The US cannot stabilize Iraq unless Iran consents to it. Iran is also the US's ally in Afghanistan, against their mutual enemy the Taliban. Which is what makes this situation so funny.
--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Juan Cole: preliminary reactions to the Iranian vote totals
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 9:42 PM
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:39:29 -0700
> (PDT)
> Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> top-posted:
>
> > Afghanistan and Iraq.
> >
> > --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> wrote:
> > Against whom would Islamic Iran
> > > be
> > > useful?
>
> Hmm. Not bad. Iran has already been useful, in a sense,
> in Iraq. But that arrangement didn't require any
> rapprochement -- in fact it was consummated by Mr Bush's
> boys, without the least letup in the screeching rhetoric
> about Islamo-fascism and the axis of evil and the WMD
> on the way, etc. etc.
>
> Iran, of course, has its own interests in Iraq. So perhaps
>
> for Tehran as for Washington, no rapprochement was
> necessary.
> One hand washes the other.
>
> In any case, it seems clear that this kind of Realpolitik
> doesn't depend on having a "moderate" interlocutor on the
> other side.
>
> Perhaps one of the reasons Mr Bush kiboshed the proposed
> Israeli attack on Iran was just this: "we" needed "their"
> help in Iraq. It will be interesting to see whether this
> will be one of the many elements of Bushobama continuity.
> Will Obie be able to wield the same big stick to equal
> effect? Stay tuned.
>
> As for Afghanistan -- that, I don't understand. How could
> Iran be helpful in Afghanistan? Not a rhetorical question
> --
> very likely I've missed an angle here.
>
> --
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk