I was disturbed yesterday to hear about Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki signing "security agreements" with Iran. There hasn't been much in the news about it, so I'm forced to link to a China Central Television article on the topic. Has this been much blogged about? Is there less to the story than it seems? On the surface these agreements seem to be grave insults to the thousands of Americans and Coalition soldiers who have shed their blood to free Iraq from Islamofascism.
Iran and Iraq have signed some historic security and economic agreements that point to a gradual warming in their relationship. On his first visit to Iran since taking office, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, met with Iran's Supreme Leader - who promised to support al-Maliki's government. Nathan Mauger has more.
As al-Maliki met with Iranian leaders for a second day, there was no public mention of the issue of Iranian interference in Iraq.
Instead, the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Iranian hosts expressed their growing friendship. ...
The Iranian officials also indicated that the way to end instability in Iraq was for American forces to withdraw.
Well sure, Iran can't wait for us to leave because they figure they can dominate the Shi'a Muslims in Iraq and create another client state for themselves, one with lots of oil. It seems obvious that such an arrangement would be terrible for American interests, and it's bitterly disturbing to me that the American government is allowing it. The Iranian regime is our enemy, and the enemy of all free people, and the Iraqis shouldn't be enabled by our passivity to move in that direction.