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

[DeJaVu57]

In late 2002 Dumbya declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the axis of evil in his State Of The Union address. Then we invaded Iraq in early 2003. If you had just witnessed your next door neighbor being illegally, immorally invaded and destroyed ,might you think you could be next? You were mentioned as just as evil? Would you think the best deterrent to the U.S. doing this to your Country could be to acquire a nuclear bomb as your best defense against that attack? Might you think that if Iraq had a nuclear bomb the U.S. would have never invaded it.

That speech was one of the most irresponsible, stupid, counter-productive speech any American President has ever made. It ranks right up there with Dumbya's "Bring It On" comment to the Iraq Sunni insurgents. And of course they brought it on. To our unprotected (vehicles and body armor) troops that Bush claims he supports so much.

Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57

[MagisterLudi]

Here's are some complex propositions/facts to consider,DeJaVu:

1. Bush/Cheney are war mongering but ineffective idiots.
2. Iran is understandably threatened and trying to feverishly build nuclear weapons.
3. Iran is virulently anti-liberal, anti-democratic repressive regime.
4. Iranians are decent and intelligent people.
5. Iran is a terrorist state sponsoring multiple terrorist networks all over the world.
6. Iran needs to be contained and isolated: economically, militarily and ideologically.
7. There is no need to fight Iran, they will fall of their own backwardness ( eventually).
8. We should talk and negotiate with Iran on many issues.

For those who are not mentally agile these propositions seem to mutually exclusive: they are not.
This is what intelligent Western and Muslim governments are doing about Iran.

[DeJaVu57]

RETIREMENT OF ADMIRAL FALLON


Another top brass Military person bites the dust for disagreeing with Bush. How many have been let go now just for disagreeing with the Decider. Could something be cooking regarding Iran? Any strike against Iran would need the O.K. from Congress first. Congress declares War, not the President. If done without Congressional approval ,it violates the Constitution (Again.)Th­e beating of the War drums reminds me of the way the drums were beat in the run up to invading Iraq. First You demonize the leader, then You exaggerate any threat.

My fear is that Bu$hCo will manufacture a phony incident, thus giving him an excuse for by-passing Congress. It's time to end our nations "Long National Nightmare" of Bu$hCo and his deranged vision of his "New Middle East!" His nation building experiment has borne its bitter fruit. Deferment Dick and his big oil buddies have no limit to their greed. The New Iraqi Government needs their oil revenues to re-build what a five year American Military invasion and occupation has destroyed. As an American, I'm ashamed to learn that the Big Four Oil Giants will get 80% of Iraqi oil profits for the next thirty years.

I always thought that if we could only learn who was in attendance during Darth's closed door Energy Task Force Meetings in 2001, we just might learn volumes about our REAL Middle East Foreign Policy, and why we REALLY invaded Iraq.

Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57

[cj124]

has the hydrocarbon law passed, i thought it was held up in iraq's government?

[dshwa]

It is. There's only two things that the Shia and Sunni agree on wholeheartedly - They want the U.S. to withdraw (by about 80-90% in favor) and they're not going to sign over their oil to the U.S./Britt­ish oil companies by passing the hydrocarbon law.

[Siryn]

It's not a matter of "helping us out," depending on your point of view. It would be helping itself, by getting its hooks into the Iraqi government and the potential power that comes with it. While it has a side effect of relieving the short term pressure on the US and the US-supported Shia, it is not for our benefit.

Cooling the intra-Shia crisis may solve one problem, but breed others.

There are no easy answers, and no easy way out of this quagmire.

[MagisterLudi]

Yes there is an easy solution: a SECULAR dictator using Syrian or Pakistani model. One strongman putting down all resistance and restoring civil order: a neo-Hussein but a little more intelligent. There is no other viable option. If the chaos continues Iran will step in and simply rule by proxy with their Sadr puppet.

[Leskenoi]

Oh, OK, now we see your "reasonable" solution: support a secular dictatorship, like the Shah of Iran. That worked so well for us in the past. And our support for Musharraf in Pakistan has been such an oustanding success, as well.

In fact, your suggestion is to continue the long, sorry history of U.S. support for dictatorships and "authoritarian" regimes (to use Jean Kirkpatrick's distinction without a difference between "authoritarian" and "terrorist" regime) that has led this country to be reviled around the world, justifiably so.

"Logic" like yours has led this country to be the biggest promoter of state terrorism around the world. There is nothing democratic about our foreign policy for the last 60 years, and despite the lipservice of neoconservatives to "exporting democracy" at the barrel of a gun, the kind of foreign policy "realism" you seem to espouse has been an unmitigated disaster that has set democratization back decades in areas of the world we profess to be promoting it. We destabilized democratic governments, beginning with the coup against Mossadegh in Iran that installed the Shah there, around the world.

[iratior]

Here's what I think REALLY happened. First, the Bush administration decided that Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army were inconveniences that ought to be eliminated. Cheney's recent trip to Iraq was to give al-Maliki the go-ahead. Al-Maliki started the attack, but it didn't go nearly so well as was expected. Just as the Bush administration miscalculated on the troops needed to occupy Iraq, it also miscalculated the troops needed to support this operation. Having thus erred grossly, the only way out was to pretend that they didn't know al-Maliki was going to conduct the operation. Who are they kidding? Al-Maliki conducted the operation without consulting with the U.S. about it? He isn't that stupid.

[wiseapple]

I agree whole-heartedly. The Cheney trip to the Middle East most probably centered on telling Maliki to strike Basra since Sadr wasn't there. The attack, a testing ground for the new Irai troops, has Cheney's MO. I don't see Maliki capable of making such an agressive move against fellow Shia.

[scooperss]

And I doubt it's a coincidence that Basra has so much oil.

[Phaedrus21]

To be honest, Bush just not having any idea what was going on seems more consistent with past behavior.

[PhoenixtheUndying]

So the point is our government's full of idiots.

[wiseapple]

The Executive Branch most assuredly!

[BillCarson]

Come November, the decision will be pretty simple.

If you think the answer is to bomb Iran, then vote for McCain. If you think the answer is to work with Iran, vote for Obama.

[syllepsis]

. Our Occupation of Iraq is justly called surreal- We are expending blood, and astronomical amounts of treasure, to create the illusion that Iraq is to be our client state, and not someone else's.

[midwestvoter]

How can Bush and McBombIran­/Lieberman sell the sheep a war with Iran if the sheep find out Iran is actually helping stop the violence? They are planning to nuke Iran, facts be damned.

[PubeSurfer]

"(yap yap yap)...McB­ombIran/Li­eberman ...(yap yap yap)" Thanks for that. You and your kind (the terminally lame) provide some good snickers here.

[cj124]

wow, that's intelligent

[scooperss]

And you provide nothing.

[nyboomer]

Bush is prepared the ultimate sacrifice of thousands of dead US soldiers in an effort to avoid admission of error. As David Brooks pointed out, the administration agreed internally that it must never admit an error of any sort. That may be the only agreement it has lived up to.

[SamThornton]

Moqtada al-Sadr has called for a million-strong demonstration against US occupation next week. Whether this will prove to be the spark for renewed attacks against US forces or not, it signals a new phase in the conflict that refuses to fit into Bush Administration cheeriness about the success of their efforts.

Worst case for Bush, the demonstrations morph into a popular uprising. The obvious face-saving spin for Bush will be that it's all inspired by those evil Iranians. Will his "solution" be air strikes in Iran? Stay tuned.

[brutus948]

nice post. I thought it was pretty amazing that within 24 hours of that meeting in tehran the violance stopped. Only if US has that much power in Iraq. We need to get out of there and let them duke it out. T

[FullChat]

The entire Bush administration continues to be unaware of reality.
Impeach, then
DeBushification!!

[BoilThemInTheirOil]

DeBushification: I like it! Is that similar to public DisemBushing? In any case, these monsters need to face the music. Hopefully "reality" will be a courtroom in the Hague.

[desmirl]

Our government lies to us every day, every hour, every minute, because it's not a goverment of the people and by the people, it is a government of the corporate interests and by the mililtary/­industrial complex. A Republic is a great idea--until it becomes a ham-fisted oligarchy.

[peterg76]

Lying, denial, and rejection of reality would not be surprising. Nor would ideological recklessness or psychosis.

[MagisterLudi]

You're talking about Iranians of course, Peter.