Posts
The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won. . . . Read the entire article. Michael Totten is a bit less sanguine, but not all that much: "The war in Iraq is all but over right now, and it will be officially over if the current trends in violence continue their downward slide. That is a mathematical fact." Read the entire article. . . . The Iranian leaders responsible for Iranian policy in Iraq – principally Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Brigadier General Qassim Soleimani, commander of the Qods Force – also remain determined. They are retraining and re-equipping thousands of fighters who fled the most recent Iraqi and Coalition operations in Basra, Baghdad, and Maysan Provinces. Read the entire article. The news that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been soundly beaten and is on the verge of annihilation, was met with worries and a quick call to action on Capitol Hill today. In an attempt to salvage some semblance of victory for the embattled fighters, Congressional Democrats voted early Thursday to approve funding that would provide desperately needed supplies for the group. Read the entire post. There is much more.
So have we won the war in Iraq?
And if so, what next?
_____________________________________________________
The counterinsurgency phase of the war - the one that started after the six week victory over Saddam's military, the one that picked up steam between Iran's creation of the Mahdi Army and al Qaeda's barbarous acts, is over. We have won. New war may well yet come, but you can mark the calendar on the counterinsurgency.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been crushed and is no longer a coherent force. Sadr's Mahdi Army has been crushed and is now demobilized. Many of its leaders and thousands of followers have fled to Tehran. There are remnants of al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army still inside Iraq and they are able to conduct discrete acts of mayhem. But they are being relentlessly pursued by U.S. and Iraqi forces, they are unable to regroup. Both have been broadly rejected by the people of Iraq, and Iraq no longer presents a hospitable environment for these organization to again easily take root.
There is no ongoing civil war inside Iraq. Ethno-sectarian deaths were at zero in May and June 2008. The Iraqi government controls virtually all of Iraq, including Sadr City and Basra, and the Iraqi government has emerged as a nationalist force. The Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 bench marks that were set by the U.S. - and embraced by Mr. Obama - as the measures of progress towards reconciliation and a stable country. The bench mark regarding the oil law is moot for the moment as all oil revenues are being fully and fairly shared even in the absence of a law. Provincial elections will be held this year.
Today, the U.S. military turned over full control of Diwaniya Province to the Iraqi government. That marks the tenth province turned over to Iraqi control. Anbar Province, deemed lost a little over a year ago, is expected to be turned over to Iraqi control in a matter of days. The other seven provinces are expected to be turned over by years end.
Virtually all of the goals of the surge have been met. And as to our forces in Iraq, if current trends continue for July, it will result in the lowest loss of U.S. life to hostile fire in Iraq during any one month period since June, 2003. This continues a steady decline in U.S. casualties in Iraq over the past months. The biggest enemy many of our soldiers in Iraq face now is boredom.
Michael Yon, taking stock of the current situation in Iraq, had this to say:
While we can claim victory in the counterinsurgency, the threats to Iraq are still extant. Al Qaeda is a transnational organization and al Zawahiri would love nothing more than an opportunity to reinfest Iraq and destroy the Awakening movements. Iran, currently housing thousands of Sadrists who escaped the offensives, is training and rearming these people, hoping to reintroduce them into Iraq and take another crack at Lebanization. Indeed, Iraq is an existential challenge to Iran and, like a shark that will die should it ever stop swimming, Iran's theocracy may come to an end if they fail to dominate Iraq.
Fred Kagan, writing at the WSJ, views the situation similarly and has several recommendations:
Past patterns suggest those fighters will return to Iraq and attempt to restart attacks against Coalition Forces in time to disrupt Iraqi elections and to affect America's voting. Their attacks are likely to be more spectacular, but less effective at disrupting Iraqi government and society.
If America remains firm in its commitment to success in Iraq, success is very likely. The AQI and Shiite militias at present do not have the capacity to drive Iraq off course – unless both the U.S. and the Iraqi government make a number of serious mistakes.
The most serious error would be to withdraw American forces too rapidly. That would strengthen the resolve of both al Qaeda and Iran to persevere in their efforts to disrupt the young Iraqi state and weaken the resolve of those Iraqis, particularly in the Iraqi Security Forces, who are betting their lives on continued American assistance.
The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.
Recent suggestions in Washington that reductions could begin sooner or proceed more rapidly are premature. The current force levels will be needed through the Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and consideration of force reductions makes sense only after those elections are over and the incoming commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, has evaluated the new situation.
The benefits to the U.S. from seeing the fight through to the end far outweigh the likely costs. For one thing, Iraqis have shown their determination to increase their oil output, currently averaging 2.5 million barrels a day, as fast as they can – something that can only happen if their country is secure.
Far more important is the opportunity in our hands today to work with a Muslim country in the heart of the Arab world to inflict the most visible and humiliating defeat possible on al Qaeda. Success in Iraq also makes it possible to establish a strategic partnership with a legitimate, democratic majority-Shia state that is aligned with the U.S. against Iran.
Recent comments by some Iraqi leaders about the current negotiations for a status-of-force agreement – made in the context of an increasingly heated election season in Iraq, and with the desire to improve Iraq's bargaining position in the negotiations – do not call the U.S. partnership into question. As we recently found in Baghdad, even the most outspoken advocates of rapid American force reductions strongly insist on a strategic partnership with America that helps Iraq stand up to Iran. Most of Iraq's military leaders are unequivocal about the need for a continued U.S. force presence.
The Iraqi government and people – whose surging anti-Persian feeling is more obvious every day – have already shown their willingness to push back against Iranian intervention. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attack on Iranian-backed forces in Basra, followed by Iraqi-led operations in Baghdad, central Iraq and Maysan, is proof of Baghdad's willingness. Helping Iraq to succeed is our best hope of finding a way of resolving our differences with Iran over the long term without coming to blows.
It is time for Americans to recognize it's a whole new ballgame in Iraq. The civil war is over, American troops are not an "irritant" fueling the unrest, and far from becoming dependent upon us, the Iraqi government and the army show more determination every day to run their country and to protect it. But they continue to want and need our assistance.
We will likely see significant force reductions from Iraq over the next several months and I would not be surprised to see force reductions below those of pre-surge levels by September. There is still a mission to keep the remnants of al Qaeda and the Special Groups under constant pressure. And there is a need to maintain significant combat power to dissuade Iran from any unwise moves for the foreseeable future.
And lastly, while this victory may come as good news to most Americans, clearly that is not the case for all who nominally claim the title of "American." TNOY has an exclusive on the efforts of a coalition of the far left Code Pink, the Breasts Not Bombs group and Congressional Democrats, all of whom are in crisis mode over the issue of how to shore up al Qadea before it is too late:
“There is no question but that they are in a bad way,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. “What began as a glorious campaign against the American occupiers, has taken a turn for the worse. These culturally equal individuals have been shot at, had missiles fired at them, and been made to miss at least one of their five daily prayers on several occasions. What’s more, our polling data shows that a full 100% of them are living below the poverty line! If it weren’t for that fact that many of them have dual citizenship between their home countries and Holland, they wouldn’t even be receiving welfare payments or free health care. But I have sponsored legislation that will go a long way towards turning the tide back in favor of these brave freedom fighters.”
Pelosi’s bill calls for two battalions of Code Pink protesters to be sent to Iraq immediately. They will be deployed at key positions to block advancing U.S. Marines. . . .
Showing posts with label proxy war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proxy war. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is It Time To Declare V-I Day?
Monday, June 9, 2008
Eye On Iran
The boom of explosions swept across the high-walled compounds and minarets of this ancient Arab capital before dawn one day last week, as Shiite rebels battled for control of a mountain overlooking the city and its airport. . . . Read the entire article. This is wholly in keeping with the pronouncement of Sec. Def. Gates a few months ago, that "[e]verywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. . . ." When I traveled through the south on a last couple of visits, what I heard – and this is again on the point of militias being increasingly discredited, and this is from Iraqi Shiite leaders who were saying things like Iran is the true occupier of Iraq. They would say jokingly that the Iranians are now all Iraqi nationalists, which is a thinly-veiled swipe at some of the militias in some of these areas. Iran is doing all that it can to turn Iraq into Lebanon - both to export its revolution (the raison d'etre of the theocracy) and to end the single biggest threat to Iran's theocracy - a Shia dominated with real democracy on its boder that follows the traditional Shia school of quietism. The granite wall standing in between Iran and its goal to dominate Iraq is the U.S. military. Thus Iran is conducting propaganda offensive aimed at insuring that Iraq does not consumate a SOFA agreement. A SOFA agreement would establish the legal framework for the U.S. to maintain forces in Iraq after the end of the UN mandate in January. This from the WaPo today: Ahmad Zeidabadi, a journalist for the Tehran-based magazine Shahrvand-e Emrooz (Today's Citizen), said Iran is trying to sabotage the U.S.-Iraqi agreement. "The Iranian authorities want this pact not to be signed and to fail to prevent Iraq from turning into a fortress for anti-Iranian forces." The propaganda offensive and "carrots" Iran's Supreme Guide Khameini and his sidekick, Ahmedinejad, are dangling are none too subtle. Indeed, it is almost as if they are trying out for open mike night at a comedy club. The Washington Post is reporting that Iran is offering Iraq a military cooperation agreement as an alternative to the American presence. One would be hard pressed to imagine non-Sadrist Iraqis, facing no military threat other than from their east, containing their laughter over that Trojan horse. And there are several other side busters. Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about – and how we can prevent them in the future. Read the entire article. We have to deal with Iran's theocracy. It is a true force for evil in the world. Doing so today will likely cost us. Doing so tomorrow will only cost us more, and more dearly Time is our enemy while Iran is the enemy of civilization.
It pays to always keep one eye on Iran - and this is an update of observations of late. Iran's theocracy is continuing its efforts to bring mayhem and death throughout the Middle East. Recent reports show Iran is behind the civil war in Yemen. In Iraq, Iran's proxies are feeling the heat as Iraqi and U.S. operational tempo has accelerated. Supreme Guide Ali Khameini and his sidekick, Ahmedinejad are waging an almost humorous propaganda offensive to sabotage the SOFA agreement being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraq. Lastly, Michael Ledeen writes a thought-provoking article on the nature of Iran's theocracy and the inexcusability of our failure to squarely meet this existential evil.
_____________________________________________________
In the post Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match, I listed many of the ongoing acts of mayhem, war and destruction being committed by Iran's theocracy as it seeks to export its revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. To add to that list is Iran's role in Yemen. This from the Washington Post:
"I believe this war is a proxy war," Yemeni lawmaker Ahmed Saif Hashed said in Sanaa, where civilians of the same Shiite sect as the rebels say they are facing increasing detentions, beatings and surveillance.
The rebellion is being mounted by Yemen's Hashemite Shiites, who ruled the country for more than a 1,000 years until an alliance of Shiite and Sunni military officers deposed them in 1962. Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, belongs to the country's larger Shiite community, known as the Zaidis.
Giving the conflict a sectarian cast, his forces have been joined by Sunni tribesmen and extremists in battling the Hashemite rebels, whom the government says are supported by Iran. The rebels say they want only their share of development, resources and power.
"I think there is kind of a settling of accounts here against Iran," Hashed said.
This week, 22 clerics in Saudi Arabia published a statement equating the Hashemite rebels with the Shiite movement Hezbollah in Lebanon. "If they have a country, they humiliate and exert control in their rule over Sunnis," the clerics said, citing Iran and Iraq. "They sow strife, corruption and destruction among Muslims and destabilize security in Muslim countries . . . such as Yemen."
Last year, Yemen's defense minister published what was widely interpreted as a fatwa, or binding religious decree, sanctioning Sunnis to use force against the northern Shiite rebels. The largely impoverished nation of 23 million is majority Sunni. . . .
Iran's proxy forces are under extreme pressure in Iraq of late. The pace of U.S. and Iraqi attacks against Iran's proxy forces in Iraq have accelerated with the capitulation of Sadr's two main bases in Basra and Sadr City.
As to Iran's increasing agitation over the SOFA agreement, first some background. If you have not read Col. H.R. McMaster's speech on Iraq and his comments on Iranian actions in Iraq, you will find it here. Some of the highlights include:
. . . In the case of what Iran is doing in Iraq, it is so damn obvious to anybody who wants to look into it, I think, that is drop the word “alleged” and say what they’re doing, which is, we know for a fact organizing and directing operations against the government of Iraq and against our forces – the government of Iraq forces and our forces – we know they have done that, certainly in the past. We know that they are supplying them with weapons and the most effective weapons that they used to attack the Iraqi people and our forces and these include the long-range high payload rockets that have been coming in from Iraq as well as the explosively formed projectile roadside bombs that come from Iran.
We know that they have trained forces in the employment of these munitions - and in pretty large numbers. . . .
We know for a fact that they have directed assassination operations. . . .
We know that they ostensibly have supported this government but have armed, equipped and trained a militia that has been attacking the very government they ostensibly support. And this is not just something in Basra, this is last year. This is in Nasariyah, this is Samwa, this is in Diwaniyahm, this is in Amarah and it was in Karbala in August 26th and 27th of last year. And now again in Basra. . . .
Mahmoud the Mouth has stated that the SOFA agreement is meant "to turn the Iraqis into American slaves." That is projection on a scale that our own far left ought to recognize. And from Supreme Guide, a little more honesty, at least - "Occupiers who interfere in Iraq's affairs through their military and security might ... are [Iraq's] main problems. . . . That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation." Now that is honesty. I am sure many a non-Sadrist in Iraq was nodding their head at that one also, just not in agreement with Khamenei's identification of whom the "occupier" might be.
Lastly, Michael Ledeen wrote a very thoughtful article, "Iran and the Problem of Evil" in the WSJ several days ago. He believes, as do I, that Iran's theocracy is the true and modern embodiement of evil, no different in threat or determination than the Nazis and other murderous movements of the twentieth century that saw murder, mayhem, war and genocide as acceptable tactics to attain their end. This from Michael Ledeen:
Above all, we have sought answers to several basic questions: Why did the West fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? Why were there so few efforts to thwart the fascist tide, and why did virtually all Western leaders, and so many Western intellectuals, treat the fascists as if they were normal political leaders, instead of the virulent revolutionaries they really were? Why did the main designated victims – the Jews – similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom? Why was resistance so rare?
Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great evil had become paramount in the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.
How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new – systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way.
The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view our enemies plain. Hitler's rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often downplayed as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not Italy?
Some scholars broadened the analysis to include other evil regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, which also systematically murdered millions of people and whose ambitions similarly threatened the West. Just as with fascism, most contemporaries found it nearly impossible to believe that the Gulag Archipelago was what it was. And just as with fascism, we studied it so that the next time we would see evil early enough to prevent it from threatening us again.
By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. . . .
Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.
Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?
No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest.
. . . None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders – even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act – to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. . . .
Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Countdown Iran
Iran has been the covert instigator of thousands of the attacks against British troops in southern Iraq for at least four years. Read the article. I suspect that if we are going to see an attack on Iran, it will occur in the June/July time frame. 
I have previously laid out the extensive case for at least a limited attack upon Iran's Qod's force, if not a full attack both against the Qod's force and to end Iran's march towards a nuclear arsenal. That argument includes as one of many justifications that Iran has been conducting a deadly proxy war in Iraq with the intent of "Lebanizing" that country, as Ambassador Crocker put it several weeks ago. That justification just became stronger with the release of a British report posted below showing that the years of violence in Basra were driven by Iran. Suffice it to say, the Brits are upset. And from at least one article in the Telegraph today, they seem more than ready to support a U.S. attack on Iran.
_____________________________________________________
This from the Telegraph:
It is, without doubt, responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of many British personnel, who have been attempting to contain the violence in southern Iraq.
The Islamic state's malignant involvement in its neighbour's internal strife escalated dramatically in April 2004 following the first uprising across Iraq by disaffected Shia militiamen.
As Iraq descended into murderous anarchy, Iran began channelling vast amounts of cash and weaponry to the burgeoning insurgency. Tehran, it seemed, was happy to fund any Shia militia group, providing it attacked the British and Americans, and therefore further destabilised Iraq.
The chaos that ensued allowed Iran to manoeuvre itself into the position of regional power broker, and fed Tehran's determination to become a nuclear power.
Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Force, known as the al-Quds, which is believed to be beyond the control of the central government, supported the Jaish al-Mahdi, or Mahdi Army, the Shia militia created by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigades - two groups whose hatred for the coalition was matched only by that for each other.
The cash was used to pay recruits – mainly young, unemployed and ill-educated Shia men from the slums of Baghdad and Basra – who were only too willing to take up arms against a force they regarded as occupiers rather than liberators.
It is also widely believed that the al-Quds perfected the improvised explosive devices (IED) which, in just a few short months, went from being rudimentary and unreliable to highly sophisticated lethal weapons capable of firing multiple projectiles and penetrating the armour of American and British tanks.
The IED, with its highly advanced infra-red triggering devices, became the weapon of choice for the insurgents and the technology was soon being passed to the Sunni and al-Qa'eda groups in Baghdad, who shared the same enemy, despite being locked in their own internal conflict.
As the American and British body counts increased so did the rhetoric from London and Washington. Both governments warned Iran to stay out of Iraq's affairs but each accusation was met with persistent denial by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose stock response became "where is the proof?"
But with a named British officer stating in a military report what many in the Army have suspected for years – Iran's direct involvement in the deaths of British troops – the question now is what does this mean for the Islamic Republic?
Even if the British Government wanted to exact some form of military revenge from Iran it is doubtful whether it has the capability. A one-off air strike would do little apart from enraging the pro-Iranian militias operating in southern Iraq.
Instead, it will add to the growing weight of evidence being accumulated by MI6 and the CIA that will one day be used to justify a limited but precise US-led attack against Tehran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are completely unacceptable to both America and Britain, who now regard Iran's nuclear strategy as a one of the most dangerous threats, second only to Islamic terrorism, facing the West.
It has long been rumoured, but always officially denied that, given the right circumstances, Britain would support a limited air campaign against Iran's nuclear installations, such as the one launched by Israel in 1981 against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor.
Although Britain is unlikely to take part in the attack itself, it would offer some form of support, such as in-flight refuelling or allowing the RAF's Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft to be used.
Iran has been playing a dangerous game for too long. If it continues to do so it is highly likely the West will act – and with some justification, the relations of Britain's dead soldiers might say. . . .
One note on the above article. At one point, the author states: "Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Force, known as the al-Quds, which is believed to be beyond the control of the central government, supported the Jaish al-Mahdi, or Mahdi Army, the Shia militia created by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigades - two groups whose hatred for the coalition was matched only by that for each other." Everything about this paragraph is problematic. The Oods force is one branch of the IRGC - the two are not the same thing. The IRGC is not outside the control of the central government. It reports directly to the Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenei. Both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades were creations of Iran. The Badr Brigades are the military arm of the SICI, an organization whose loyalties now run to the Iraqi government. As far as I know, the Badr Brigades have not been involved in any of the anti-U.S. or anti-government activity that is the hallmark of the Mahdi Army.
Iran's Proxy War In Basra
Iran has secretly paid Iraqi insurgents hundreds of thousands of American dollars to kill British soldiers, according to a leaked government document obtained by The Telegraph.
Britain failed in its mission to secure Basra between 2003 and 2008. The failure was not for lack of effort or, indeed, for any lack of military capability among the British soldiers in Basra. Their soldiers were under daily attack from the locals. Now a leaked report reveals that the attackers were Mahdi Army members being paid with hundreds of thousands of dollars and drugs by Iran - through an Iranian finance team in Basra.
__________________________________________________________
This from the Telegraph:
Read the entire article.
The allegations are contained in a confidential "field report" written by a British officer who served in Basra during one of the most dangerous periods of the conflict. The report, which has never been made public, shows the full level of Iran's involvement in the insurgency for the first time.
The document states that the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) – also known as the Mahdi Army – one of the most violent insurgent groups operating in Basra, used money from Iran to recruit and pay young unemployed men up to $300 (£150) a month to carry out attacks against the British. The findings have been passed to the highest levels in the military.
The leak comes at a time of rising tension between Iran and the international community, as Tehran continues to stonewall UN inquiries into allegations that it has carried out research to develop a nuclear weapon.
The report, "Life Under Fire in the Old State Building", details the activities of British troops under the command of Major Christopher Job, of the 2nd Lancashire Regiment, between November 2006 and March 2007.
In the report, Major Job discloses that in the course of five months his base was attacked 350 times. Old State Building, which is in the centre of Basra, is the most-attacked British base in recent history.
In an attempt to discover who was behind the attacks, the officer says he established a network of informers, who supplied him with detailed intelligence on the actions of the insurgents and who was behind their funding.
The officer states that the reports of Iran's involvement came from a network of 25 sources, which included a former Iraqi army general, prominent businessmen, local sheikhs and council leaders.
He writes: "We learnt from a number of our Key Leadership Engagements [local contacts] that the source of the problem was the level of unemployment in Basra.
"JAM, using funding from Iran, paid the unemployed youths in the region of $300 per month to attack Multi National Forces. We also learnt that JAM had a drugs culture and that youths literally got hooked on being associated with JAM."
Twenty-seven members of the Armed Forces died and dozens were seriously injured in southern Iraq between November 2006 and May 2007, the period that Major Job covers in his report.
A senior British officer who has recently returned from southern Iraq said that the existence of "Iranian finance teams" in Basra was widely known by the British military and Foreign Office, although always officially denied.
He said: "It suited Iran to arm JAM in order to allow them to have the means to hit us." . . .
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Iranian Assassination Teams Targeting Iraqi Officials
Iran has been directing assassination operations in Iraq using trained snipers, in some cases killing Iraqi officials opposed to Iran, according to an officer who has recently served as a senior adviser to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Read the entire article. Someone notify Time and WaPo's foreign service. They seem to think Iranian involvement in Iraq is minimal and likely a pure figment of our government's imagination - and they quote Sadrists at length to butress their assertions. 
Whether Iran is conducting a proxy war in Iraq seems a question that has stymied our MSM. It is, however, hard truth to Ambassador Crocker, who several weeks ago spoke of Iranian attempts to "Lebanize" Iraq - i.e., to keep the country weak and to control it politically through an armed militia. And it is hard truth to Col. McMaster, an advisor to Gen. Petraeus who spoke several days ago on Iran's proxy acts of war, its assassination squads in Iraq, and its goals for Iraq in a speech sponsored by AEI.
___________________________________________________
This from the Washington Post, reporting on a speech by Col. McMaster:
Army Col. H.R. McMaster, who has served multiple tours in Iraq, yesterday described Iran's activities as part of an unofficial talk on the evolution of the Iraq war he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute here. Although he emphasized that "Iraq's communities have largely stopped shooting at each other" and that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq "is on its way to defeat," he said Iraq remains a "weak state," and that Iranian involvement was intended to keep it so.
Iran's activities are "obvious to anyone who bothers to look into it," and should no longer be "alleged," he said in response to a question. Senior American military officials said last month that the U.S. military in Iraq has compiled a briefing with detailed evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq violence, but the briefing has yet to be made public.
McMaster, who led a successful campaign in the northern Iraqi city of Tall Afar in 2005, said Iran has trained Iraqi militia members as snipers and organized them in "assassination cells" to kill certain people opposed to Iranian influence.
Iran has also armed large numbers of militia members in Iraqi cities such as Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah and Sadr City, in Baghdad, training many in the use of the "most effective" Iranian weapons, including long-range rockets and a lethal form of roadside bomb known as an explosively formed projectile, or EFP, McMaster said. . . .
. . . McMaster said it was unrealistic to expect "linear progress" in the war in Iraq. He cautioned that recent improvements in security could be compromised if the U.S. military withdraws too quickly. "The war in Iraq doesn't end if we leave prematurely, it gets worse," he said.
Addendum: AEI does not have Col. McMaster's full speech up on their website. I have contacted them to ask for a copy of the transcript or that they post the speech on their website.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Iran's Khatami Accuses Iran Of Terrorism In Iraq, Time Magazine Disagrees
Ex-president Mohmamad Khatami was under fire from hardliners on Monday after comments interpreted as accusing Iran's clerical leaders of supporting insurgents in the Middle East. Read the entire article. Meanwhile, Time Magazine has published an article by their reporters Mark Kukis and Abigail Hauslohner claiming that Iraq's government does not believe that Iran is conducting a proxy war inside of Iraq and that there is "good reason" to dispute American claims to the contrary: American circles in Baghdad and Washington are probably not pleased with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's plan for a special panel to investigate allegations of Iranian interference in Iraq. Many U.S. officials are already convinced of the worst and, for years, U.S. officials have now aired accusations against Iran, insisting that Tehran is stoking Iraq's violence by keeping up a flow of money, weapons and trained fighters into the country. The Iraqi government, however, remains unconvinced — with good reason. I have to interject here. This argument is a year old and the issue now extends far beyond EFP's. Time is ignoring the mountain of evidence since this first became an issue. Iranian arms and munitions are being found in huge caches throughout Iraq. Those caches include EFP's. This is a ludicrous strawman argument Time is positing. The U.S. has also alleged that Tehran was passing rockets to militia elements in Iraq for use against American troops and, lately, the Iraqi government living under American protection in the Green Zone. Recovered materials from some of the rockets reveal Iranian markings, American officials have said, without however producing convincing physical evidence. Update: Perhaps if Time bothered to read the news in Iraq, they might know that the Iraqis seemed to think those rockets are Iranian also. This from Iraq the Model, based on newspaper reports in the two largest Iraqi papers: The Iraqi minister of defense pushed the debate with the Iranians over their provision of weapons to Shia militias one more step on Monday. Minister Abdul Qadir Obeidi indirectly confronted the Iranians, without naming them, with new findings that prove their involvement in the arming of Shia militias. Defense minister Abdul Qadir Mohammed Obeidi revealed that army troops found a 200-mm ground-to-ground rocket manufactured in 2007 during a search operation by the troops north of Basra. Obeidi told al-Sabah in an exclusive interview that, under international laws and norms, this kind of rocket can be traded only with the approval of parliaments and is used only at times of extreme necessity during wars … and wondered how this rocket entered the country. Obeidi added that this rocket can be launched only from a special platform and by specialized crews. From what I read in Iraq’s two biggest newspapers, it seems that the government is trying to step up the rhetoric against Iranian interference in Iraq and to induce uproar among the Iraqi public. Azzaman had the following information about the found rocket, provided by “intelligence officials“: The rocket was manufactured in 2007 in Iran and is called Falaq-1. Falaq-1 is a strategic missile of immense destruction power and was used by Hezbollah against Israel in the July 2006 war. . . . Read the entire post. The Times obviously isin't allowing the facts to interfere with their narrative. Back to their far left screed: The third leg in the U.S. argument against Iran is the longstanding assertion that the Qods Force, a paramilitary wing of the Iranian army, trains Iraqi militants inside Iran and then supports their guerrilla activity back in Iraq. The U.S. military has offered its most convincing public argument on this point, revealing details in July 2007 of the interrogation of an alleged Hizballah operative captured in Basra. TIME also interviewed two Iraqi guerilla fighters who said they trained in Iran. Read the entire article. Clearly the case is not a slam-dunk to our agenda driven MSM, who seem disposed to see only the facts that support their suicidal narrative. To Iraqis and Iran's ex-president, it obviously does not seem too mystifying an issue. Nor does it seem to have Iraq's military commander in Karbala confused. He had this to say a few days ago after the discovery of a massive Iranian weapons cache: Karbala operations commander said on Saturday that Iranian intervention is disturbing the city's security. Somehow, that report has not made it into the MSM, nor Time Magazine's report. And that, of course, is only one of a mountain of reports and evidence that Time is ignoring.
Here is an insane juxtaposition of two news articles. The first records Iran's ex-President, Ayatollah Khatami, accusing Iran's current theocratic government of supporting terrorism abroad, including in Iraq. The second is a Time Magazine article which accuses our military and government of lying about Iran's proxy war inside of Iraq.
______________________________________________________
This from AFP on the remarks of former Iranian President Ayatollah Khatami given in a speech the other day:
The hardline Kayhan newspaper accused the reformist Khatami of tarnishing the Islamic republic's reputation by implying it was carrying out "sabotage" work in other countries through insurgent groups.
In his speech, Khatami referred to the ambition of Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to export the 1979 Islamic revolution around the world, but expressed fear this wish was being distorted.
"What did the imam (Khomeini) mean by exporting the revolution?" he asked in the speech Friday to university students in the northern province of Gilan, according to the Kargozaran newspaper.
"Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries? The imam was vehemently against this and was confronting it," he added.
His speech has been seen by some observers as accusing the Iranian authorities of encouraging militants to destabilize the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Lebanon. . . .
. . . [T]he U.S. allegations appear to be based on speculation, spurred by the appearance about a year ago of a new breed of roadside bomb in Iraq. Explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, . . . Accusations that Iran was shipping the things into Iraq grew louder as U.S. casualties from the weapon rose. But no concrete evidence has emerged in public that Iran was behind the weapons. U.S. officials have revealed no captured shipments of such devices and offered no other proof.
Instead, the Americans argued their case publicly with deductive reasoning: the copper slugs used in EFPs had to be precisely tooled with a heavy press in order to work properly, they said; no such heavy presses were in operation in Iraq, according to the Americans, therefore the slugs had to have been machined in Iran and moved into Iraq. It is, however, not impossible that such heavy presses may well be operating in Iraq. Three major cities in southern Iraq (Basra, Karbala and Najaf) have gone without a significant U.S. military presence for more than a year. These cities, which U.S. officials believe form hubs for the flow of arms into Baghdad, may indeed have such presses.
To continue with Time's far left screed:
On Monday, state-owned al-Sabah published a statement by the minister in which he spoke of the capture of a certain type of rocket that was never found in militia-held caches until now:
Taken altogether, the U.S. evidence offered publicly about Iran's supposedly nefarious activities in Iraq is far from a slam-dunk case, . . .
He noted that huge quantities of Iranian made weapons were seized throughout different locations in the province.
"There is Iranian intervention, and an Iranian 'touch' in Karbala," Major General Ra'id Shaker Jawdat said in a press conference at Karbala operations command's building, after showing a large quantity of Iranian-made weapons.
"This touch is attributed to the presence of Iranian made weapons, especially roadside bombs," Jawdat said.
"Those weapons entered Karbala to destabilize security, but accurate intelligence tips enabled us to reach the weapons and confiscate them, in different places of the province," he added. . . .
Our far left, and particularly those in the MSM, are completely out of touch with reality, either deliberately or simply because they are so predisposed to a hatred of our country that they are blinded to any reality which disturbs their paradigm. Interesting, is it not, that while an Iranian former President speaks the truth about those governing his country, it is our MSM that is running cover for the same vile theocracy that poses an existential threat. Khatami will no doubt pay a stiff price for his honesty. Time's reporters may win a prize for their dishonesty. As I said, its an insane juxtaposition.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Building The Case To Attack Iran
Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government. In fact, the delegation did meet with officials in Tehran over the weekend and presented their evidence. Iranian officials refused to acknowledge the evidence, claimed that they were not responsible, and once again, as they did in 2006 and 2007, gave assurance that they would respect Iraqi sovereignty. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government announced Sunday that it would conduct its own inquiry into accusations of Iranian intervention in Iraq and document any interference. Read the entire article. As to the quote in the last paragraph by the Iraqi National Security Advisor, Jules Crittenden gets to the heart of the matter: Bad news, Mr. al-Rubaie. Humiliating the Great Satan and driving the infidels out of Iraq is only Job One for Tehran. If you don’t care to be a province of Iran, then you do want to be at war with Iran, especially now when you have the United States around to do the heavy lifting. Meanwhile, officials in Karbala discovered a huge shipment of Iranian arms recently and are highly concerned with Iranian efforts to destabilize their city. This from Voices of Iraq. Karbala operations commander said on Saturday that Iranian intervention is disturbing the city's security. Read the entire article. (H/T Gateway Pundit) We tell the Iranians that the military option is "on the table." But three decades of playing cat-and-mouse with American power have emboldened Iran's rulers. We have played by their rules, and always came up second best. Read the entire article. Indeed, responding to Iran's acts of war in Iraq would go far to legitimizing in the theocrats eyes a threat of force on the much more existential issue of Iran's race towards a nuclear arsenal. Mere negotiations with Iran have proven less than fruitful as the theocracy has not acted in good faith. And indeed, this should be an abject lesson in the sophmoric position taken by Obama, that he would forego the threat of force in favor of negotiations with the Iranian regime.
The case for attacking Iran's Qods Force (see here and here) as a means to stop their proxy war and attempts to “Lebanize” Iraq is picking up ever greater evidentiary support as new revelations of Iranian arms shipments and training of militias using Hezbollah surrogates is making the news. This is no longer an “American” issue. It is now recognized by at all levels of Iraqi government and society as a major threat.
_____________________________________________________
The NYT reports today:
An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately.
The United States has long charged that the Iranians were training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran, which Iran has consistently denied, and there have been previous reports about Hezbollah operatives in Iraq.
But the Americans say the reports of Hezbollah’s role at the Iranian camp offer important details about Iranian assistance to the militias, . . .
Material from the interrogations was given to the Iraqi government, along with other data about captured Iranian arms, before it sent a delegation to Tehran last week to discuss allegations of Iranian aid to militia groups.
It is not known if the delegation confronted its Iranian hosts with the information, or how the Iranians responded. . . .
To continue from the NYT article.
. . . President Bush and other American officials, in public castigations of Iran, have said that Iran has been consistently meddlesome in Iraq and that the Iranians have long sought to arm and train Iraqi militias, which the American military has called “special groups.”
In a possible effort to be less obtrusive, it appears that Iran is now bringing small groups of Iraqi Shiite militants to camps in Iran, where they are taught how to do their own training, American officials say.
The militants then return to Iraq to teach comrades how to fire rockets and mortars, fight as snipers or assemble explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb made of Iranian components, according to American officials. The officials describe this approach as “training the trainers.”
The training, the Americans say, is carried out at several camps near Tehran that are overseen by the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command, and the instruction is carried out by militants from Hezbollah, which has long been supported by the Quds Force. . . .
. . . According to American officials, the four Shiite militants who provided the information on Hezbollah’s role were captured between last September and December after they had returned from training in Iran. They were questioned individually and provided similar accounts, the American officials said.
. . . An American official said that an Iraqi who facilitated the militiamen’s travel to Iraq was also captured and confessed that he had been paid by an Iranian. . . .
Other evidence of Iranian involvement that American officials have provided to Iraqi officials involves details of captured Iranian arms, like 81-millimeter mortars and 107-millimeter rockets that American officials say bear markings indicating that they were made this year. The weapons have a particular type of fuse and are painted in a way that American experts say is unique to Iran.
The Iraqi military also seized Iranian-made weapons with 2008 markings during their offensive last month in the southern port of Basra, according to American officials.
The reports of Iran’s training program and the discovered weapons caches are politically very significant. When Mr. Maliki visited Iran in August, the Iranians sought to reassure the Iraqis that they were not intervening in Iraq’s internal affairs.
The Bush administration, which has sought to draw attention to Iran’s support for militias, has cited the interrogation reports and evidence of recently made Iranian arms as an indication that the Iranian officials were not keeping their word.
“We don’t want to be at war with Iran, and we will not allow anyone to settle their scores with Iran on Iraqi soil,” Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Mr. Maliki, said Saturday in an interview. “But at the same time, we don’t want Iran to settle their scores with the United States on Iraqi soil.” . . .
He noted that huge quantities of Iranian made weapons were seized throughout different locations in the province.
"There is Iranian intervention, and an Iranian 'touch' in Karbala," Major General Ra'id Shaker Jawdat said in a press conference at Karbala operations command's building, after showing a large quantity of Iranian-made weapons.
"This touch is attributed to the presence of Iranian made weapons, especially roadside bombs," Jawdat said.
"Those weapons entered Karbala to destabilize security, but accurate intelligence tips enabled us to reach the weapons and confiscate them, in different places of the province," he added. . . .
Jawdat demonstrated the seized weapons: 400 roadside bombs – developed net type, 170 roadside bombs – adhesive type, 180 ignition circuits, 9 mortars, 2 Strella air-defense missiles, 4,000 AK-47s, 1300 kg of different explosive materials, 45 RPGs, 800 RPG missiles, 12 Katyusha missiles, 9,000 bullets, 4,000 different cannon and mortar shells, 700 different grenades, 150 anti-tanks roadside bombs, 700 roadside bombs – normal net type, 300 photocells for explosion purposes, 700 remote-control devices, 130 wireless triggers, and 400 different pistols.
Writing in the WSJ, Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami argues that it is past time to strike at Iran for the dual purpose of punishing their transgressions and to disabuse the theocrats of their firm belief, reinforced of the past thirty years, that they could do anything without the West responding:
Next door, in Iraq, Iranians played arsonists and firemen at the same time. They could fly under the radar, secure in the belief that the U.S., so deeply engaged there and in Afghanistan, would be reluctant to embark on another military engagement in the lands of Islam.
This is all part of a larger pattern. As Tehran has wreaked havoc on regional order and peace over the last three decades, the world has indulged it. . . .
Over the course of its three decades in power, this revolutionary regime has made its way in the world with relative ease. No "White Army" gathered to restore the lost dominion of the Pahlavis; the privileged classes and the beneficiaries of the old order made their way to Los Angeles and Paris, and infidel armies never showed up. Even in the face of great violation – the holding of American hostages for more than 400 days – the indulgence of outside powers held. . . .
. . . Many thought that the Iranian moderates would turn up in the fullness of time. In his inaugural speech, George H.W. Bush offered an olive branch to Iran's rulers: "Goodwill begets goodwill," he said. A decade later, in the typical Clintonian spirit of contrition and penance, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave Iran's rulers an outright apology for America's role in the coup that overthrew the nationalist leader Mohammad Mussadiq in 1953. The coup "was clearly a setback for Iran's political development," she said, part of a flawed American diplomacy that aided the Shah's government as it "brutally repressed political dissent."
But the clerics have had no interest in any bargain with the U.S. Khomeini and his successors have never trusted their society's ability to withstand the temptations of normal traffic with America. Furthermore, oil wealth granted Iran's rulers an exemption from the strictures of economic efficiency. They would pay the price of economic sanctions and deny their country the benefits of access to the American market, because their hold on political power trumped all other concerns.
At any rate, the market was forgiving. The European Union, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and China in later years, would supply Iran with all the technology and imports it needed. Oil revenues enabled the regime to defy the power of outsiders.
Tehran has never needed to remake itself into a warrior state. The skills of the bazaar and the ways of terror have seen it through. They could feud with the United Arab Emirates over small contested islands while turning Dubai into a veritable extension of the Iranian economy. They have been painfully good at probing the limits of tolerable conduct abroad. They have harassed Arab rulers while posing as status quo players at peace with the order of the region.
There were also proxies willing to do Tehran's bidding: Hezbollah in Lebanon, warlords and militias in Iraq, purveyors of terror for the hire. To be sure, there is enough American power in the region – and enough Arab resources – to balance that of Iran. But the Iranian state has had a feel for stepping back from the brink when it truly mattered.
The leaders who oversee the American project in Iraq now see Iran as the principal threat to our success there. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, a diplomat with a thorough knowledge of the region, has spoken of an Iranian attempt to "Lebanonize" Iraq – to subvert the country through the use of proxies.
In Iraq, the Iranians have been able to dial up the violence and dial it down, to make promises of cooperation to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki while supplying Shiite extremists with weapons and logistical support. "Lebanonization" may be an exaggerated fear, because Iraq is much larger and wealthier than Lebanon, and more jealous of its own sovereignty. But the low-level warfare against American soldiers by Shiite groups – aided and abetted by Iran – may be responsible for hundreds of American deaths.
The hope entertained a year or so ago, that Iran would refrain from playing with fire in Iraq, has shown to be wishful thinking. Iran's nuclear ambitions are of a wholly different magnitude. But before we tackle that Persian menace, the Iranian theocrats will have to be shown that there is a price for their transgressions.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Talking With Iran (Updated)
A delegation from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling bloc has gone to Iran to press Tehran to stop backing Shi'ite militiamen, a senior member of parliament from the bloc said on Thursday. Read the entire article. . . . Haider al-Adari, a Shiite legislator from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and a member of the delegation, said in an telephone interview from Iran that the trip was "very successful" because Iran agreed to cooperate on putting an end to weapons smuggling and the training of militant groups. But he said Iran did not admit to playing a role in fomenting the violence. Read the enitre article.
General Petraeus had scheduled a briefing for Monday to make public the scale of Iran's proxy war against Iraq's central government and U.S. forces. That briefing was put aside at the request of the Maliki government who, after viewing the facts of the proposed brief, has sent a delegation to Iran in what amounts to a last chance effort to cause Iran to cease and desist without the necessity of force.
___________________________________________________
Iran finds itself in a unique position. Its standard playbook for increasing its influence in a region through a combination of terrorism, money, and the building of local militias loyal to Iran, a playbook that worked so well in several places, chief among them Gaza and Lebanon, is running into a roadblock in Iraq. Part of the roadblock is, of course, the presence of a U.S. Army in Iraq, but the largest part at the moment is an Iraqi central government that, though still far from full strength, is rapidly gaining in respect and popularity in Iraq. Iran has spent years now attempting to Lebanize Iraq. But when Maliki attacked Basra and started political and military paths to end militia influence in Iraq, that marked a turning point. Iran will not succeed if events keep to their current path, with the only remaining question being whether force will be used to make Iran end its proxy war.
This from Reuters today:
"The UIA has decided to send a delegation to press the Iranian government to stop financing and supporting the armed groups," said Sami al-Askari, referring to the United Iraqi Alliance, which includes the main Shi'ite parties supporting Maliki. "They left yesterday for Iran."
Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, another senior UIA member of parliament, said the delegation was sent after the "serious deterioration that has recently taken place in security in Iraq".
"The delegation will ask the government of Iran to continue to support the government of Maliki and continue to support stability in Iraq," he said, although he would not confirm that it would raise the issue of Iranian support for militias.
U.S. officials have long accused Iran of supplying rockets, advanced roadside bombs and training to Shi'ite fighters in Iraq. Iran has denied supporting militias, which profess loyalty to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Iraq's Shi'ite-led government has said it wants good ties with Shi'ite Iran. Maliki launched a crackdown against Sadr's militia in late March that met fierce resistance from well-armed fighters, and he says he is determined to disarm them.
Major-General Qassim Moussawi, Iraqi spokesman for security in Baghdad, said at a news conference this week that Iraq had seized Iranian-made missiles and heavy weapons in the last four weeks in the capital.
U.S. officials say they have collected proof of Iranian weapons that have arrived recently in Iraq, but were holding off making a public display of their evidence so that Iraqis could make their case to Iran first.
"The Iraqis wish to first show what they have to the Iranian government before they show the world," an official travelling with U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.
"First and foremost, it's an attempt to say: 'Hey, listen: we know what you are up to. This is not helpful. Cut it out!'"
On Wednesday the Iraqi Defence Ministry said it had put on display weapons, including rocket launchers, seized from Shi'ite militia fighters in the southern city of Basra.
"Some of the weapons were manufactured in 2008, which means they are being smuggled in without difficulty," the statement quoted Lieutenant-General Mohan al-Furaiji, commander of Iraqi forces in southern Iraq, . . .
Update: The meeting with the Mullahs occured over the weekend. This from the Washington Post:
"They have denied everything," Adari said Saturday. "But we clearly expressed our concern to them."
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A Step Closer To A First Strike Against Iran
The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. The government of Iran continues to supply weapons and other support to extremists in Iraq, despite repeated promises to the contrary, and is increasingly complicit in the death of U.S. soldiers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday in a stark new assessment of Iranian influence. Read the entire article.
Iran is arming, training and funding a proxy war in Iraq with the goal of driving out the U.S. and "Lebanizing" Iraq. Recently I wrote a post, The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match, stressing that we need to conduct at least a limited attack on Iran and forecast that such a course of action was well into the planning stages. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Sec. of Defense raised the spectre of military operations against Iran and a Pentagon briefing on the degree of Iran's malign and deadly involvement in Iraq is planned for Monday. Iran's Qods force appears squarely in the crosshairs.
________________________________________________________
This from the Washington Post:
Read the entire article. The smoking gun question is pure leftist dissimulation nearing the degree of dislocation from reality displayed by 9-11 truthers. The Qods Force and IRGC report directly to Iran's Supreme Guide, Ali Khamenei. To suggest that Iran's proxy war in Iraq is occurring without the theocracy's knowledge and approval is simply ludicrous.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.
"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."
Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.
Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.
In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who was nominated this week to head all U.S. forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing soon on increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not," Mullen said. He said unrest in the Iraqi city of Basra had highlighted a "level of involvement" by Iran that had not been clear previously.
But while Mullen and Gates have said that the government in Tehran must know of Iranian actions in Iraq, Mullen said he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved. . . .
And the International Herald Tribune adds to the story:
The chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, said he was "extremely concerned" about "the increasingly lethal and malign influence" by the government of Iran and the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, a special force that aids and encourages Islamic militants around the world. The Quds Forces in Iran were created during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and report directly to the leadership of Iran's theocratic government.
Pentagon concerns about Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq is nothing new, but the content and tone of Mullen's remarks left the impression that far from abating, the worries about Iran have intensified in recent months.
"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago," Mullen said. "It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way."
The discovery of weapons caches in Iraq, with devices bearing stamps that indicate they were manufactured quite recently, run contrary to the Iranian promises not to interfere in Iraq, the admiral said. He conceded that he had "no smoking gun" to prove direct involvement by the very highest echelons in Tehran, but he said he found it hard to believe that all the top leaders were ignorant of recent developments.
The Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about Iran's apparently deepening involvement in Iraq that it plans a briefing in the near future by General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, to publicize the caches of weapons, some of which are believed to have been used against U.S. troops in the recent fighting in Basra, in southern Iraq. . . .
"I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability," Mullen said.
. . . Mullen acknowledged that the U.S. military was being stretched thin by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, he said, "it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability." As for Iranian motives, Mullen said he believed the leadership in Tehran hopes for a weak Iraq, so that Iran can increase its influence in the region.
. . . Mullen said Iranian influence in Iraq goes beyond shipment of weapons. "They continue to train Iraqis in Iran to come back and fight Americans and the coalition," he said. Reiterating earlier accusations, he asserted that Iranian leaders "continue to broadly support terrorists in other parts of the region," including the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.
"And in fact, we're seeing some evidence that they're supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen said.
It would seem likely that this is the first shot in the media war to prep the homefront and Iraq for an action against Iran. I would suspect that the trigger will not be pulled on even a limited attack on Iran until the U.S. is reasonably sure that it has the Mahdi Army elements under control, in particular in Baghdad. With operations ongoing to take control of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army and with both Petraeus and Odierno scheduled to appear before Congressional hearings prior to assuming their new commands, I would expect American raids on Iran, if they are to occur, to wait until the end of June. And I would imagine that if Iran strikes back, we will see a full scale attack on Iran's nuclear program.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Iran Fighting In Iraq For Self-Preservation
Those many pundits and politicians who have insisted on talking about “civil war” in Iraq imagined a sectarian clash, Sunni against Shi’ite, not the recent sort of conflict of radical Shi’ite militias against government troops and police. Meanwhile, on the other side of the sectarian divide, Sunni tribesmen banded together to defeat Sunni terrorists from al Qaeda in Anbar Province, again a seemingly counter-intuitive event. Sunnis and Shi’ites are fighting enemies of their own sects, not one another. What is one to make of it? Read the entire article.
Many people have argued that a secular, Shia dominated democracy on Iran's border presents the greatest threat to the theocracy. Michael Ledeen discusses why Iran feels it has little option but to wage a proxy war against the U.S. and the Iraqi democracy. Our soldiers are dying at Iranian hands. When will we respond?
________________________________________________________
This from Michael Ledeen at PJM:
A big clue to understanding this apparent mystery came a couple of weeks ago, when rockets were lobbed into the “Green Zone” in Baghdad, where many diplomats, intelligence officers and military leaders (including ours) live and work, along with key Iraqi Government personnel. General Petraeus quickly and explicitly blamed Iran for the attacks. “The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone… were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets…All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts.”
Similar remarks about the nefarious Iranian role in Iraq came from Petraeus’ former deputy, General Raymond Odierno, just two weeks ago in Washington. He wryly observed that Iranian President Ahmadinejad felt secure in Baghdad because the attacks there were under Iranian guidance and control.
The Shi’ite militias and al Qaeda in are also closely tied to Iran. Many of the news reports wrongly suggest that the Shi’ite insurgents are under the leadership of Moqtadah al Sadr, the son of a murdered leading cleric and for several years the chieftain of the private Mahdi Army, named after the Shi’ite Messiah. He and his troops were famously armed, paid and trained by Iran, and were as feared as al Qaeda, whose late leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, long operated out of Tehran and worked closely with Hezbollah’s late chief terrorist, Imad Mughniyah.
All this attention to Moqtadah is at odds with his actual behavior: he long since abandoned the battlefield. Missing from Iraq for many months, he recently resurfaced with the surprising announcement that he had gone to Iran to devote himself to religious. The Iranians had fired him, and they restructured the Mahdi Army into smaller, more autonomous groups. The recent violence came from the new units, headed by Iranian officers, agents, and recruits who, Tehran hoped, are not well known to Coalition and Iraqi military intelligence.
Iran, then, is the common denominator of recent events in Iraq: the mullahs organized the rocket attacks in Baghdad, they have supported al Qaeda in Iraq from the beginning, and they have a major role in the activities of the Shi’ite militias. It is going to be very difficult, indeed virtually impossible, to achieve durable security in Iraq without forcing an end to Iran’s many murderous activities there. That is the bottom line of the events of the past two weeks, and it is very good news that the Iranians were soundly defeated in several cities, from Basra to Baghdad. It is also good news to see that, once it was clear that their proxies were being decimated, they quickly cut and ran. That was evident from Moqtadah’s constant flip-flops in his propaganda on behalf of the mullahs. One day, he was proclaiming an extention of the cease-fire. A few days later, he was calling for armed “resistance.” Barely twenty-four hours afterwards, he was suing for peace. It was also evident from the Iranian regime’s urgent talks with the Iraqi government; Khamenei wanted to pose as a peacemaker, in his usual mafia method of first attacking, then offering security.
The current “peace agreement” is worthless; it will last only until the next time the mullahs feel strong enough to launch another assault. General Petraeus knows that, and he dramatically underlined his conviction that the mullahs will violate any agreement that would prevent new terrorist attacks. He is surely right; the survival of the Tehran regime is threatened by progress in Iraq towards greater tranquility and government accountability to its electorate. The mullahs know that the Iranian people want a free choice, and, if permitted to make that choice, would throw out the current regime in favor of a more tolerant government that would end its support for terrorism throughout the region. No offers from Secretary of State Rice, and no negotiations from this or any future president, can change those realities, and the mullahs are unlikely to honor any agreement that would constitute an admission of defeat in Iraq and threaten their hegemony in Iran. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
