Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
The United States could end up cooperating with Iran to stop militant gains in Iraq, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Monday in an interview with Yahoo!News.
But a Pentagon spokesman denied Monday that any military coordination with Iran is in the cards.
In his interview with Yahoo!News, Kerry didn't say that cooperation with Iran is under active discussion inside the administration.
"Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements," he said. Full story
At 6:30pm ET, S.E. Cupp and Van Jones are joined by Vikram Singh of Center for American Progress and Danielle Pletka of AEI, for a debate.
Should the U.S. form a strategic alliance with Iran regarding Iraq?
Vote by tweeting Yes or No using #Crossfire or comment on our Facebook post. View results below or through our Poptip results page.
U.S. campaign in Iraq seen as allied with Iran and Iraq’s Shi’ite majority could risk polarizing the country further and alienating Sunni-dominated countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If Iran comes to the assistance of the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government it could fan further sectarian violence. Maliki as an Iranian tool, set in place to advance Shi’ite interests in the name of a greater Iranian plot to extend Iran’s influence across the region. “Iranian troops operating in Iraq will confirm everything the Sunnis have always suspected, that the Maliki regime is an extension of Iranian power. Iranian military presence would not only alarm Iraqi Sunnis, it would be a major affront to the U.S.’s Sunni allies in the Gulf, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Just as backing other strongmen in the region has turned out poorly for the US, sticking by Maliki would also be a mistake. It should set off warning bells anytime the US and Iran find themselves on the same side of any issue
The US needed flexibility, Iran had the US by the short and curlies, no flexibility. They are not going to let the US leave Iraq bogged down. What are we to leave behind can't just walk they won't let you and they would takeover overtly. So compromise with Iran I am leaving in 5 years and you are going to let me leave. That blacksite you don't think we know about we do and we will bomb you and turn it into a carpark, invade and set up a buffer zone, that is what the circled rings of security are for inside Iraq, that is what the extra 20 thousand are for a buffer hedge hog inside Iran. But we are not going to bomb you and prove it you have the NIE no program, but then you have the covert operations to delay the program which the NIE says does not exist. What the US has gained is flexibility. This makes the US far more dangerous. They are in a race to build a bomb before the US leaves in 5 years and the US is in a race to delay it so flexibility can occur. Window of opportunity. Iran only ever do short term compromises and after heavy costs. Basically a re-calibration. They could have settled after a few years of the Iran/Iraq war for the same deal, got everyone off their backs and you had a weak regime fighting everyone via Saddam. But they keep going, bought them time to build up their power which you could see across the Mid East since. Huge cost for a short term re-calibration. Are they prepared to break Iraq, yeah break the Iraqi military many who are both Shiite militia in national army uniform, and increase the fight via the militias against the Sunni's. The last 24 hours they have double down via al-Maliki and others. Now with help for many years they controlled the sectarian Lebanon and still do, a Shia minority controlled Syria for many years and a Sunni minority control Iraq. Iran itself Shia majority control still sectarian. So they believe it can be done and are willing to force the issue even if it is a heavy cost and ends in compromise re-calibration. Energy independence the US is not going to be paying 8 dollars a gallon as they do in other western countries, all connected, surge, 5 years, nuclear program, energy independence and now a civil war in Iraq. Flexibility. Irans weakness ironically is their success of resistance and ability seek re-calibration at the right points. That is why they are so arrogant. It leads to overreach and in many ways Iran hit its peak of power in 2011 early 2012. That would have been the re-calibration point, but they overreach huge costs at what point is the tipping point. How many times has a battle or war be won, but unknown to the winning side and the winning side retreats or hits a holding pattern. It is the same thing.
Look at Iraq and say Vietnam, yeah both the US and Vietnam paid huge costs, but we are allies, they are non nuclear and not a regional or global threat. Did both sides die for nothing or was the war a success. Compared that to Korea, post WW2 nuclear UN new world order police action, global, regional threat, not an ally, troops still in country, nuclear. Regardless of what happens in Iraq it is too early to say whether the war was a success, that is for history and history takes a long time decades. Which will Iran be Vietnam or NK.
Vietnam we never really understood the enemy, what they wanted or what they were willing to do to get it. Same can be said for NK.
Doesn't appear anyone trusts the US
I dont' think we should work with Iran.
I dont' think we should work with Iraq either. If we support the Sunni's... we'd be supporting terrorists overthrowing their government. If we support the Shiites, we'd be supporting a regime that persecuted those not in the religious majority and is getting in bed with Iran (a country who hates us). That is WHY they kicked our soldiers out.
Both sides are evil.... Isis and the Iraqi government. We shouldn't help either side.
The GOP Prayer/Mantra/Solution: Dear God...With your loving kindness, help us to turn all the Old, Sick, Poor, Non-white, Non-christian, Female, and Gay people into slaves. Then, with your guidance and compassion, we will whip them until they are Young, Healthy, Rich, White, Christian, Male, and Straight. Or until they are dead. God...Grant us the knowledge to then turn them into Soylent Green to feed the military during the next "unfunded/off-the-books" war. God...Give us the strength during our speeches to repeatedly yell........TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!..........and........GET RID OF SS AND MEDICARE!!!
In your name we prey (purposely misspelled, or is it?)........Amen
I have to say, that was one of the better debates I saw on this show. Everyone despite their differences came to some agreement at one point. However, I feel this mess in Iraq is because of the following person(s):
President G.W. Bush: On his orders, the U.S. invades Iraq in 2003 because Saddam still possed WMD(this was proven to be false 3 years later).
Paul Bremer: He executed the order to disband the Iraq military(this was actually a miscue between him and President Bush).
Muqtada al Sadr: In addition to the loyalists that still supported Saddam Hussein, al Sadr, a Shi'ite cleric, launches a jihad against Coalition troops in the belief we were trying to take over Iraq and wanted the U.S. forces out.
Nouri al-Maliki: After assuming power in Iraq as its Prime Minister, he reconciles with Iran, which then aids Syria with weapons and equipment that is transported thru Iraq. He is also urged by Iran to not sign the security agreement with the U.S. which results in the U.S. pulling out all remaining troops from the country. He also screws over the Sunnis instead of uniting with them in order to bring about a stable and unified Iraq.
Now as far as Iran is concerned, should the U.S. cooperate with Iran to stop ISIS? I say NO!! WHY?? I say because of the following:
1. Iran has been assisting the government of Syria with weapons and other equipment, which is also being used in this lightning strike in Iraq. 2. Many of the members assisting ISIS are former members of the Iraq Army. Part of the reason why this army was disbanded was because many of its members were believed to still be loyal to Saddam. 3. Iran has already stated it won't get involved unless Karbala and Najaf are attacked, meaning they would only get involved to protect their secterian interests. 4. The U.S. has sanctions against Iran because of its Nuclear program. If their is any cooperation with Iran, they are going to want those sanctions dropped. 5. We helped Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, in other words:"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What happened after that war? Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, the U.S. executes Operations: Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and 13 years later Iraqi Freedom. Now with that being said, does anyone think it's still a good idea to help Iran?
So what do we do? I say, don't cooperate with Iran, let ISIS take Baghdad, and remove al-Maliki and attempt to work with whomever take charge in Iraq afterwards.
The iraq government is just lazy. We wasted all that time and effort building them up and they just let it fall apart. We don't need those wierdos in iran. Since iraq wasted our money and effort we reserve the right to run in their, flush out the maniacs and turn iraq into the 51st state.
Notify me of new comments via email.
Author, documentary filmmaker, historian, Speaker of the House (1995-1999), and 2012 Republican presidential candidate
Fmr. Obama Deputy Campaign Mgr. and W.H. Sr. Adviser, founder of Precision Strategies, fmr. Sr. Adviser to Maj. Leader Reid and Sen. Kennedy
Conservative columnist for New York Daily News, contributing editor at Townhall Magazine, commentator and author
Former Special Adviser for Green Jobs under President Obama, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, author and attorney
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 94 other followers