. But these are also our friends.
Let’s be very clear: Islamic totalitarianism is our enemy. It can be manifested in Sunni (Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Taliban) or Shia (Hezbollah) groups. We do not share a common sense of purpose or cultural ideal with either, or their state sponsors. And we’re playing a very dangerous and fruitless game trying to cozy up to Islamists from any country.
No comments:
Post a Comment