Iran May Not Want U.S. To Leave Iraq Quickly

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq a few years ago, we have heard nothing from Iran except that the U.S. must immediately withdraw from Iraq. That was easy to say because the entire world knew Bush's policy was "stay the course". It was obvious to everyone that Bush would not be leaving Iraq for a long time.

But since the Democrats took over control of Congress in the last election, things have changed. A withdrawal from Iraq by U.S. forces is now a real possibility. This is forcing a rethinking of the Iraqi situation by Iran. There is evidence that some diplomatic and other government officials do not want the U.S. to withdraw too quickly.

On Iranian TV last night, a debate was conducted on the American occupation of Iraq. For the first time on Iranian TV, the idea was put forth that it might be bad for Iran if the U.S. left Iraq too quickly. This view was defended by political scientist Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, who said, "The Americans can't simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving the mess as it is. Who's going to look for the safety of the Iraqis there? The Iranians can't do it. The Turks can't do it.... This is not a question of political rivalry between Iran and the West. It has to do with the fact that the society has to have a government structure in place."

Hadi Semati, a political analyst and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, agreed with this position saying, "They've not said it directly and openly as an official policy line, that they'd like the U.S. to stay, but I think there's a sense among the Iranians that they understand that the U.S. cannot just leave immediately. If you're talking about the officials and the foreign policy establishment, I think they're more these days cognizant and aware of the possible dangers and repercussions of civil war and the collapse of what is left of Iraqi governance on Iran. The fact [is] that if the bloodshed gets out of hand, they might at some point feel compelled to intervene to support their Shiite co-religionists against extremists and death squads and mass killings. At the same time, they don't want to be seen as the one that supports a U.S. occupation force. That's why they're conflicted."

When former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami visited the U.S. recently, he opposed a speedy U.S. withdrawal, saying, "We are at a paradox. The occupation must end so there can be peace. But also, you can't leave the present Iraqi government at the mercy of the terrorists. If you ask me should the Americans leave tomorrow, I'd say, 'No, don't do it'."

Of course, the official government stance is still to demand the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But the alternative would not have been allowed to be debated on Iranian TV, unless at least some in the government are considering the position to be valid.

But while the Iranian position is interesting, it should not be a major concern for the U.S.. The United States must act in its own best interests, and these interests demand that the American troops be withdrawn from Iraq sooner rather than later.

Saddam is out of power and awaiting execution. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Bush has repeatedly told us that we are not there for the oil. So why are we still there? Is it an attempt to force the Iraqis to have an American style democracy? Because if it is, it just cannot work. The Iraqis will remove the puppet government we have installed the minute U.S. troops leave.

Is it to protect Iraqi citizens? If so, then we are failing miserably. Hundreds are being killed each week, and we don't have enough soldiers there to protect the Iraqis. Our soldiers have a full-time job trying to protect themselves in this mess that Bush has created.

Regardless of the views of other countries, it is time for the United States to withdraw from Iraq -- immediately.