No they are not. They are very fightened by the outcome so far as they see American success where you see failure. Why the different prism Gerry?
Think you have it a bit backwards Gerry. They've removed a dictator who was in an international economic and military box and, have set up a government made up of Sunnis, Kurds and Secular Shia in a democracy with a market economy that will stabilize and prosper. This poses a serious threat to Iran's theocratic rule in a nation filled with mal contented young people reaching out to the modern world . At least 40% of the Iraqi government is diametricly opposed to Iran by religion, nationality, culture and birth and, the other 60%, while having less animosity towards Iran in general, are nonetheless Arabs, not Persian and, have a bond only in their sect of Islam. Another interesting fact, they are Iraqi, and are trying to keep the other 40% happy with compromises leaving Iran's problems very low on their priority list. Hardly a win for Iran and, definitely not what they wanted next door to them in place of a dictator who was, while under international sanctions and military restrictions, no threat to them whatsoever. A coalition government with Kurds, Sunnis and a Shia majority that is not even close to being in their pocket and, posses both a theological and an economic threat to any majority influence they had hoped to exert on the region.
Your link was interesting in the fact that it places the cart before the horse. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a reaction to things NOT going their way in Iraq, rather than going positive.
Yes, and maybe the Cat in The Hat will jump in too. Shia in Iraq have no interest in being a Tehran puppet and would allow that only in the form of a poison pill as it has serious repercussions with the amount of aid taken. And, even if they did, the Sunnis and Kurds would react in kind ratcheting up pressure via allowing more Jihadist in or, the Kurds, if they believed any of their gains were at risk, could concievably use their territory as a Kurdish base to wreak havoc from with Iran. That doen't mean to say there are not parts of Iraq that Iranian operatives are active in but, nothing like a fifth columm by any means.
George Friedman of Stratfor (if the link won't work for you, PM me and I'll send you a copy of the report)
Now you are telling me that a soldier in the feild can communicate with all these groups on a day to day basis to negotiate and get a full picture? Wow. What's their backdoor link to Tehran Gerry?
Now, how does all this tie in with decisions outside even Iraq and Iran? If the US leaves all the above in the lurch to sort it out by themselves, cooperation with Pakistan will more than likely cease as confidence in America's support will drop to zero, allowing terrorists free reign there which would possibly lead to the collapse of Musharif's rule and subsequent failure of Afganistan and terrorist strikes against India (who would come into the fray with a nuclear capability). Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries in the region will also stop anti Jihadist policies as a whole new Jihadist 'Tet Offensive' would gain momentum. This in turn, would strenthen Sunni power throughout the region and marginalize Shiite (or, in the very least do nothing to strenthen Shiite power) which is a very big step back for Iran.
'Tied this nations hands' ????
Iran can do three things; increase pressure marginally in Iraq (thereby opening themselves up even more for retaliation from the US, Sunnis and/or Kurds, a future Iraqi state of Kurds, Iraqi Shia and Sunnis) as well as exposing themselves on the ground in a conflict in a foreign nation. Bluster on the world stage in pretend brinkmanship or, they can use their influence with Hamas and Hezbollah to make terrorist action globally by proxy. Of course, the latter would be self destructive in that it would simply legitimize any action the US chose to take against Tehran directly or, allow for international action to go ahead in the form of economic, political or even military coalition action.
America on the other hand can carry on with action in Iraq and see the democratic process through, creating a stable Iraq which would place enormous pressure on Iran to reform or negotiate. They can continue supporting Sunni nations in the area by strengthening them and allowing them to prosper, thereby creating an economic threat to Tehran. They can also let the UN place sactions, let Israel bomb them, bomb them with some coalition friends or bomb them themselves, allow Russia, France, China or a host of other countries to do back door deals for them or, they can shift political alliances in Iraq to give the Iranians a compromise.
Or, they can just do nothing until Iran actually is capable of making a nuclear weapon and take it out with whatever combination of characters bombs they can put together at the time. Whatever the case, the 'hands tied' analogy is indicative of a person who seems to be trapped in a box with Michael Moore.
Of course, guys in a Humvee have all the info and contacts to sort this out right?