The Iranians have their own agenda…. and it isn’t too hard to figure what it is. Have you noticed that something like 60% of Iraq is Shia? Now the Shia (in South Iraq) always liked the Iranians…. Moqtada al Sadr (no friend of Saddam) spent time in Iran. So did Sistani. The Brits in South Iran have had few casualties (for one reason) because they have not interfered with the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi militia. When the Brits leave…. do you suppose that the Shia in south Iraq would have anything preventing them from joining up (de facto) with the Iranians?

And what does Saddam’s WMD have to do with any of this? I suppose that you will tell me that the Shia in Iraq and Saddam were good buddies.

I will say this: if the US really does decide to bomb Iran, and if Saddam really did hide his WMD in Iran…..

Mickey

Look up the case of Maher Arar.

Are you pretty sure?

We’ve tolerated Syria to a certain extent because we needed their assistance in the war on terror. Toleration of another country does not equate to friendship nor does it give a sitting US Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee the right to visit an ally of a sworn enemy and tell them he thinks we’re going to invade Iraq.

I think you mean Jordan.

And why do we send them al-qaeda suspects? Maybe the world isn’t so black and white?

WASHINGTON — At least one and perhaps more senior officials of Saddam Hussein’s toppled regime have fled into Syria, U.S. officials charged Monday, prompting the Bush administration to threaten economic sanctions against Iraq’s most friendly neighbor.

U.S. officials wouldn’t identify the Iraqi leaders who have fled to Syria, but a Defense official said that among the fugitives is Sajida Khairallah, mother of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay. Other administration officials could not confirm that.

Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad not to provide haven to senior Iraqi officials sought by allied forces. One, Watban Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a half brother of Saddam, was caught Sunday en route to Syria, officials said.

See also this for info on Iraq/Syria relations:

First, Syria chose to place itself at the head of the Arab camp opposing the war and was prominent in its sharp, even belligerent, criticism of Washington’s decision to go to war. Moreover, Syria not only supported Iraq rhetorically, but also when the war actually broke out, Syria continued to turn a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons into Iraq via Syria and allowed Arab (mainly Syrian) volunteers to cross the Syrian border into Iraq.

[...]

Alongside these foci of disagreement, the increasingly close relations between Damascus and Baghdad were a major issue for Washington. Indeed, since Bashar rose to power, there were perceptible efforts to turn over a new leaf in his relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. However, it should be mentioned that the trend toward improved relations between Syria and Iraq had begun in 1997, under Hafiz al-Asad. These relations had been on a downward course since the beginning of the 1980s because of Syria’s support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the personal, political and ideological differences that arose between the fellow Ba’th regimes, Syrian and Iraqi.(16)

However, in 1997, Asad sensed that Saddam Hussein no longer posed a real threat to Syria and he apparently wanted to use closer relations between the two states as a bargaining chip against the United States and Israel. The Syrians were horrified by the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel and by the possibility of the exacerbation of Syrian-Turkish relations to the point of armed conflict. In any event, while Hafiz al-Asad did renew relations between Syria and Iraq, he acted cautiously, refraining from introducing anything of substance to these relations, certainly not turning them into any kind of a strategic or intimate alliance.(17)

So far, in anything that has had to do with his relations with Iraq, Bashar has been revealed in all his inexperienced youth. He has demonstrated extreme daring, certainly in comparison with his father’s cautious policies. His government did not hesitate to express explicit and unequivocal support of Iraq, even to the point of attempting to establish a unified pan-Arab front against the American intention of attacking that country. Damascus also became the focal point of pilgrimages by senior Iraqi officials, led by Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz, and Vice Presidents ‘Izat Ibrahim al-Duri and Tariq Yasin Ramadan, who were cordially welcomed in the Syrian capital.(18)

In addition, Syria’s relations with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein cooled, and the Syrians put limits on their activities. For example, a radio station run by the Iraqi opposition operating in Syria was shut down in early 2001 and the publication of anti-Iraq newspapers in Damascus was outlawed.(19) However, the Syrians continued their contacts with Kurdish movements, a move designed to ensure a certain amount of Syrian influence in Iraq in the event of an American attack and even more so in the event of the Iraqi state’s political breakdown. The Syrians feared the possibility of the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, which could have implications for the Kurdish population in Northeastern Syria.

Moreover, in the autumn of 2000, the Iraqis began exporting oil via Syria. The Iraqi oil flowed through Syria via the Kirkuk-Banyas pipeline in amounts between 150,000 to 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). This oil was transferred to Syria for local use, allowing Syria to increase exports of its own oil. Washington was quick to protest to the Syrians for their crass violation of the boycott of Iraq. However, in response to that protest, Bashar explained to Secretary of State Powell and later to President Bush that the flow of oil had been part of a technical examination of the pipeline, which had been idle for almost two decades, and that with the completion of the examination, the flow of oil would be stopped.(20)

At the end of 2000, it was reported that shortly after the Palestinian intifada broke out, Saddam Hussein moved Iraqi forces to the Syrian border perhaps as a warning signal to Israel but clearly in order to exploit the situation to improve his regional standing.(21) In the summer of 2002, reports were published that Syria had turned a blind eye to the smuggling of weapons from Eastern Europe to Iraq via Syria involving Firas Talas, son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Talas and a well-known businessman in Damascus. This time, the Syrians were quick to deny these reports.(22) Finally, in late 2002, it was reported that the Syrians had allowed Iraq to hide some of its weapons of mass destruction in their territory and even assisted in the transfer of Iraqi weapons to Hizballah. These reports were also denied by the Syrians.(23)

After Bashar rose to power, Syria continued to refrain from any kind of strategic alliance with Iraq or even from renewing diplomatic relations between the two countries. Apparently, it was the Old Guard surrounding Bashar that prevented the development of closer relations between Syria and Iraq. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz proposed, during a visit to Damascus, that Syria should ratify the “National Action Treaty” that the two countries had signed in the late 1970s when relations between the two countries were good, but that Saddam Hussein canceled when he rose to power in 1979. Syrian Defense Minister Talas reacted with derision, stating that “Hafiz al-Asad died without ever learning why Saddam cancelled the Treaty, or why he was so quick to accuse Syria of plotting a coup against him.”(24) It is possible that the Syrians’ fear of Iranian and the Gulf States’ reactions prevented Asad from getting too close to Iraq. After all, it was Bashar al-Asad who called Saddam Hussein “a beast of a man” during a visit to Kuwait even before he succeeded his father.(25)

Ties between Syria and Iraq, both during Hafiz al-Asad’s rule and that of his son Bashar, were first and foremost of economic significance. Iraq became a milk cow for Syria because of the dramatic increase in trade between the two countries, which reached at least $3 billion by the end of 2002.(26) The increase in trade between the two countries—both direct and for goods transported through Syria to bypass UN sanctions–was accompanied by a series of economic agreements, including the establishment of a Syria-Iraq free trade zone and one on joint investments in the two countries. An airline route between Baghdad and Damascus was inaugurated in blatant violation of the sanctions and, in July 2001, a railroad line was opened between Mosul and Aleppo. The resumption of the flow of oil between Kirkuk and Baniyas amounted to about one-third of Syria’s own production. The Iraqi oil was sold to Syria at a reduced price and Syria used it for the domestic market, letting it increase its own oil exports and realize a nice profit.(27)

Nice try though, Mickey.

Let me add this: whether or not any of the countries Rockefeller went to was an ally of Iraq, Rockefeller had no business going to the Middle East and discussing with any of them the possibility that we might go to war with a Middle Eastern country. In some circles, Rockefeller’s word could have been construed as an act of war – and hypothetically speaking, if we didn’t have plans eventually to deal with Iraq, that would have been a diplomatic mess of epic proportions.

The bottom line is when it comes to matters of foreign policy, it’s up to the President and his cabinet to set up alliances with countries deemed friendly to US interests. It is NOT up to sitting US Senators to tell any country what he thinks our war policy will be towards ANY country – PERIOD. Jay Rockefeller is a seasoned veteran in the Senate and knew better. The shame is on him and anyone who thinks it was no big deal for him to undermine US policy by going there and whispering in their ears.

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/85.htm

Iraq’s most bitter foreign relationship was with the rival Baath government in Syria. Although there were periods of amity between the two governments–such as the one immediately after the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the one in October 1978, when Iraq and Syria both opposed Egypt’s plans for a separate peace with Israel–the governments generally were hostile to one another. Relations began to deteriorate once again at the end of 1980 following the outbreak of the war with Iran. Syria criticized Iraq for diverting Arab attention from the real enemy (Israel) and for attacking a regime (Iran) supportive of the Arab cause. Relations worsened throughout 1981 as each country accused the other of assisting antiregime political groups. In April 1982, Syria closed its borders with Iraq and cut off the flow of Iraqi oil through the pipeline that traversed Syrian territory to ports on the Mediterranean Sea. The cessation of Iraqi oil exports via this pipeline was a severe economic blow; Iraq interpreted the move as a confirmation of Syria’s de facto alliance with Iran in the war.

The hostility between Iraq and Syria has been a source of concern to the other Arab states. King Hussein of Jordan, in particular, tried to reconcile the Iraqi and Syrian leaders. Although his efforts to mediate a meeting between Saddam Husayn and Syrian president Hafiz al Assad were finally realized in early 1987, these private discussions did not lead to substantive progress in resolving the issues that divided the two countries. Intense diplomatic efforts by Jordan and by Saudi Arabia also resulted in the attendance of both presidents, Saddam and Assad, at the Arab League summit in Amman in November 1987. The Iraqis were irritated, however, that Syria used its influence to prevent the conference from adopting sanctions against Iran. The animosities that have divided the rival Iraqi and Syrian factions of the Baath appeared to be as firmly rooted as ever in early 1988.

Iraq Table of Contents

Source: U.S. Library of Congress

As a matter of fact, these countries are only “united” in that both of them are opposed to the existence of Israel. By this logic, the US should also consider Malaysia an enemy.

The only thing more absurd than supposing that Syria and Iraq are allies is supposing that Iran and Iraq are allies. It has been a long time, but Iran and Iraq had a war that lasted ten years and cost more than a million lives. Do you really think that Iran would be glad to hold onto Saddam’s WMD briefly…. until he could just regain the presidency of his country?

Now if neither Democrats nor Republicans will enforce this law, why bother bringing it up?

There are various reasons for this law to exist. Consider how dangerous was Jackson’s dealings with the Lebanese… and consider all of the American ships off shore in Haiti…. and now consider Rockefeller going to Syria and saying, “It is my opinion that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning.”