WHY DOES IRAN FIGHT THE UNITED STATES AWAY FROM IRAQ?

Iran can try to modulate America's policies by fighting it in Iraq. Knowing that, the United States has abated its campaign for regime change in Iran, lowering tension, and choosing instead to mobilize Western governments against the Iranian nuclear bomb project, meant to balance Israel's nuclear arsenal. Abating the campaign for regime change has weakened Iranian resolve to fight the United States in Iraq. More recently, the U.S. has also abated its campaign against nuclear Iran. Bluntly put, the Iranian ability to cause an exponential increase in the death rate of American troops in Iraq places the Bush administration at the mercy of the Islamic Republic, as a decision by Iran to fight the U.S. in Iraq--and kill U.S. troops--would certainly dampen the President's re-election prospects.

(SPC NOTE: ABOUT SYRIA: The United States has resorted to child-like complaints against that country. These complaints are strange in that they are not commensurate with the American super-power status. These complaints reflect U.S. paralysis towards Syria. This paralysis can be explained by the fact that any serious disturbance of the Syrian system of government will result in chaos, a la Iraq. The United States can ill-afford to face yet another armed popular resistance. It has therefore become acutely aware that Syria could double its nightmare, not to mention that Syria enjoys protection from Iran. And the United States can ill-afford to disturb its arrangement with Iran in Iraq.

That armed popular resistance will face U.S. troops in Syria, if the U.S. ventures into that country, should be amply visible to American generals, who would do well to silence the civilian ideologues at the Pentagon. For SPC strongly suspects that the Syrian Baath has by now devised its contingency plan, one that is similar to the one devised by its Iraqi counterpart: To avoid as much as possible conventional war with the United States/Israel and to break up Syrian troops into "civilian" cells, armed to the teeth; to adopt an Islamic ideology that widens the otherwise secular appeal of the Baath; and to wage guerrilla warfare against the American (and possibly) Israeli occupation. Expect the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to have devised similar plans.)

Abating the campaign for an Iranian regime change and for the immediate freeze of the Iranian Bomb project has also had the benefit of pulling some of the rug from underneath the Iranian hard-liners. They now couldn't get the Iranian body politic behind them, in the absence of a clear U.S. or Israeli aggression against Iranian territory, or an active campaign to de-stabilize Iran. The Revolutionary Guard could not secure the support of the Iranian armed forces in an active campaign of armed opposition to the United States in Iraq. The Guard and the religious establishment mistrust the officer corps of the Iranian armed forces. They know that these can be bought with U.S. dollars and green cards, as many of their Iraqi counterparts had. This explains the stationing within the barracks of the armed forces of Revolutionary Guard units, and other paramilitary and intelligence units representing the hard-liners. See previous SPC issue about the suspect American-Israeli arms shipments--of parts--to the Iranian armed forces, probably in the hope that these would rein in the Guard.)

Hence the understanding to stay out of America's way in Iraq. But should the United States or Israel bomb Iran, all bets would be off. It's an easy trade-off for Iran, as the Sunni resistance is gaining momentum without its help. By the time the Sunni resistance loses steam--if it does--Iran would be all-entrenched in Iraq, joyful at the bounty it captured as gift from the Americans. Iran will have obtained what it had failed to achieve in a decade of bloody battles with Iraq--a gift from the Americans, paid for with American lives.