which is to say, as US influence diminishes, Iran steps in to fill the vacuum, at least according to this piece in the LA Times. It certainly hasn't been a secret that Iran has been involved in events in Baghdad since the early days of the American presence there, but as Maliki asserts himself further and the US increasingly steps back and allows the Iraqi government to operate independently. On the one hand, Iran has proven a helpful economic partner, creating $2 billion worth of trade. On the other, it appears to play some other, less constructive roles.
Gen. Odierno (pictured above – we all better get used to seeing his face everywhere) began his tenure today by pointing out that ‘gains’ in Iraq from the surge are “fragile and reversible”; this sounds like a pretty clear plea for continued American support for the war. (In terms of blood/treasure and public opinion). It remains to be seen whether he will get it, and that will impact the manner and rate at which the US extricates itself from Iraq's governmental decisionmaking processes. It's reasonable to conclude that a minimized US voice benefits both America and Iraq, since the next-100-years plan didn't go over too well in either location. But one has to wonder whether this mutual disenchantment was necessary. From the LAT article:
“The Iranians will stay in this place forever till the Judgment Day and the Americans will withdraw,” said Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, a senior Shiite politician. “The Americans built their status on their military and their political viewpoints. They didn't try to find shared lines of interest or common ground. . . . The Iranians dealt with this matter in a more positive way.”
