Iraq and Iran

Foresight, or Poor Sight?

By Rick Horowitz

Tell me this was part of the plan.

Ahmadinejad in Baghdad, I mean. Tell me this was something we expected when we hatched the plan to invade Iraq.

By "we," I don't mean "you and I," of course. I mean "they" -- the various strategists and fantasists who had our president's ear, and captured his imagination. The ones who told him why invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein was such a fine idea.

Was Ahmadinejad strutting through Baghdad ever a part of that pretty picture?

There he was, though, Iran's highly theatrical (and borderline fanatical) president, riding in a motorcade from the airport -- a motorcade our own president couldn't dare attempt. Striding down a red carpet. Listening to a marching band. Holding hands with Iraqi leaders. Leaders we helped bring to power.

By "we," I don't mean "you and I," of course.

So was this part of the grand plan? When the schemers and dreamers were talking "cakewalk," did they happen to mention "consequences"? Did they ever consider the possibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Baghdad, the first Iranian president to set foot in Iraq since the Iranian revolution way back in 1979? Did they ever figure on Ahmadinejad holding news conferences in Baghdad, hailing "a new chapter" in relations between Iran and Iraq?

Tell me they thought this through.

Iraq being one part of our own president's "Axis of Evil," that is, and Iran being another, tell me that somebody in a position to think about such things actually thought about what destabilizing Iraq might mean for Iran's perpetual quest to be the Middle East's top dog. A strong Iraq, brutal as it was, was a counterweight to Iran. A weak Iraq would be an open door.

They factored that in, didn't they? Before they got rid of Saddam Hussein, they factored in what a strengthened and emboldened Iran would mean, didn't they? So they weren't surprised, were they, when Ahmadinejad went to Baghdad and told the United States to get out of Iraq? Out of the Middle East?

"The presence of foreigners in the region has been to the detriment of the nations of the region," Ahmadinejad declared in Baghdad. "It is nothing but a humiliation to the regional nations."

That kind of talk wouldn't be a problem for us, right? Even if it stirred up more anti-American feelings? Our experts had mulled it all over, weighed the competing considerations and determined it was worth the risk, hadn't they?

Not to mention the whole Sunni-Shiite thing.

The Sunni ran Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They hated Shiite Iran. They fought wars with Shiite Iran.

If we overthrew Saddam, the Shiites might take control of Iraq. Couldn't that hand Shiite-run Iran an inside track to influence?

We did toss that possibility into the mix, didn't we? The Pentagon planners and the West Wing warriors did weigh the chances of Iraq and Iran, the only two Shiite-run countries in the region, forming an alliance, didn't they? And decided it was worth the risk?

And when they went to the president with their plans, they must have raised the whole Sunni-Shiite thing -- and all those other things, yes? They must have made sure he understood that "getting rid of the brutal dictator" might be only the beginning. That invading Iraq might set other events in motion, events that might be difficult to contain.

Ahmadinejad in Baghdad, for instance.

Tell me that was part of the plan.

Don't tell me they didn't even think about it.

Posted 3/5/08. Rick makes waves twice a week right here -- spread the word!

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist, TV commentator, writing coach and public speaker.

Search the Web Search Rick's!

©2008 Rick Horowitz. All rights reserved.