Wait a minute......

[patgund]

I thought Iraq had a freely elected, independent government, and could make decisions like who to associate with on their own??

Maliki, Bush may differ on Iran's role

"In a warning to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, President Bush said Thursday that Iran was a danger to the Middle East, and promised that if Maliki did not share that view, the president would have a "heart to heart" talk with him.

Appearing at a White House news conference, Bush denounced Tehran for what he said was its support of terrorist groups, and for its nuclear program and threats to Israel. The president, who says that Iran provides explosives used against U.S. troops in Iraq, warned that Tehran would face unspecified "consequences" if such activity continued.

His comments came as Maliki wrapped up a visit to Iran, where he held apparently harmonious meetings with top Iranian officials. Bush said he presumed that Maliki shared his critical view of the Tehran government, but he added that "if the signal [from Maliki] is that Iran is constructive, I will have a heart to heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive."

Bush's comments pointed to the continuing challenges his administration faces in trying to deal with the ever-closer relationship between Tehran and the predominantly Shiite Muslim government in Baghdad.

U.S. officials believe that Maliki's government shares their concern about weapons allegedly supplied by Iran, but they also acknowledge anxiety about the fundamentalist Tehran regime's increasing trade with and aid to Iraq, as well as the close personal ties its officials enjoy with counterparts throughout the Baghdad government."

So, how long before we have to send more troops to Iraq to bring down Maliki's "brutal dictatorship" ?? Since I suspect that "heart-to-heart" talk was Maliki being told "you know how we hung Saddam?? Pity if that happened to you now....."

Seriously though, the Sunni elements of the Iraqi government have pulled out of that government, most of the non-Iraqi insurgents are Sunni and Wahabbist Saudis, and the Shia elements of the Iraqi government are cozying up to the major Shia power in the region. The only reason we're there still is that the House of Saud wants us there, in the middle of a Sunni/Shia civil war.

Comments

[electorprince.livejournal.com]

Quid pro quo; Iraq wants us out so badly, they'd best decide to not continue doing things that keep us here, like playing both sides against the middle by courting favor with every ratbag in the region whether they have Iraq's best interest in mind or not. Iran's getting desperate enough to start putting on the brave face, since they've only got about a decade's worth of oil left in their fields and that strongarming is about the only way they'll be able to accomplish anything quickly. The Saudis have nothing but time and patience has always gotten them what they want, but they're also astute enough to realize that we aren't ever going to go away now and that the emirate of Kuwait is more than capable of supporting any sort of long-term basing of US forces without Saudi assistance, so the Sauds also realize that if they underplay their capabilities and overplay their dominance, their usefulness to us will take a nose-dive.

Also, the majority of non-Iraqi insurgents appear to be Egyptian and Yemenese in origin, not Saudi. Can't speak for their equipment's birthplace (though I'd look eastward, along with their money), but the personnel are definitely from further climes than Riyadh.