I'm not sure where Reihan is getting his evidence that "Ahmedinejad's Iran" (and what is "Ahmedinejad's Iran?" Is it different from Khameini's Iran?) is eager to see the bloodletting in Iraq continue. Just about every Iraq expert I've ever spoken to has argued that Iran has two primary objectives: The first is to keep Iraq from becoming a staging ground for a hostile superpower (the United States). The second is to keep Iraq from devolving into chaos on their doorstep. Indeed, it's weird for Reihan to paint the US as some sort of benevolent actor here. We've ceaselessly sought to elevate pro-American governments and exert continual pressure for not only our presence, but our bases, and "long-term strategic agreements." At around the same time, we've been speaking openly of the need for regime change in Tehran. Reihan seems to think that Iran likes civil war in Iraq, but there's no reason to believe that. What they do require is Iraqi instability so long as the US is based there, and so long as "stability" means "Giant U.S Military Base." Given that Iran's got far more political power in Iraq than we do, it's just one way in which our occupation actually impedes a political settlement. If we were actually so interested in, as Reihan puts it, stopping the killing, we would have long ago entered into direct talks with Iran that stabilized our relationship with that country so they could help us stabilize Iraq. But insofar as we're interested in preserving Iraq as a launching ground for US interests, we don't want to hold those talks and are freezing out the very forces that could push towards stability.
