Blair: Syria & Iran need to help fix Iraq

[Black Dog]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged Iran and Syria on Monday to help stabilise Iraq or face isolation as Washington and London review their strategy in the face of growing opposition to their presence in Iraq.

Blair said a "whole" Middle East strategy that embraced the region's problems was needed to stem violence in Iraq and suggested a "new partnership" was possible with Syria and Iran.

But Blair -- accused by critics of going soft on Syria and Iran -- said Britain's policy was unchanged. They must both renounce support for terrorism, and in Iran's case, its nuclear ambitions.

"Just as the situation (in Iraq) is evolving, so our strategy has to evolve to meet it," Blair said in an annual foreign policy speech.

[jdobbin]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged Iran and Syria on Monday to help stabilise Iraq or face isolation as Washington and London review their strategy in the face of growing opposition to their presence in Iraq.

Blair said a "whole" Middle East strategy that embraced the region's problems was needed to stem violence in Iraq and suggested a "new partnership" was possible with Syria and Iran.

But Blair -- accused by critics of going soft on Syria and Iran -- said Britain's policy was unchanged. They must both renounce support for terrorism, and in Iran's case, its nuclear ambitions.

"Just as the situation (in Iraq) is evolving, so our strategy has to evolve to meet it," Blair said in an annual foreign policy speech.

It is getting a little desperate when Blair asks for help from Syria and Iran. What will Iran say? "No problem! Just leave us alone while we make out nuclear weapon."

[GostHacked]

This shows the current 'stay the course' mentality is not working. If they were not in this much trouble the UK and the US would not be asking for Iran or Syria's help. Why the hell is it up to those two to help out in stablizing Iraq? I thought that is what the coalotion of the willing was for? Help out or face isolation? I think that has already happened for the most part. Well isolation from 'western ideologies'.

To me this shows that they really had no intention of winning the war on terror in Iraq. More correct would be to say that they had poor planning and forsight and not enough information at the start to get the job done right.

[Riverwind]

It is getting a little desperate when Blair asks for help from Syria and Iran. What will Iran say? "No problem! Just leave us along while we make out nuclear weapon."

Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power - asking for Iran's 'help' is a excellent way to turn Iran's ambitions in useful directions. It is quite possible that Iran will be willing to trade nukes for political influence.

[jdobbin]

Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power - asking for Iran's 'help' is a excellent way to turn Iran's ambitions in useful directions. It is quite possible that Iran will be willing to trade nukes for political influence.

Somehow, I doubt the good intentions of Iran. I suppose the U.S. is free to ask them but in the end, will it really provide Iraq with the means to avoid civil war?

[Riverwind]

Somehow, I doubt the good intentions of Iran. I suppose the U.S. is free to ask them but in the end, will it really provide Iraq with the means to avoid civil war?

Giving Iran a stake in a peaceful outcome is the best way to avoid civil war at this point. You see asking for Iran's help actually puts Iran's mullahs in a difficult situation. If they refuse then they turn down an excellent opportunity to expand Iran's diplomatic power. If the accept they would have to actually try to help or they would end up losing whatever face they hoped to gain.

[KrustyKidd]

If they were not in this much trouble the UK and the US would not be asking for Iran or Syria's help.

They are not asking for help. Basicly telling them that they can stop interferring and get things or, continue and at bare minimum, only be isolated if they are lucky.

Why the hell is it up to those two to help out in stablizing Iraq?

Syria - Sunni. Iran - Shiite. Both supplying destabilizing forces in a big way. And, both have a lot to lose as they cannot wilt away innocently into a crowd as they are nations.

[jdobbin]

Giving Iran a stake in a peaceful outcome is the best way to avoid civil war at this point. You see asking for Iran's help actually puts Iran's mullahs in a difficult situation. If they refuse then they turn down an excellent opportunity to expand Iran's diplomatic power. If the accept they would have to actually try to help or they would end up losing whatever face they hoped to gain.

So does peace mean that Shias in Iraq give Shias in Iraq the means to kill Sunnis?

To my mind, that is what the Iranian government might see as the best solution. They hate Sunni Iraq for going to war with them. In fact, some intelligence agencies (if you can believe anything they say after the cock up on weapons in Iraq) say that Iran has been supporting insurgents all along.

I don't have a very positive feeling that Iran wants a strong democratic ally of the U.S. on its doorstep.

[Riverwind]

I don't have a very positive feeling that Ira[n] wants a strong democratic ally of the U.S. on its doorstep.

If a strong democratic Iraq emerges at this point in time then it will be by accident - not design. The best we can hope for is another Islamacist gov't in the South, a resonably democratic Kurdistan in the North and a Baathist 2.0 regime in the middle.

[jdobbin]

If a strong democratic Iraq emerges at this point in time then it will be by accident - not design. The best we can hope for is another Islamacist gov't in the South, a resonably democratic Kurdistan in the North and a Baathist 2.0 regime in the middle.

Bush has adamantly refused that type of split in the country. We'll have to see.

As more analysts have suggested, there are few good options and none that work immediately except for withdrawal and hoping for the best.

[Riverwind]

Bush has adamantly refused the type of split in the country. We'll have to see.

Bush has adamantly refused to accept Rumsfeld's resignation until last week. I don't think we are doing Iraqis any favours by forcing the country to stay together, however, the ultimate decision rests with the Iraqis and the US should not be forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

[jdobbin]

Bush has adamantly refused to accept Rumsfeld's resignation until last week. I don't think we are doing Iraqis any favours by forcing the country to stay together, however, the ultimate decision rests with the Iraqis and the US should not be forcing them to do something they don't want to do.

Agreed. I just don't know if we ever know what the Iraqis want. A split? A civil war? A country-wide democracy? U.S. occupation?

I think Congress will be pushing hard and fast on getting out.

[Riverwind]

I think Congress will be pushing hard and fast on getting out.

I believe that will be best for Iraq in the long run. The US troops incite as much violance as they surpress. Eliminating that provocation and crutch will force Iraqis to made the hard decisions.

[jdobbin]

I believe that will be best for Iraq in the long run. The US troops incite as much violance as they surpress. Eliminating that provocation and crutch will force Iraqis to made the hard decisions.

I just finished watching McCain blast General Abizaid for blowing sunshine up the Senate's butt today. Abizaid said no to a timetable, no to partition, no to more troops.

McCain said that this sounded to him like status quo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/

[Rue]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair challenged Iran and Syria on Monday to help stabilise Iraq or face isolation as Washington and London review their strategy in the face of growing opposition to their presence in Iraq.

Blair said a "whole" Middle East strategy that embraced the region's problems was needed to stem violence in Iraq and suggested a "new partnership" was possible with Syria and Iran.

But Blair -- accused by critics of going soft on Syria and Iran -- said Britain's policy was unchanged. They must both renounce support for terrorism, and in Iran's case, its nuclear ambitions.

"Just as the situation (in Iraq) is evolving, so our strategy has to evolve to meet it," Blair said in an annual foreign policy speech.

It is getting a little desperate when Blair asks for help from Syria and Iran. What will Iran say? "No problem! Just leave us alone while we make out nuclear weapon."

Don't forget this is the same Mr. Blair who went hands and knees to kiss up to my close and dear friend Mummy Ghaddafi in Libya to get the oil turned back on.

No telling who one is willing to sleep with after a few drinks.

[Higgly]

Both Iran and Syria are already exerting influence inside Iraq, whether Blair and Bush want to acknowledge it or not. Syria is dealing with a major humanitarian catastrophe as Iraqi refugees stream across the border vowing not to go back. I imagine Iran is doing the same. Both countries have stake in seeing things settle down, and may very well be better positioned to exert some sort of constructive effort than either the US or the Brits.

Blair's finger-wagging and Bush's pouting will achieve little.

[Argus]

Somehow, I doubt the good intentions of Iran. I suppose the U.S. is free to ask them but in the end, will it really provide Iraq with the means to avoid civil war?

Giving Iran a stake in a peaceful outcome is the best way to avoid civil war at this point. You see asking for Iran's help actually puts Iran's mullahs in a difficult situation. If they refuse then they turn down an excellent opportunity to expand Iran's diplomatic power. If the accept they would have to actually try to help or they would end up losing whatever face they hoped to gain.

Iran's interests do not run towards an independant, secular state next door. Their interests are in converting Iraq into a theorcratic twin of themselves. That is why asking their aid is idiocy.

[Argus]

Both Iran and Syria are already exerting influence inside Iraq, whether Blair and Bush want to acknowledge it or not. Syria is dealing with a major humanitarian catastrophe as Iraqi refugees stream across the border vowing not to go back.

Odd how I haven't seen anything whatsoever about a "refugee catastrophe". Do you have some cites on it?

Both countries have stake in seeing things settle down,

Neither country has any interest in seeing a peaceful, democratic, or semi-democratic secular state next door. They would far rather have Iraq in flames, and I would reckon that is what they're working at right now, supplying various sides with weapons, explosives, and information.

[Riverwind]

Iran's interests do not run towards an independant, secular state next door. Their interests are in converting Iraq into a theorcratic twin of themselves. That is why asking their aid is idiocy.

The chances of Iraq becoming a secular democracy in this generation or two are next to zero. The best we can hope for is stability is an end to the civil war and the out of control crime spree. A stable Iraq is in the interests of Iran.

[Argus]

Iran's interests do not run towards an independant, secular state next door. Their interests are in converting Iraq into a theorcratic twin of themselves. That is why asking their aid is idiocy.

The chances of Iraq becoming a secular democracy in this generation or two are next to zero. The best we can hope for is stability is an end to the civil war and the out of control crime spree. A stable Iraq is in the interests of Iran.

Why?

Which is more in their interest; a stable Iraq as an American allie, or an unstable Iraq or theocratic Iraq as an Iranian puppet state?

[Riverwind]

Which is more in their interest; a stable Iraq as an American allie, or an unstable Iraq or theocratic Iraq as an Iranian puppet state?

You are assuming that 'a stable Iraq as an American ally' is still a probable outcome at this point. The only realistic outcomes are continuing chaos or a three state solution where the Kurds would be the only group that is likely to be friendly to western interests. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop the southern part from turning into another theocracy sympathic to Iran, however, it is unlikely that Iran's influence would extend beyond that part.

[Higgly]

Odd how I haven't seen anything whatsoever about a "refugee catastrophe". Do you have some cites on it?

Here's a suggestion, Argus. Go to Google. You do know what that is, don't you? Enter the terms "Iraq refugee Syria" and see what you get. You will report back to us, won't you, Argus?

[Higgly]

Under the 'you heard it here first' category.....

The CBC is reporting an interview of Tony Blair by David Frost that is being broadcast on Al-Jazeera in which Tony Blair admits that Iraq has been a disaster.

[colliver19]

It is getting a little desperate when Blair asks for help from Syria and Iran. What will Iran say? "No problem! Just leave us along while we make out nuclear weapon."

Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power - asking for Iran's 'help' is a excellent way to turn Iran's ambitions in useful directions. It is quite possible that Iran will be willing to trade nukes for political influence.

You seem to forget that Iran is a regional power! I'm European so I have no pro-Iranian feelings, but her large population in a region in which most countries have relatively small populations makes her a regional power right from the get-go - let alone her revolutionary radicalism.