The evidence they offer for this is surprising thin for a Harvard researcher. It seems
Historical animosity between Persians and Arabs, combined withWell, I guess that's it then. We're screwed. I mean, it would extraordinary if we weren't screwed. No way we can beat those clever Iranians. They have agents and stuff.
conflicting national interests, may impede the emergence of a
full-fledged Iran-Iraq axis. Many senior Iraqi Shia leaders spent years
in exile in Iran; and it would be prudent to assume that some of them
have become Iranian agents, whether out of conviction or coercion. It
would also be extraordinary if Iran had not taken advantage of Saddam
Hussein's downfall to infiltrate numerous low-level operatives as well
as senior spies and agents in government, business, the army, and the
clergy into Iraq.
Odd that this mole-ridden Maliki government just crushed--on its own initiative and against our advice--Iran's proxy Motada al Sadir, but no matter. That was probably just a feint to throw off the neo-cons.
Even if one accepted the "evidence," such as it is, when did success get redefined to mean having an anti-Iran state? If that was the goal Sadaam did nicely. I seem to recall him offing a good million or so Iranians, and if stability gets you down, Sadaam is your go-to guy. Call me one of those neo-con-stability-mongers if you must, but as I recall (from my last vast right wing conspiracy meeting) that the idea was a democratic Iraq whose people busied themselves with trying to make their own lives better rather than pursuing messianic dreams of world domination. On that measure of success the current regime seems set on a course to do reasonably well. Certainly better than the decrepit autocracies that characterized stability in the Middle East for the last 50 years have done. And certainly better than Sadaam Hussein.