The US is surrendering to Iran.

By Ted Belman

Ahmedinejad just completed an historic state visit to his old enemy Iraq and was warmly embraced. US seemed acceptant.

What’s going on?


    “a step forward in its seven-month old secret Saudi-mediated dialogue with Washington.” Apparently, “the quid pro quo runs like this: Tehran is bidding for an understanding with Washington on its nuclear program, while the US is after Iran’s help to preserve the status quo in Iraq.”

    “This in rough terms means accepting a Tehran guarantee to freeze its uranium enrichment process, its nuclear bomb program and nuclear-capable ballistic missile project, without demanding their dismantlement.

In return the US just wants to stabilize Iraq until the new administration takes over.

    The third key issue dominating the US-Iranian dialogue is southern Iraq and its oil. This is also pivotal for Iran’s bilateral relations with Iraq.

    Ahmadinejad’s hosts in Baghdad have to live with the realization that their guest has more clout with the Shiites of southern Iraq than the Maliki government.

    Tehran’s dominance of southern Iraq has three focii:

    The shrine-cities of Karbala and Najef and the oil port of Basra. Iran and the radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr at the head of his Mehdi Army militia divide control of these three cities between them.

    If the central government wants any say in southern Iraq, it must stay on good terms with both its rival masters.

    During his last visit to Tehran at the end of last year, prime minister al-Maliki signed an agreement to lay a pipeline taking Iraqi oil to Iranian refineries in Abadan. This was a bid to link southern Iraq’s oil to the Iranian oil fields and installations on the eastern bank of the Shatt al-Arb opposite Basra. The Americans, who control and defend the southern oil fields, let the agreement go through, although they are in competition against Iran in Central Asia and Turkey. The Bush administration is reconciled to including southern Iraq and its oil fields in the overall package of Iraq understandings with Tehran.

However the US spins this, it is a defeat of unmitigated proportions. The Saudis may be happy because they want a stable Iraq with US presence to protect them. It may very well be the the success of the surge was more dependent on Iran’s cooperation than anything else.

But what about Lebanon and Israel and their arch nemesis Hesballah and Hamas? Can it be that there is no understanding with respect to such matters. We know that Iran recently supplied upgraded missiles to Hamas and the US prevented Israel, possibly with Israels consent, from destroying Hamas.

Rice, when demanding Israel step down, “accused Israel of undermining the Bush administration’s entire Middle East strategy by its stepped-up Gaza offensive” according to DEBKA. So what is the connection of her demands and the deal being cut with Iran.

Anybody know?

March 4, 2008 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. I should remind people that DEBKA isn’t the most reliable source

    who is These days? Any source whose score card is 50% or better ii calling the correct shots can today be consideed to be a reliable source! shots.

  2. Has Bush sold out Israel?

    Short answer: Yes.

    Long answer
    1. The 2006 election was a debacle for the Republicans, based on the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and threatened to make the Republicans a permanent minority (which will happen pretty soon anyway based on the demographic shift in Mexamerica).
    2. Bush threw out his original team (so much for loyalty) and brought in the “Realists”, the crowd of WASP Jew-haters who represented the traditional State Department view.
    3. To save the day, the active war in Iraq had to be calmed down. This was done by four steps: A) The surrender of southern Iraq and Baghdad to the shiites (and Iran) in return for a truce. B) Making a deal with Iraq’s sunni arabs to protect them from their fellow sunnis of al-Qaeda, as well as from the now dominant shiites (this was known as “the surge”). C) Appeasement of Iran by allowing them to develope nukes.
    D) Appeasing all the Muslims by selling out Israel, by way of the sham of Annapolis, and forbidding Israel to strike heavily at Hamas and Hezbollah, while Iran continues to arm them and Syria to the teeth.

    It is crucial for the Republicans to keep Iraq quiet until the November elections, if they are to stand any chance at all. So Israel has to hope that things will improve somewhat after that.

    But the rise of Iran puts Saudi Arabia at a double risk: From Iran and the oppressed Saudi Shiite minority on the one hand, and from their fellow sunnis of al-Quaeda on the other, who want to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and use the Saudi oil money for world jihad. And America may be willing to let the Muslims destroy Israel in order to keep the Saudis as clients.

  3. I can not speak for Debka, but can say that the US and Iran have been in ad hoc secret talks since at least June of 2003 when the Bush Administration realized it could not win militarily in Iraq. He also had an election in 2004 so went into an agreement with Iran that if Iran reigned in the Shi’ites in Iraq not to attack the US military, then he would have a better chance in being elected, under the pretense that everything was under contro. The US agreed they would go soft on Iran over nuclear agreements and offer them more political clout in Iraq.
    Anything to win an election.