Guardian: Iran Pulling The Insurgent Strings In Iraq
Iran has decided to increase the pace and scope of attacks from insurgent groups they control and influence in Iraq over the summer. The mullahs aim to leverage the discontent of the Democrats in Congress to force an American withdrawal by the end of September:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say."Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.
So why are we hearing about this in the Guardian, rather than the Washington Post? After all, the sources here are American commanders on the ground in Iraq. The Guardian opposes the Iraq war, so they're not exactly philosophically inclined to promote the ties between Iran and the insurgencies in Iraq.
In a rational world, this would pressure the war's opponents to explain again how abandoning Iraq to the Iranians improves our security. The Iranians are up to their necks in the insurgencies, hoping to drive us out of the Middle East. The rush to accommodate them would render them ascendant over the region, especially if they complete their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. No other nation could counterbalance them.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on May 21, 2007 8:59 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (16)
Posted by alphie | May 21, 2007 10:23 PM
"According to U.S. sources..."
Posted by Sean Hackbarth | May 21, 2007 10:35 PM
I thought Sunnis and Shia never got along. At least that's what the Bush-bashing anti-war crowd told me.
Posted by Ted Laskaris | May 21, 2007 10:56 PM
The Guardian,being on the left and against the war, wants to highlight the perceived impasse the Coalition forces have reached in a rather classic I-told-you-so news story. That's why we'll be hearing more of the same from this esteemed source in the weeks to come.
As for Iran etc, it is obvious that the US will need to escalate at some point if it really wants to counter the widespread Iranian involvement. With Congress up in arms, this may be more difficult than before. The surge has unfortunately the strength of an aspirin or it is akin to the proverbial bucket with which to douse the forest fire. Other options must be necessarily tabled. All of them are unpalatable and dangerous. Iran enjoys key strategic advanatages -- geography, fanaticism, plenty of bodies, and an intelligence network few, if any, can beat.
We're entering an even deeper tunnel.
Posted by starfleet_dude | May 21, 2007 10:59 PM
Considering how it was some of the more extreme Sadrists who torched the Iranian consulate in Basra, the idea that Iran somehow controls events in Iraq doesn't seem at all plausible. The Sunni insurgency and Sadr's Mahdi Army are not proxies of Iran, and certainly don't take orders from them.
Posted by bayam | May 22, 2007 12:15 AM
Captain,
I don't know that Americans opposed to the war- a majority of them- believe that withdrawing from Iraq would make our country any safer. I think it's more accurate to say that a majority of Americans don't believe in our current course of action and have lost faith in the ability of this government to successfully prosecute the war. In my opinion, the only desirable outcome in Iraq involves the rise of a secular dicatorship, like Saddam's, that can keep the country together and kill off the religious extremists and al Qaeda who have turned Iraq into a profit center, funding source, and training arena for terrorism worldwide.
Indefiinitely propping up the current joke of a government is no real solution. My hope is that Bush can reach a multi-year timetable with the Democrats on an Iraq pull out. A sudden withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would lead to total chaos, if that's even preventable at this point.
Posted by Bill Faith | May 22, 2007 12:36 AM
For all of his flaws in other area's, McCain's still right on one subject. "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran ..."
I excerpted and linked.
Posted by Tom Shipley | May 22, 2007 7:02 AM
In a rational world, we wouldn't have had an administration who went to war on a false premise, built on incorrect evidence that was being internally questioned (just not by the right people).
We also would have had a press corps who didn't go lock step with the sales job.
So, Cap'n, don't talk to the anit-war crowd about rational worlds.
But, as I said before, we need to start pulling out in order for Iraqis to come together as a country... or, yes fall apart as a country. There's never going to be a time when it's completely "safe" for the US to start withdrawing troops. But a 2-year withdraw plan will set political and military action at a greater pace.
And to be honest, if Iran is successfull in influencing Iraqi politics through the insurgency, the only way to stop that is to eitehr talk to Iran or fight Iran. Our current course will do nothing to stop Iran's influence, and is probably increasing it.
It we start leaving, we may take away the very reason Iraqis are working with Iranians. Take away a common enemy and former enemies may go back to being just that.
And if they don't? What are we really going to do about it? That can of worms was opened when we took out Saddam. We can't control the will of the Iraqi people.
Posted by MarkJ | May 22, 2007 7:21 AM
"Indefiinitely propping up the current joke of a government is no real solution. My hope is that Bush can reach a multi-year timetable with the Democrats on an Iraq pull out. A sudden withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would lead to total chaos, if that's even preventable at this point."
Pretty words, bayam. And then what?
And how is the current Iraqi government a "joke"," especially compared to what existed before it?
Tom Shipley:
Here's my take on your comments:
Q: Why did we have to invade Iraq in 2003?
A: So we wouldn't have had to nuke it in 2005.
And how was the war conducted on a "false premise?" If you get into your Wayback Machine, you'll quickly discover that WMD's were only one of several perfectly justifiable reasons for taking action against Saddam and his criminal regime. Need I remind you that the UN wasn't either willing or unable to back up its own resolutions against Saddam, so WE enforced them.
Capisce, paisan?
Posted by DaleinAtlanta | May 22, 2007 7:30 AM
I read this so-called "piece of analysis" last night, as soon as it hit Drudge!
As a former Marine Intel Officer, who's been to Iraq, and who has studied the Jihadis and Shias for almost 30 years now, there is so much WRONG with this piece, I don't even have the time nor the patience to tear it apart right now.
Anyone who knows me on this board, knows I'm unabashedly Pro-Iraq War, Pro-GWOT, Pro-attacking Iran, Pro-wiping out the Jihadis as we pursue them to the ends of the earth!
So, don't misunderstand my comments, as coming from a Leftist/Anti-war type; I'm anything but!
But this "pieces", is frankly Bogus!
Posted by Tom Shipley | May 22, 2007 7:35 AM
MarkJ... the reason we went to war was WMDs. Without that threat, there wouldn't have been an invasion.
The false premise was that Saddam Hussein was a growing and gathering threat – and immediate threat – to the United States of America that needed an immediate invasion to counter.
There are many instances of the administration giving the public false information to bolster this claim. Most notably, Colin Powell’s UN speech. Powell himself has said this speech has damaged his reputation:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092
Even if Hussein did have WMDs, I was still never convinced that an invasion was necessary because we did have him “boxed in.” We did have inspectors in the country. The situation with Iraq at the time was not perfect, but I also don’t think it warranted an invasion. And with all that has been discovered or not discovered since, I think my belief was well-founded.
We were also told that the post-invasion situation would be favorable to a pro-American democracy springing forth:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein had a deliberate strategy, a deliberate calculated plan, not to have the big battle of Baghdad but rather to dissolve away into the mainstream population and then mount this guerrilla war?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
In the end, this is the false premise:
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
“VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?”
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
Posted by Tom Shipley | May 22, 2007 8:00 AM
These two statements are particularly striking:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein had a deliberate strategy, a deliberate calculated plan, not to have the big battle of Baghdad but rather to dissolve away into the mainstream population and then mount this guerrilla war?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
In light of this...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20051013/index.htm
Posted by NoDonkey | May 22, 2007 9:45 AM
Sounds like the Iranians are coordinating their efforts with our own absolutely worthless Democrat Party.
So how often do the Mullahs have a telecon with al-Pelosi and al-Reid?
Once again, the Democrat Party is a lickspittle chambermaid for anti-American tyrants, dictators and psychopaths the world over.
Posted by Joe Helgerson | May 22, 2007 1:48 PM
Nodonkey, you can't just stop taking your meds cold turkey like that. Sorry fella, but americans put Reid and Pelosi in power and your just gonna have to suck it up. What a farce of a story the Guardian threw out there. Only the Iraqis can save their country, we can't. The realist in this country (dem and repub) know this, only the kool-aid drinkers like nd deny reality. Bush totally f'd up by invading Iraq, he's destroyed the gop and is a fool. The neo-con revolution is OVER, Wolfowitz won't be the last one to go.
Posted by A Newt One | May 22, 2007 4:39 PM
The anti-war crybabies have driven down public support for the mission to the point that I am not at all confident that the Iranian strategy wouldn't work...if we didn't have such a strong C in C. War with Iran is inevitable.
Posted by kevin | May 22, 2007 4:59 PM
Tom Shipley,
Your lovingly prepared, multi-comment, copy and pasted arguments regarding WMD are completely, totally, and irrevocably irrelevant.
We are there NOW. Al Qaeda is there NOW.
This is not about delegitimizing the war and attacking George Bush. This is about fighting and winning. To hell with DhimmiCrats picking up a couple of extra seats.
Please don't inconvenience electrons by continuing to post this stuff. I care less than the electrons do about your WMD cut and paste, which I just skipped over.
Posted by Tom Shipley | May 23, 2007 7:46 AM
Kevin, I was asked to back up my claim that the war in Iraq was based on a false premise. Thus, it is relevant.
I've posted it twice, both times in response to people asking me to back up my claim that the war was based on a false premise.
BOTH times, the person who asked me to back up that claim has not responded to my post. I think that's rather telling.
And, yes, feel free to skip the post. Certainly your right. But I've posted my opinion on the current state of Iraq and what I think we should do there MANY times on here. don't try and act like I'm just attacking the cause of the war and not dealing with the present. Though, I would argue that we're in the situation we are in today in large part because the war was based on a false premise.