I think its a 2 way street. Most definately the Iranians have meddled in Iraq. On the other hand lets try and view it from an Iranian prespective, there are U.S. troops on 2 of Iran's land borders and on its western flank, Iran is faced by a whole list of Arabs countries who have aligned themseves with Uncle Sam and in the 80's did all they could to ensure an Iraqi victory. According to Iran. the U.S. and U.K. are also actively supporting anti-iranian insurgents, who in Iranian eyes are ''terrorists'. Could there be some truth in the Iranian claims of Western complicity, after the usual rhetoric and propaganda has been scrubbed off?
Even if the US withdraws completely Tehran would be doing everything it could to further its influence in Iraq. Dominating Iraq is a fundamental geopolitical objective for Iran as Baghdad is the primary buffer preventing Iranian domination of the Middle East proper. Mesopotamia has always been the buffer between Persia and the west, even back to the conflict between the Roman/Byzantine and Parthia/Sassanid Empires Persia has been struggling to control modern Iraq. Remember just 20 years ago Iraq and Iran fought a devastating decade long total war which western and Arab powers subsidised. Having a friendly regime in Baghdad is just as important to Tehran’s security as it is to Riyadh’s.
Thus you can't look at Iran’s actions in Iraq from a US centric viewpoint; the fact that the United States is the foreign power trying to dominate Iraq is in many ways incidental (apart from the two nation’s rocky relations to date). It wouldn’t be any different if it was the Europeans, Russians or Chinese in Iraq. A great power proxy in Iraq funded and equipped by the world’s most advanced military, who views Iran as a threat, is a massive potential threat to Iran’s security. Any power would do everything within its ability to prevent an outcome which would have such a drastically negative impact on their security.
No, I absolutely agree with the both of you. It is a two-way street and I hope my post you were replying to doesn't suggest that Iran is the "bad" guy. I was merely trying to point out that the Iranians aren't afraid to engage the US when it needs to. I'm trying to avoid taking sides and merely looking at it from the objective point of view -- that Iran is intricately involved in Iraq. That's all.
I'm sure if a country, say China, were involved in a hypothetical invasion of Mexico, the US would do whatever it can overtly and covertly to destabilize the invading Chinese too.
I think Iran can breathe a little bit easier knowing that both its flanks are more secure than before, with a seemingly pro-Iranian (possibly indefinitely) Shia government in Iraq and eastern Afghanistan safe within the sphere of the Iranian business and investors community.
I highly respect what the Qods Forces were able to do. Not many countries have the bravery to engage the US military head-on, but Iran is one of them. The Qods Force showed that any land vehicle - Bradley, Abrams, or even an MRAP - is prone to EFPs and the cost-benefit analysis is certainly in their favour too; i.e., the cost of an EFP is much cheaper (a couple of thousand dollars or less?) compared to an Abrams or MRAP.
Whenever I give my opinion or analysis, I try not to be biased or slanted, because there are always multiple points of view to any story. I apologize if my post suggested otherwise.
