Confused analyis of Irans possible futures

'The last thing Tehran wants is for the US to leave Iraq, at least anytime in the next five years. Obama first said that if elected he would withdraw US forces within 16 months. Then he said he would revise this figure. Despite his shifting position, Iranians see Obama as someone who is serious about ending America’s presence in Iraq, certainly in the next two to three years.

Should he do that, Tehran could be left with two possible scenarios, both of which spell trouble for them.

One is that the US leaves Iraq without solving its security problems. This could spell disaster for Tehran, as al-Qaeda is likely to turn its guns on Iran instead. The other possibility is that the US leaves Iraq as a stable country, both in terms of security and politics. This could be equally bad for Iran. A strong Iraq, even one in which Shiites are in charge, is not in Iran’s interests either as Shiites there could be placed under pressure to severe [sic] their ties with Iran as means of showing their allegiance. And if the ruling Shiites refused to do so, the Kurds and the Sunnis could very well start destabilizing the government in Baghdad, thus producing a Lebanon right on Iran’s doorstep.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-worries-iran/

Gazing into the future is always tough. But this attempt at prognostication is more confused than most. According to this analysis, the reason a weak, ineffective Iraq would be a problem for Iran would be Al Qaeda and what it would do next. Right now, the AQiI operatives are down to the last few old men and boys, and whatever women they can coerce into blowing themselves up. The future threat they might represent to Iran seems pretty inconsequential. We might call the weak, ineffective Iraq the 'Lebanon Scenario'. Bizarrely, a strong, stable Iraq is deemed to also be simply a precursor to 'Lebanon Scenario' in this analysis, because the Kurds and Sunnis would undermine a successful Iran-linked Shia govmt.

It seems pretty obvious to most observers that a weak 'Lebanon Scenario' Iraq would be vastly preferable to Iran than the alternative. There are endless ways Iran can screw around with Iraq if it is weak, divided and internally preoccupied. It would without doubt do so; it has been doing it for the last five years when these conditions held. Now that Iraq is sorting itself out under the increasingly assured hand of Nuri Al Maliki, Irans scope for hanky panky is declining precipitously. Thats all bad news for the Mullahs.

A strong, democratic Shia Iraq is virtually the perfect storm of badness for the Mullahs, on the other hand. Shia Arabs may start to look to Iraq as the model of their future, living in harmony with Sunnis in a secular state where all streams of Islamic belief are tolerated, indeed protected. Irans model will increasingly be seen as a kind of Islamic fascism, both totalitarian and old-fashioned. Especially without nuclear weapons, an increasingly poor and inept Iran is going to be no inspiration to the ordinary folk all over the middle east and further afield- and the Islamic Revolutions main raison-d'etre will disappear.