THAW IV: IRAN’S FRONTS -- U P D A T E D.

2nd and so much better draft

NOTE:

SaudiPolitics will try from now on to include policy recommendations. Not that anyone listens. (Just decided: No; won't do it again.)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Develop economic relations with Iran. This would be a better and surer venue for peace than war, sanctions, or the threat of war.

Unleash US energy corporations to sign contracts with the Islamic Republic. It could be that the harmful idiots already have induced foreign energy corporations such as the Malaysian SKS Ventures to execute contracts signed with Iran as incentive for Iran to cooperate in Plantation Iraq. If this is the case, then it’d be eminently restrictive economically to not allow US energy corporations the same privilege. But this isn't about fairness. More to the point: US energy corporations should be allowed to engage the Iranian market and the classes tied to that market to reel this generation of the Iranian government into normalcy--to tarwidh it in a most effective fashion, instead of the other way around.

If the harmful idiots and their kin in Congress are concerned about Israel’s “security” : it should be eminently obvious that trade relations and mutual economic dependence are the best assurances for that “security.” Ditto for the Gulf. The trade approach would avoid (almost certainly) some dismal scenarios. The outcome of armed confrontation with Iran, or even severe sanctions, would hardly be some pro-Western Iran, where its military is allied to ours. (Where do these reactionary people get these delusional ideas? Are they basing their wishful conclusions on the reporting by a couple of Iranian generals who defected? Haven't they learned from Iraq not to allow "intelligence" to supplant analysis?) But even short of war with Iran, the approach being pursued in Plantation Iraq sets up that country for long-term (very long-term) paralysis at best and bloody civil wars at worse. The harmful idiots assume too much when they assume that the US tax base will let them stay in Iraq to supervise long-term paralysis or help out in the civil wars. In the end, it'll likely be chaos and more Islamism.


INTRODUCTION

This series about the thaw in relations between the Iranians and the harmful idiots wouldn’t be complete without an attempt at examining some of Iran’s more important fronts in its face-off with, and tarwidh (see prior post) of, the harmful idiots.


IRAN’S MOST IMPORTANT FRONT: THE HOUSE OF THE HARMFUL IDIOTS–HOW IT ALL ENTWINES.


SOME (NOT SO CAVALIER) HISTORY

The harmful idiots wanted control of Iraq’s oil as leverage against China and Europe. In that quest the harmful idiots mobilized two powerful domestic political forces which stood to benefit from the assault on the (defenseless) Arab and mostly-Muslim country: the American Christian Right and the American Jewish Right.

The procreative troops of the Christian Right, having lost the ability to organize in unions, had found refuge in Evangelical churches. They welcomed war in good part because war provided better remuneration than their “service economy” jobs. (Recall the Rand Corporation study a couple of years ago which brought out the fact that a majority of the troops deployed gained better salaries at war than in civilian life.)

The Jewish Right was promised (and promised itself) supremacy for Israel (“security”), long term, once the harmful idiots had tightened their control over Iraq’s oil by controlling that country. The Jewish Right easily recruited Jewish liberals – the Thomas Friedman types. Iraq at any rate has revealed that the line between the Jewish Right and the Jewish liberals was non-existent. Both are consumed, obssessed (preoccupied abnormally) really, with Israel and blinded by the obssession. Both distort experience to fit their obssession.

From a balance of power perspective, it would’ve stood to reason that on the eve of the American invasion of defenseless Iraq, Iran would bury the hatchet and draw an alliance with the Baathist state. Why? For one, Iran would’ve ruled the entire Arab and Islamic World had it stood by Iraq’s side. (For a while, at least. In the long run, perhaps not, and that's where Iranian strategists are good.) For another, why want Israel’s sponsor next door? The common reason cited for failing to bury the hatchet was that Iran couldn’t get over its deep hostility towards the Baath government. That government had invaded its territory and had engaged it in an unnecessary, bloody, and costly war on behalf of the harmful idiots and the Gulf Sunni governments. More likely, however, the Iranians relented because they could see that the harmful idiots were basing their plans for invading Arab Iraq on the cooperation of Iraqi forces over which the Islamic Republic held sway. Iranian intelligence had reared these.

(I had predicted a mutual defense treaty based on a balance of power perspective and some facts on the ground. I was wrong.)

The Iranians likely assessed that at best Iraq would be governed by Shia forces beholden to the Islamic Republic; at worse, Iraq would be in a state of chaos, forever neutralized as a potential threat against the Islamic Republic. In-between these two scenarios Iran likely was hopeful that the Shia forces beholden to it, especially the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) – now the Supreme Islamic Council (SIC) –, which Iranian intelligence had reared and almost certainly keeps under a state of intensive infiltration, would act as a bridge between it and the United States.


THE HARMFUL IDIOTS REALIGN


No one knows whether the Iranians expected or were surprised that the harmful idiots would change course in Iraq and re-align themselves with the Sunni. (I want to brag: I did tell more than one person that the Baath would outsmart the harmful idiots.) This process of re-alignment took hold soon after the Vice President, an oil man, visited the Gulf in May, 2007. The invasion of Iraq had sent energy prices soaring. This new bonanza had given the Arab Gulf countries a new sense of confidence. They no longer were on the defensive vis-a-vis the US, having gotten their house in order and reined in the venues of al-Qaeda terror. They confronted the Vice-President (my guess: away from his “neocons”) and queried him about the weird policy of his country in Iraq. They explained to him that his harmful idiots’ policies in the end were emptying into the Iranian course; that the harmful idiots were assisting Iran in consolidating its hold over Plantation Iraq. These Gulf countries, it should be reminded, are ruled by Sunni extended families but have significant Shia populations in their midst. In some, these Shia are still referred to as “the Persians.”

The vice President listened. In part because both he and his chief are oil businessmen with interest in post-tenure careers, the Arab Gulf oil countries, now so rich, have their ear. These Arab Gulf governments awoke the Vice President to the fact that practically speaking his harmful idiots had done Iran’s bidding by invading, had continued to do the same during the colonial occupation, and were assisting Iran in consolidating its hold over Plantation Iraq. The Gulf countries, on their part, especially Saudi Arabia, had been sending money to the Sunni in Iraq and allowing the Saudi young to head to Iraq to become suicide bombers at the beck and call of the Baath establishment, now no longer secular but mostly Sunni Islamic.

I don’t think Iran expected this American U-turn. The US now would be pursuing an alliance with the Sunni, arming them, and paying the salaries of thousands of them (71,000 at a minimum -- likely many, many more). In addition, the harmful idiots would now try to divide the Shia camp between Hakim and Sadr–the very camp the Iranians had so reared and controlled.

I think it was in May 2007 that Iran began to lose the relative full control it once had over the course of events which mattered to Iran. Until then, the Iranians could hope that the Hakim people, double-agents, would act as bridge between them and the harmful idiots, which would assist the Iranians in their policy of tarwidh of these. Even though the Hakim people (the Badr Corps/organization which controls so much of the police and security services) still are well-disposed towards Iran, it’s looking increasingly obvious that their rivalry with the Sadr people (the Mahdi Army) is being used by the harmful idiots to weaken Iran’s hold over the Shia. For now it’s unclear how much (political/military) sway Iran still holds in Iraq. We’ll know in the new year if the harmful idiots fail to concede/deliver. (See prior two posts.) I suspect Iran still holds as much sway as before. But, in case of activating genuine domestic armed opposition to US occupation, that sway likely would be gradual , as a crescendo. Meaning: Iran will have to regain its place in Iraq, and it should be able to achieve that goal. The only question: what method (s) will it use?

Starting in May 2007 Iran should have begun to realize that it could no longer hope to be favored by the harmful idiots. The highlight of its partnership had come when Iran watched gleefully as the harmful idiots delivered an Arab President for lynching, while other Arab cowards called Presidents, Sheiks and Kings (yes mastah) stood silent, watching one of their own be lynched. A page from America’s history and Texas current practice (they now call it the death penalty) to repeat itself against the darker one, yet again. Now the Iranians and the harmful idiots would meet here and there, but only to avoid disaster . (See previous posts.) The harmful idiots would negotiate with the Iranians, but mostly away from the public eye and likely in a limited fashion. Now the harmful idiots were trying to reverse their own harmfully idiotic mistake of invading and try as best they can to balance Iranian power. To that end they launched a worldwide campaign against the Iranians. They used Iran’s nuclear program as the lynchpin for that campaign. As a result, the Islamic Republic lost any hope of seeing its partnership with the harmful idiots in ending Baathist rule blossom into the recognition by these of Iran’s regional leadership and usefulness in the Gulf. That Iran could police the region and assure security, a second-tier goal of the harmful idiots, short of the first-tier goal of total dominance over the oil region.

Could the Iranians have been so naive as to think that the Israel-anchored Middle East policy of the United States would allow for a genuine partnership between them and the harmful idiots? There’s quite a lot of evidence that the Iranians were willing to concede quite a lot, including on Hizbollah and Israel, in exchange for acceptance by the harmful idiots of the Islamic Republic’s leadership in the Gulf region. But the harmful idiots were now victorious and delusional in the extreme. They had fallen for their own propaganda. They had convinced themselves that they had won a war against an equal, not a defenseless country which had been emaciated by years of sanctions, racist and greedy humiliation. (Recall the landing of the President on the aircraft carrier and Tony Blair’s strutting along in his white shirt surrounded by his valiant troops, all manly and testosterone-filled for having fucked the real Arabs–not the yes mastah Arabs who they fuck all the time.) (See “Of British Blackmail and Saudi Manhood.”)

Not to mention that the harmful idiots had come from an Israel-centric background. The very men who inspired them were of the Jewish Right, and these wouldn’t want Iran to eclipse Israeli power and force Israel to compromise and partner with the Palestinians. God forbid. (Oh, my God, really; no, please not.)

Hence the non-responsiveness by the Bush Administration to Iran’s offers of compromise. What’s hilariously ironic about this was that Iran made these concessions at a time when it had thought that the harmful idiots were all-powerful. Even more hilariously ironic was that, soon, it was the Iraqi (Arab Sunni) resistance–not even Shia–which proved otherwise. As U.S. troops fought that Arab Sunni resistance the Iranians watched, with gleeful disbelief. Until May 2007, that is.


FIGHTING WARS FOR THE JEWISH RIGHT, ISRAEL, AND THE GULF OIL ARABS

After that date, the harmful idiots had to devise a policy that would be responsive to the right wing Jewish domestic constituency, to Israel, and to the Arab oil Gulf states. The first two wanted an all-out US war on Iran; the third wanted disaster avoidance, while maintaining constant pressure on the Islamic Republic. As a result, US troops would now be fighting the war for these three constituencies to assure that Plantation Iraq doesn’t turn into an Arab ally of Iran, threatening Israel’s supremacy and increasing the ability of the Islamic Republic to influence the politics of the Gulf Arabs.

Gone were Iranian hopes of getting business done as cooperating partner with the armful idiots.

What’s Iran to do? Or, more to the point, is Iran still confident that it can dictate things on the ground in Iraq, using resistance, likely by the Shia, now that the harmful idiots have so totally turned against it? Iran had issued an ultimatum, post NIE estimate, giving the harmful idiots until the end of 2007 to concede to Iran, especially on the nuclear file. (Could it have been the Islamic calendar year?) Does this mean that such concessions would sway Iran to allow the harmful idiots to stay in Iraq? I think yes; US troops in Iraq, at a number known only to the Iranians, are one of the best venues the Islamic Republic has in tarwidh-ing the harmful idiots. Conceding on the nuclear file, I would presume, would mean the softening of sanctions against the Islamic Republic – a must for that Republic.

Lifting the sanctions -- and not imposing more of the same -- for Iran would require more than just an actual but cold and hesitant suspension of efforts by the harmful idiots and their European proxies in that domain. Such could be -- and likely would be -- a ruse: to gain time for the self-deluded harmful idiots to increase the number and reliability of the Iraqi troops they are training, the troops of their ancillary state, and the Sahwas. Pay them well, really well, and they will fight for you. (What a pipedream.) And to sanitize Plantation Iraq. The harmful idiots have been trying to sanitize Iraq to rob the Islamic Republic of its ability to pursue its policy of tarwidh towards them. Hence the ceaseless campaign against the Mahdi Army . (See below.)

ONLY GUARANTEE: US OIL COMPANIES TO IRAN

To assure long-term US cooperation, and not one ruse after another, Iran would want to see American oil/energy corporations enter the bidding for the development of its oil and gas fields. It strikes me that reliance on countries such as China and Malaysia to fuel that sector in Iran has been rather unsatisfactory for the Islamic Republic. And Japan and the Europeans have been too hesitant, under pressure from the harmful idiots. With the entry into Iran of US oil corporations the European and other giant oil corporations would follow suit. (I think they would clamor there like there’s no tomorrow.) That’s the only brand name assurance I can think of which would lead Iran to accept the presence of US troops in Plantation Iraq at a number that’s substantial enough to make some difference, yet small enough not to threaten the security of the Islamic Republic. But the harmful idiots may not be able to deliver on investments by US oil/energy corporations in Iran, even if they wanted. Such isn’t fully in the hands of the Executive Branch. The Israel-centric US Congress should be expected to stand in the way. Which would mean that the Islamic Republic would have to go through Israel to reach that Congress. This foray would be fraught with costly political risks and would have at best uncertain results.

But there’s a way out, generic. The US President can signal friendly non-European countries (they may have already–e.g., Malaysia) to do it -- to enter the Iranian oil and gas exploration market. Such entry into that market by US-induced foreign companies, however, may or may not do it for the Islamic Republic. It could be yet another ruse–though the Republic might play along. I don’t know. The question: for how long? The other question: Will Congress allow it if it were anything other than a ruse?

There’s a distinct possibility that the harmful idiots have in fact induced the entry into the Iranian natural gas market of at least one oil company, the Malaysian SKS Ventures. This could be a tactic by the harmful idiots to secure Iranian cooperation in Plantation Iraq. In other words, the harmful idiots are giving the Iranians a taste of what could come should they not disturb their efforts to reach a stage of full control of Iraq and its oil.

(Once again, will the US Congress allow the taste to become a meal? Bush is heading to Israel; and a US aircraft carrier is visiting the Haifa port. All of this seems to be meant to obtain Israeli coopearation to (1) not attack Iran and embroil as a result US troops into a war not of thier choosing--and fail the Bush Administration which has deluded everyone about the surge and its alleged achievements; and (2) have Israel exert pressure on the US Congress not to stand in the way of a deal -- likely an oil deal, could be SKS -- between the harmful idiots and Iran. Hence President Perez's recent statements to the effect that war wasn't necessary with Iran and that sanctions can be effective. Much easier to hide behind sanctions and dilute these to face-save than behind a bloody and intractable war, a Tet-like outburst. Hence, too, Mr. Khamenei's recent statements that a relationship with the US is possible if beneficial to Iran.)

On or about December 26, 2007, Iran (Pars Oil and Gas Co) signed one part of a $16 bn dollar contract with Malaysia (SKS Ventures) for development of Golshan and Ferdos gas fields –both offshore. Iran’s Oil Minister Gholam Hussein Nozari said the full agreement with Malysia would be worth $16 bn in total when the final contract is signed. SKS Ventures is a privately-held company of Seyed Mokhtar al-Bukhary. It seems that Mr. al-Bukhary hasn’t yet gathered the capital necessary to go through the entire project. An internet search revealed him saying that there’s so much liquidity around the globe (I agree fully–the harmful idiots have created a HUGE dollar glut to dodge taxation at home and to win elections) that he wouldn’t need to go to New York to raise the money. (Iran is estimated to have the world’s second largest gas reserves, after Russia.) Months earlier, Steven R. Weisman (“U.S. Cautions Foreign oil Companies on Iran Deals,” nytimes.com, March 21, 2007) had reported that “[t]he Bush administration has quietly been warning energy companies, including Shell, Repsol and SKS, the Malaysian oil company ...that penalties are possible if they pursue energy deals with Iran.” (Emphasis added.) Has the Bush administration reversed itself on SKS?

The Malaysian announcement came after the Iranians had dispatched what possibly was their price for continued cooperation in Plantation Iraq. On or about December 5, Iran’s Oil Minister said that his country would need about $150 billion in investments in the oil and gas sectors to increase production. I think his message likely was larger than just a one-time stop-gap concession ( e.g., SKS, possibly) from the harmful idiots. He was sending a message to the United States–and to its oil/energy corporations. The message to the harmful idiots: only US investment in our oil sector would be incentive enough for us to partner with you in Plantation Iraq. The message to US oil/energy corporations: Can the American oil/energy corporations neutralize the Israel-centric US Congress so as to allow US investment in Iran?

It’s possible that not opposing the SKS deal, or winking at it, was the harmful idiots’ way of responding to the Iranians’ request. We’ll know soon whether it was and whether it does satisfy the Iranians enough to withdraw their ultimatum and allow the Bush administration to “succeed” in Iraq. After all, Mr. Al-Bukhari has yet to raise the money. Which means that the bone thrown at the Iranians, if in fact it was intended as such, may have no meat on it.

“REGIME CHANGE”

Politically, too, as part of tarwidh, the Islamic Republic would need to persuade the harmful idiots that “regime change” in Iran wouldn’t lead to a country which military would be allied to the US. This is such a common and foolish conclusion in the US media by academics and intelligence-financed think tanks, or think tanks which financing is highly suspect. (What a stew!)

I believe that the likely outcome of so-called “regime change” would be chaos and more Islamism and extremism, not an Iranian military that is allied to the US. A foe should always be seen as smarter than oneself, right? Accordingly this newsletter has repeatedly brought to the fore the highly likely possibility that the Iranian and Syrian governments have, after Iraq, developed plans to disintegrate their own states should the US launch a serious attack against them. I would go further: the Guard of the Islamic Revolution (GIR), with the money it has, could easily spin off groups to its left to counter those financed by the intelligence services of the harmful idiots. Accordingly, GIR would look acceptable to all. GIR could also create groups to its right; it could infiltrate. At any rate, revolutions and change don’t start from conceptual scratch. The only people who would succeed against a force like GIR would be those who would fight it on its own ideological and conceptual grounds: those who are more Islamist than it is.

Ditto for Syria. The more the government feels threatened the more Arab nationalist it should go (which is good), possibly with an Islamic twist (which is bad, bad, bad), as Saddam Hussein did. The more entrenched it’ll be. Its challengers would have to face-off with it on its own ideological and conceptual grounds: Arab nationalism, defined at a minimum as the liberation in full of the Joulan and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The current Syrian opposition, funded likely by the harmful idiots and the Saudis, is prisoner to its funding and is unable to be Arab nationalist. The Islamist part of this opposition -- though a joke through and through, as are the rest -- is dangerous in that it should easily be infiltrated by al-Qaeda types and by Iranian and Syrian intelligence. In short, the outcome of an American war on Iran or Syria, or even sanctions, if severe, should push those governments deeper in an Islamist direction, and any genuine and effective opposition to these should follow suit. Too, to break a siege if severe, Iran and Syria may be left without a choice but to seek an all out confrontation in Iraq.

(I’m telling you: by the time the harmful idiots and their Israelis are finished with the Middle East, the entire place would have become fully Islamist. Get the visas ready for all Middle Eastern Christians. After Iraq–it’s practically over. Not that it's a bad thing; life in the cargo countries is fine. But the transition period is awful -- to be a refugee in Damascus; to resort to prostitution to meet basic material needs, having being forced to leave the cover of security Iraq once provided. Oh well.)

HOW THINGS LOOK

Things look mixed for the Islamic Republic in the United States. The majority of the presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, don’t want a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Which is good for the Islamic Republic since such should allow it to continue its policy of tarwidh. The question will remain: What troop level would be ideal for tarwidh? Only the Iranians know that figure.

It’d be bad for the Islamic Republic if there were a total withdrawal of US troops from Iraq because it would lose an arena where the US needs it, giving it hopes that US oil/energy corporations and not only proxies would return to Iran.

The other extreme, the one championed by the Jewish Right (Sen. Joe Lieberman) and parts of the defense establishment ( Sen John McCain), would mean the dispatch of yet more troops to Iraq and all-out war with the Islamic Republic. It would also mean the enactment of the draft in the US.

Hence the importance of the American front for the Iranians.


THE RUSSIA FRONT

It seems that Russia is half-hearted about full and total support of Iran. I don’t think it’s the missile defense shield that the US is planning to set up in the former Eastern Europe which accounts for the hesitation -- this US project having been launched to obtain concessions from Russia on Iran. Likely, Russia isn’t fully on board to accept the idea of yet another nuclear power to its south. Likely, too, Russia is aware that the Islamic Republic would like nothing more than to associate itself with the US, especially in trade, and buy Boeing and the European Airbus. Likely, too, Israel has something to do with it.

Russia needs Iran. It needs it for cooperation in the Caspian Sea region; it needs it to defeat the American Iraq Project, which superficially has gained a new elan with the realignment with the Sunni (too little, too late); it needs it as a lever in the oil supply-demand formula. But it seems that Russia will try to get away with only a moderate amount of military and especially nuclear aid to Iran. The above reasons aside, it still beats me why Russia would be so hesitant. Could it be concern by the Russians that the harmful idiots are capable of re-igniting the Russians’ Chechnya front? (I don’t know enough about it.)

When it comes to Iran, Russia has working for it the stiff Israel-anchored US foreign policy. So it can relax about such possibilities as US oil/energy corporations entering the Iranian market. (If they do, they would too enter the Iraq market from the widest of doors.) Russia knows that should US corporations enter the Iranian/Iraqi market, one could expect (one way or another) oil and gas prices to moderate – not a good thing for Russia, neither economically nor politically. But since this is off the table anyway, Russia holds the upper hand in its relationship with Iran.

Iran’s relationship with Russia therefore likely will remain marred by Russian hesitation, and should remain uncertain unless and until the harmful idiots allow their corporations to invest in Iran. (If the recent Malaysian oil deal with Iran has been winked at by the harmful idiots, and it’s a bone with actual meat on it, then one should expect Russia to become less hesitant in its supply of weapons and aid to Iran. Besides, even without any meat on the bone the Russians may not want to afford the luxury of interpretation and set themselves on the course of losing Iran.) Should the harmful idiots be able to overcome their Israel-centric world view, sway the Israel-centric US Congress, and allow their energy corporations to invest in Iran, one should expect the US to beat the Russians hands down, both in Iran and in Iraq, and to reverse the Chinese near take-over of the Iranian market. One day this will define the new American offensive to dominate the Gulf region–an energy trade offensive.

(It’ll be called the Greater Newer Gobble Gobble GoGo Gulf (GREN-GOGO-GU). The harmful idiots will have to provide assurances on topless sunbathing for the GREN-GOGO-GU to work, and will have to dispatch the harmful idiot at State to lecture Arabs of the GREN-GOGO-GU and the mullahs of the Islamic Republic about it, perhaps while Israel is raining cluster bombs on Lebanon's south. Please refer to Greater Middle East, New Improved Middle East, Divide-and-Conquer-to-Smithereens Middle East.)

Hence the importance to Israel that the Lieberman approach succeed. This approach: to ally a part of the mainstream Jewish community with a part of the old Republican Party, which McCain represents. Israel can count on the Democrats to not open up to Iran in any significant fashion. It can count on the Christian Right to want war with Iran, since war pays its members better. And now Israel can neutralize the old guard of the Republican Party by drawing an alliance with McCain. Not a bad strategy. (Only that the last time Lieberman lent his support to a presidential candidate, that one . . . sank like a rock. Okay: so he did win the Nobel Peace Prize, but it was no thanks to running on the same ticket with a warmonger.)

Even on the Russia front American politics and Israel loom large for Iran.


THE SHIA FRONT IN IRAQ: CAN IRAN AFFORD TO SEE SADR EMACIATED; CAN SADR?


The harmful idiots continue to dispatch both their troops, the troops of their ancillary state (the We-Shall-Live-in-San Diego Brigades), and the troops of the Hakim/Dawa state against Sadr’s men. The harmful idiots claim that the men they are killing or arresting are unruly offshoots of the Mahdi Army. Which in effect means that they are doing a favor for Sadr who had declared a truce vis-a-vis the American occupying forces. How considerate.

No one's fooled. What’s going on?

The harmful idiots are working against the clock of the Iranian ultimatum. They’re trying to sanitize Plantation Iraq, to rid it of Iranian influence. This would rob the Islamic Republic of the ability to push tarwidh against them. But Iran loses every time US troops kill or arrest a Sadr man. Why? If Sadr and his people cannot rely on Iran, then maybe they should change alliances. Either Sadr himself will draw closer to the Americans and their Sunni proteges –and by extension the Gulf Arab Sunni governments– (and there are signs of that–see prior posts), or his men will exit and join the Hakim and Dawa crowd where they can obtain employment and other perks from the harmful idiots and from the oil revenue-rich Hakim/Dawa state. The Mahdi Army wouldn’t disappear. But it would no longer be the force it once was when twice it had engaged US troops.

Iran’s passivity at the American effort to sanitize Iraq is therefore surprising–unless one considers that it is abiding by its own ultimatum. Time is hurting it. It likely knows that it cannot rely on Hakim in the long run, not unless US oil corporations enter its market. (See above.) Until then Hakim should be dangerous to Iran for three reasons: (1) he has leaned way too much in the direction of the US ; (2) he is using the American troops to eliminate an Iranian ally, Sadr; and (3) by doing what he is doing –see 1 and 2– he’s leaving Iran no choice but to consider fueling an intra-Shia civil war as a way of tarwidh-ing the harmful idiots.

(I don't think they really want to defeat US troops. They want to tarwidh the harmful idiots. It could be that the Russians are on to what the Iranians are up to, and are dissatisfied by their strategy of tarwidh; that the Russians may favor a continued military uprising until such time when the harmful idiots order withdrawal. And it could be that the Russians are uncomfortable with the "flirtation" by the Iranians with the harmful idiots, with the hope of establishing a long-erm relationship with them. This could explain the Russians' hesitation when it comes to going all the way with the Iranians in supporting them in their military and nuclear endeavors. That could explain Mr. Bush's Christmas call to Mr. Putin. Was he begging for time to allow his harmful idiots to face-save? You bet. Mr. Bush wants to leave office with Iraq "pacified"--then let his Chrisitan Right blame someone else for "losing" Iraq. Hence the begging.)

So why is the Islamic Republic waiting? And what is it waiting for? There’s nothing on the horizon showing any readiness by the American Israel-centric foreign policy culture to allow ExxonMobil to develop oil and gas fields in Iran. And the Malaysian deal may or may not be US-motivated, or may be yet another ruse.

I think the ultimatum issued via as-Safir (see two posts ago) – that the Islamic Republic is giving the harmful idiots until the end of 2007 (or the end of the Muslim calendar year?) to make concessions – may explain the overall hesitancy of that Republic to come to Sadr’s assistance before it’s time. That’s the more likely explanation.

The less likely explanation is that Iran may be waiting for the American political process to react to the profligate cost of the war. Unconvincing. For one, the US can print –and is printing –money. (Seignorage?) Cost therefore is not an issue. Confirming this is the fact that the more recent polls reveal that the economy has now surpassed Iraq as a concern for the electorate, the cost of the war not having diminished. In other words, the American elector is not connecting the cost of the war to the looming recession. It could be that the loss of human life in Iraq, especially American but also Iraqi, helps link the economic cost of the war in the mind of the American elector to the state of the economy. But that in the absence of loss in human life the same elector would tend to ignore the cost altogether since she’s not being taxed for the war – since the war is being waged with printed money.

(She’s actually being “taxed;” that tax is going to the oil-producing countries, including Iran and Russia. It’s a hidden and concealed and treacherous tax where some of her money will later be transferred to the pockets of the oil administration , after the two oil men leave office, in something akin to the Carlyle Group, and the world will be ruled by these people. There’ll be oil tankers called The Cheney and The BushBush and the CheneyBush and the BushCheneyBushBush. Oh, the classiest: the W. Advice: the names cannot contain a "p." Arabs cannot pronouce "P;" they say it as "b." It’s a "biss-ing" global conspiracy, man.)

Or would Iran’s interpretation be that igniting strife now would get in the way of the ongoing thaw and lead to more not less US troops in Iraq–perhaps even the draft?

In the absence of genuine US concessions, Iran would have to determine how best to increase tension in Iraq: fuel an intra-Shia civil war, with the harmful idiots backing Hakim and they Sadr? A Sunni-Shia civil war which would lead to a large unofficial mass AWOL by Shia and Sunni soldiers to assist their religious compatriots? Try and hammer an Islamic alliance between Sadr and the Sunni, albeit the majority of the Sunni seem to have lost interest in this and in politics having gone on the payroll of the American taxpayer and the Saudis. ( They’ll sit this one out.) Fuel a civil war in the north, already in place, joining together Arab Sunni and Arab Shia against the seceding Kurds?

(Other fronts of the Islamic Republic:

-- the Arab Shia of the Gulf;

-- Syria and Plantation Lebanon;

-- Palestine; and

-- topless beaches.)