Bomb, Bomb, Iran?

While most Americans (and the writers on and visitors to this site, as well as most of the media) remained largely focused on the race for the democratic nomination (and the subject of race within that race), a little war within a war erupted last week in Iraq, and then ended rather quickly in what many are calling a stalemate between rival Shia parties and militias. Said war in Basra ended, according to almost every reliable news source, because of Iranian intervention.

Iran, extremely close to all the Shia politicians and militia leaders in post-Saddam Iraq, brokered a cease-fire between Iraqi security forces and the Mahdi Army, headed by Moqtada al-Sadr, who is currently residing in Iran (commuting between Tehran and Qom to complete his religious studies at the seminaries there), and some reports have suggested that the commander of the Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Qasem Soleimani, a terrorist in charge of a terrorist organization by U.S. definition, and someone close to both Sadr and to SIIC (formerly SCIRI) leader Hakim (both of whom his organization supported during the Saddam era) played a, if not the, key role.

However, our man in Baghdad and the top-ranking U.S. civilian in Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, on Thursday this week claimed that he was "not aware of what role, if any, Iran had played in Sadr's decision" (to call for a cease-fire). Gee, that should make everyone feel good. From the Bush administration apparently being caught unaware of the impending clash, to John McCain's "surprise" at the intensity of it, and now to our ambassador unaware of how the fighting ended, the sheer incompetence of the administration (and those who supported the surge) in its Iraq adventure would be the stuff of comedy, were it not so tragic.

Now if Ambassador Crocker was merely lying because his government cannot bring itself to admit that a member of the "axis of evil", one that we do not talk to, can actually get the U.S. out of a jam of its own making, then that in itself is tragic not because of the lie but because it means lost opportunity after lost opportunity after lost American lives. If he's telling the truth and he was indeed "unaware" of Iranian involvement, then it's high time he retired, closed down the behemoth that is the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and wished the Iranians Godspeed and good luck in fixing the Iraq that we seem to have broken. Because, after all, it seems that they might be the only ones who can.

Comments

[BTJ]

The problem with bombing Iran now is that any bombing might hit members of al-Maliki's Iraqi government. In a moment that W called 'a defining moment for Iraq', a-Maliki's regime attacked Basra. The Iraqi troops didn't fare so well, panicked and deserted in good numbers, and finally al-Maliki was able to put a stop to a defeated offensive by having the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leadership intervene to broker a cease fire that left the situation in Basra much as it was before.
So I think it would be very difficult for W and company to try to wag this dog. And McCain is just delusional.

[iratior]

The upcoming Congressional hearings with General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker have the potentiality of being so embarrassing to the administration, I have to wonder if they'll be called off. I especially look forward to Crocker's saying on national television that he DIDN"T KNOW al-Maliki was going to launch an attack on the Mahdi army. There's got to be some serious attempts at censorship. Maybe television broadcasting will mysteriously develop technical difficulties, the way it did in the 1976 presidential debates, when Carter and Ford got on the subject of FBI abuses.

[neem]

I kinda get the feeling that all that uranium in Iran may someday cause some pain and suffering.

[mydogshakespeare]

Bush and Co. are almost on par with the comedian known as Bagdad Bob. Sadly, our expectations for leadership far exceeds "clowns in charge of the circus" and we can't do anything about it but complain.

[julieeiluj]

There is an excellent chance that you will see Iran bombed before Bush and Cheney leave.

[GnitenGoodLk]

...if they don't remove our troops before then, they will have exposed our troops to lethal fallout from bombed Iranian nuclear sites similar to Chernobyl. Bush, Cheney (& yes, McCain, who called for the bombing ages ago and has no intention of removing a single solider ever) aren't exactly pro-soldier or pro-active in their policies towards their well being when it counts. Alotta rhetoric, not alot of $$ and policy support otherwise. This will make Gulf War syndrome look like a mild case of the flu.

[jimrs]

Interesting that most of the comments seem to be made by americans who still assume that they have a right to dictate how people in other countries should live.
We are not dealing realistically with our own homegrown problems & we want the world to take orders from us. Brilliant....

[MagisterLudi]

Shah was supported by U.S, granted. But overthrowing the Shah did not have to end in a state of war with U.S.

Carter was a wimp and soft touch, so Ayatollah CHOSE confrontation.

Ayatollah CHOSE to take U.S. diplomats hostages for almost 2 years and parade them blind folded in front of cameras like cattle forcing the crisis with U.S.

Think about it logically, if you can.

[Necron99]

Nice ad hom, so nice, you had to post it twice.

This is why I don't bother to have discussions with people on these boards.

(& not to say I'm not guilty of the same thing--though I made no attack on you here).

Anytime you want to have a discussion, ping me, you want to throw stones--go play with a republican.

[MajorKong]

Yes, and we helped Saddam Hussein kill close to a million Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention shooting down an unarmed Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace.

I would say that the Iranian hostage crisis, bad as it was, is pretty mild in comparison.

[mydogshakespeare]

Actually, "almost 2 years" is an exaggeration. 444 days = 1.216 years, which is only about 2 1/2 months longer than one year.

Just a point in fact... think about it logically, if you can, before you post.

[December7]

Moqtada al-Sadr is a crucial leader in Iraq and America cannot afford to ignore him. America needs to stare truth in the face and say yes, this guy will not be ruling America, but he may hold a crucial key to some peaceful transition in that country, when we drop labels like "evil", enemies etc

[Jonahson]

How did US get themselves into this mess with countries half way round the world?

[SickOfAllTheBS]

Only Iraqis can and should fix Iraq

[ApolloSpeaks]

FIXING THE MULLAHS

The mullahs want American forces out of Iraq and the Middle East because they are an impediment to their mad, dangerous regional ambitions stated in article 11 of the Iranian constitution as the "unification of Islam" under their rule. As long as American troops are in Iraq acting as a buffer to Iran's imperial designs the messianic mullahs will be the major cause of Iraq's destabilizing violence -violence that has massively killed tens and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of US troops. In other words, a stable, secure free Iraq is inseparable from the destruction of the mullahs.

OUT OF IRAQ AND INTO IRAN

There is no better way.

[Durango]

Your point is frankly: Insane.

Just what we need in the region. More bloodshed. Brilliant strategy. Lets make sure more of our troops get killed in Iraq by inciting the one power that seems to have influence there. Influence on our PUPPET Government!

The only way we will ever get out of Iraq without a complete and utter fiasco is by making some sort of accommodation with Iran. They, after all, hold ALL the high cards. Thanks to the stupidity of Cheney/Bush.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Insane compared to what? An accomadation with Iran? This is sensible strategic thinking? Like Chamberlain's accomodation with Hitler. That emboldened Hitler to overplay his hand and the world was plunged into the most horrific war in history with 50 million dead. Imagine Hitler with the bomb and you've got the Islamonazis of Iran. Try appeasement as you may, you can never satisfy a beast with a bottomless belly.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Insane compared to what? An accomadation with Iran? This is sensible strategic thinking? Like Chamberlain's accomodation with Hitler. That emboldened Hitler to overplay his hand and the world was plunged into the most horrific war in history with 50 million dead. Imagine Hitler with the bomb and you've got the terrormasters of Iran. Try appeasement as you may, a beast with a bottomless belly will never be satisfied

[Duncan77]

Is that you Cheney?

[Rog49Thomas]

This is the text of Article 11 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 11

In accordance with the sacred verse of the Qur'an ("This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" [21:92]), all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples, and it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.

This hardly looks like a plan to dominate the world - Islamic or otherwise.

[ApolloSpeaks]

The political, economic and cultural unity of the diverse and divided Islamic world can only be achieved by the application of brutal force. Don't take my word for it look at 1400 years of Moslem experience and the rise and fall of Islamic empires; or better still look at what Iran is doing in Lebanon using its murdering ally Hezbollah. Even better look how the mullahs rule over their country; their oppressive crushing theocracy is their politico-religious model for the world.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Iran's crushing, brutal, oppressive theocracy is the mullahs' model of government for Islam and the world.

[MajorKong]

You go first. Let me know how it works out.

[Rog49Thomas]

Life sometimes mirrors fiction.

It wasn't precisely 3AM but my bedroom phone was ringing nonetheless.

Always at the ready (in fact from Day 1!), I answered. It was one of my "fishing" buddies from the Gulf.

He told me that the banner headline in one of the major newspapers in Bahrain (Akhbar al Khalij) was "American Attack on Iran Imminent". Article claimed that intelligence agencies and strategic analysts had told the paper that the USA would soon launch a surprise attack -- a continuous 12 hour aerial bombardment to destroy Iranian military infrastructure.. And that Cheney's recent visit had been to advise our clients in the area to be prepared.

Of course, just because something is in the press, doesn't make it the gospel. I remember reading about aluminum tubes in the NYT.

Akhbar is pro-government, (Bahrain) though not always pro-American.

www.akhbar-alkhaleej.com

[MagisterLudi]

To let Iran "fix things" in Iraq would be a disaster of monumental proportions for Iraqis.
It would be even worse than "help" that Syria extended to Lebanon. Poor Lebanese have been paying the price for letting in the foreign Syrian invaders ever since.
Just imagine what model the highly oppressive, radical Islamicist Iranian would provide for Iraqi struggling state: burkas for everyone and the evil Iraqis who listen to rock will have to hang a piss-pot around their necks. Hey, it works in Iran. Nice people these religious freaks.

[Rog49Thomas]

As a historical footnote, the US granted Syria a free hand in Lebanon in return for support in Gulf War 1.

Also Syrian troops did restore peace in the country after some rather bitter fighting. They came in under an Arab League mandate.

Problem is they overstayed their usefulness and welcome.

Do you suppose there's a Syrian equivalent of McCrazy who wants to stay there 100 years?

[Durango]

As I recall Syria ended a bloody and apparently endless Civil War.

Do you remember the situation there? Car bombs, chaos, kidnappings. Nobody safe. The Civil War exploited by criminal gangs who used terror as a business opportunity.
In other words: It was practice for the occupation of Iraq. The difference being the thousands of tons of ams and ammunition left to be looted by Rumsfeld's incompetence.

I believe most Lebanese were more than happy to see Syria intervene (no matter what they say now).

Like Rog says: they overstayed their welcome. Which goes to show. When you invade other countries the only smart thing is to get in and get out ASAP>

[MagisterLudi]

Rog49Thomas, Thank you for an informed comment.

History shows that stronger country almost always overstay their welcome in weaker countries. Sometimes they never leave.

Once Iranians become entrenched in Iraq they will not leave, ever.

Just as Syria has no intention of leave the rich but defenseless Lebanon.
Ironically,the enemy Israel helped also by evicting PLO.

Lebanon is paying a high price for the peace: loss of the southern province to Syrian puppet Hezbollah and continued state of war with Israel because Syria wants it.

Iraq will suffer similar fate if Iran gains Syrian-like domination in Iraq.

Iranian help should accepted BUT ONLY in diplomatically and trade relationships.
NO Iranian troops or intelligence services,
NO para military training of Shiites in Iran,
NO Iranian weapon networks,
NO Iranian mullahs and madrassahs in Iraq.

Otherwise: Hezbollization of Iraq will occur and Iraq will cease to exist.

[RumiSouth]

I think you missed the point: Iran may be "fixing" things in Iraq without America even having a clue what's going on. We've lost control, and Iran is the winner.

[hank48188]

Too bad we took Saddam out, we should never have let the Shites take over Iraq. Things would be differerent in the region if Jimmy Carter would have supported the Shah. We let the religious nuts take over and take Americans Hostage for 444 days without doing anything about it. We should have been bombing Iran in 1979 but we had a weak and ineffective President, having Obama would be even worse, he doesn't have a clue about anything.

[Leskenoi]

Your thinking is anything but logical, or very well informed. Like so many Americans who presume they "know" about Iran, your stereotypes bear little relation to the complexity of that society. In fact, your cartoonish images of Iran, "burkas for everyone and the evil Iraqis who listen to rock will have to hang a piss-pot around their necks," sound more like they would apply to the sworn enemies of Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, than they would to Iran, which is full of rock fans (there are many, many Iranian rock bands, including punk rock bands), and you would know that, while there are regions in Iran where you would see women wearing the chadoor (it's called the "chadoor" in Persian, you ignoramus, not the "burka"), there are also many fashionable women in Tehran, for instance, who wear only the slightest of colorful scarves to comply with religious law, and wear very form fitting clothing that reveals far more than it conceals, and would be fashionable on the streets of Manhattan.

To get an idea of a culture you seem to rely on official propaganda and Fox News for your thinking, about, try checking out the following video, made by someone who took a trip to Tehran recently, and maybe you will be disabused of some of your cartoonish, Bushistic "axis of evil" misconceptions:

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

[Rog49Thomas]

Very simple.

To admit the Iranian Government did something that benefited the USA or the Iraqi people is very dangerous.

Like saying somethiing nice about Ahriman, it undermines the entire theology.

[MagisterLudi]

Iran is self-admitted American enemy. Khomeini CHOSE U.S. and the West as the enemy.
It's only natural of enemies to be suspicious of each other.
Certainly, Iranian Supreme Leader will never admit that US has a positive role anywhere in the world.
Same is true for US government. I see nothing unusual about this.

[Necron99]

"Khomeini CHOSE U.S. and the West as the enemy"

Let's see...who did Khomeini take over from?

That would be the Shah. Who 'elected' the Shah to run Iran?

Oh yeah, the CIA.

Now...who 'chose' who to be enemies with?

Google 'blowback'

[terramartom]

Just put the first born son or daughter of every single spineless brown nosed Congressman, and Senator, the greedy arrogant "Chicken Hawk "Vice President Cheney and the most ignorant person to ever hold the office of the President "Bush the Coward" who voted to go to war , put their own children in Irac to fight on the front lines of battle and the war would come to and end tomorrow! Regardless of "Democracy", oil or religion.

[Rog49Thomas]

How unfair of you considering the many sacrifices that Republicans have made for our country.

When Mitt Romney was running in the Iowa primary, someone asked him why his sons weren't in Iraq. He replied they were doing their national service in his campaign. I think one of his boys still has the flashbacks of the flashbulbs popping in his face.

Later he broke down crying because he imagined that one of his sons was killed in Iraq. I know that Mitt is a true patriot and probably would be willing to imagine all five of his sons killed in Iraq - painful though that might be.

How many defeatist liberals and other loony leftists would be willing to make such a sacrifice for our country?

And you thought the five Sullivan Brothers exemplified national service?

[habajebe]

Good one, Rog.

[scooperss]

Heh Good snark.

[SeriousBlack]

I've thought for a long time that it should work that way - before American troops are committed to fight on foreign soil, the congress would need to pass a binding resolution that on the very next day after the President "pulls the trigger" (starts hostilities), all sons and daughters of every single congressperson, senator, member of the cabinet, vice-president and president who are physically qualified and between the ages of 18 and 35, shall report for combat infantry training. No exceptions or deferments of any kind.

THEN we'd see how many unnecessary wars we ever get into again.