"Iran has brokered a critical deal with its regional neighbours that could see a pro-Tehran government installed in Iraq, a move that would shift the fragile country sharply away from a sphere of western influence.
The Guardian can reveal that the Islamic republic was instrumental in forming an alliance between Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki, who is vying for a second term as prime minister, and the country's powerful radical Shia cleric leader, Moqtada al-Sadr.
The deal – which involved Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the highest authorities in Shia Islam – positions Maliki as a frontrunner to return as leader despite a seven-month stalemate between Iraq's feuding political blocs." Guardian
-------------------------------------------------------
Once again, what did we win in Iraq? pl
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/iraq-government-iran-tehran-deal
Perhaps we should ask that question of the multitude of contractors...
Posted by: Chopperdoc | 18 October 2010 at 10:01 AM
Yeah, Iran assisted the Shia in conquering Baghdad and brokered the peace pact between the Shia militias and the Shia dominated national government.
Meanwhile, the success of the Petraeus surge? A myth disseminated though the American mass media.
Posted by: Pirouz | 18 October 2010 at 10:15 AM
As I recall I've commented here before, the strategic winner of the war in Iraq was for all practical purposes decided the day the coalition forces went over the berm from Kuwait: It is Iran.
Posted by: ex-PFC Chuck | 18 October 2010 at 10:53 AM
I have to wonder what the Neocons and Israel government thinks now.
Posted by: BillWade | 18 October 2010 at 12:52 PM
Iran's role seems very much exaggerated Pat.
Give this a read:
Iran Has Less Power in Iraq Than We Think
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/10/iran-has-less-power-in-iraq-than-we-think/64520/
Posted by: Sim | 18 October 2010 at 01:19 PM
Sim, that is propaganda
Posted by: Freindly_Fire | 18 October 2010 at 03:15 PM
Sim...
It does not matter what Hanna thinks. The fact is Iran has a foot in the door and that can only lead to a wider opening...
The question the Colonel raises is very valid. What did we win in Iraq?
Posted by: Jake | 18 October 2010 at 03:31 PM
"I have to wonder what the Neocons and Israel government thinks now."
That's easy. "Let's attack Iran!"
Losing gamblers always want to double down.
Posted by: Lysander | 18 October 2010 at 07:31 PM
"Once again, what did we win in Iraq?"
Enduring strategic advantage for Iran, it seems. 4,287 of our best dead, 30,182 of them wounded, many greviously--and for this?
Brave men and women--led by jackasses.
Posted by: AMJ | 18 October 2010 at 11:53 PM
i believe DC was conscious of the fact that after ousting SH, replacing him with another Sunni strongman was not possible and that inevitably, whatever emerged from Baghdad would be Shia in its orientation...
Posted by: mac | 19 October 2010 at 10:33 PM
The standard seems to be that if we weren't driven to evacuate the roof of the Embassy in helicopters, we won.
Which could still actually happen, I suppose-can one lose a war one has already "won"?
Best-
Posted by: RonD | 21 October 2010 at 07:55 PM