On Meet The Press this morning, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) were interviewed about Iraq and Iran, having recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the former. Mr. Weldon’s first comments about the insurgency in Iraq were that the Iranians were behind it (and the Syrians, to a lesser degree). Tim let that one go and Senator Biden, by his silence, seemed to agree. But Rep. Weldon, to emphasize the point, said that all the top Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister al-Jaafari, told him so. Well either Weldon is lying or al-Jaafari is (or perhaps it’s just al-Jaafari’s English, as his Farsi's much better). In an earlier post I had described why the Shiite Iranians would be unlikely to be funding the Sunni Iraqis, but Russert could have (by reading the news this morning) asked Weldon why, if the Iraqis believe that Iran is behind the violence, was the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister in Iran today, describing Iran’s support for Iraq as "very important"? And why would the Iraqi leadership, most of whom who lived in Iran intermittingly during the Saddam years, welcome visiting Iranian officials to Baghdad with open arms? I found this exchange to be remarkable:
RUSSERT: Do you think we're in the last throes of the insurgency?
REP. WELDON: No, I don't. I think Iran is going to continue to escalate their building support so eventually, whatever government there takes hold is going to have to deal with Iran and eventually become a partner of Iran.
Sorry Congressman, Iraq is already dealing with Iran quite nicely, thank you. Partner? In that Iraq is a Shia dominated state with (stated) common interests with Iran, I'd say 'partner' is a pretty close description already. That the congressman, Tim Russert and Senator Biden would all be seemingly in the dark about Iran's very close and cordial relations with the Iraqi government is truly astounding.
Later in the show, the topic moved to Curt Weldon’s new book, "Countdown to Terror", and Russert was a tad tougher on the congressman. Or at least he gently suggested to Weldon, by reading from the American Prospect (which he identified as a left-wing paper, as if red or blue makes a difference to facts), that there may be some disagreement about the credibility of Weldon’s source for most of his information. Information that includes the fact that Osama bin Laden has been in Iran a few times (or is there now), that Iran is behind what will be the next terrorist attack on the U.S., and again, that Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq. Weldon’s only retort was to repeatedly bring up the fact that the CIA had written him a letter last year saying that if he had any more information from "Ali", his source, that he should inform them. Well, just because CIA officials’ letter-writing etiquette is good (must be all those Yale grads), doesn’t mean they are confirming Ali’s value. Would the Congressman have preferred that the CIA tell him to go take a hike? Perhaps they were actually just doing their job, indulging an amateur spy congressman while double-checking every bit of information coming in from Iran, no matter how dubious the source. When Russert brought up Manuchehr Ghorbanifar, another CIA-discredited source, Weldon’s response was that "the CIA created Ghorbanifar." Huh? What is that supposed to mean? As for Osama paying occasional visits to Iran, well, the congressman insisted that it’s true (seventy-four year old "Ali", living in a Paris apartment and suffering ill-health, and who undoubtedly is the best man for Iranian government officials to reveal state secrets to, must have told him), but he might not be entirely wrong. It is theoretically possible that bin Laden, ever on the run, has quietly slipped across the long border and back from either Pakistan or Afghanistan on an occasion or two. Something, I imagine, like what Mexican drug barons might do from time to time, undetected by either our Border Patrol or the FBI. But Russert might have asked the good congressman that if Iran were so hospitable to Al-Qaeda (Weldon claims that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is behind all this), then why wouldn’t he stay? 'Supreme', after all, is not used by the Iranians to flatter, and Ayatollah Khamenei could entertain bin Laden in his home, if he wished. Come to think of it, they’d probably get into a fight over how many times a day to pray (Shiites pray three times, Sunnis five), and Osama’s reaction to all those portraits of (saint) Ali and (saint) Hussein around the house might be as Superman’s to Kryptonite.
As for what to do about Iran’s nefarious activities, both Senator Biden and Congressman Weldon agreed that war should not be an option. Whew! Biden, who echoed Weldon’s claims that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, suggested talking to the Iranians (talking!), and Weldon suggested using Vladimir Putin of Russia to convince Iranians to change their behavior. Perhaps, Congressman, Putin has his own ideas about Iran and her alleged 'evil' behavior. Why not ask him?