Sunday, April 06, 2008
Smoking turbans: Evidence of Iran in Basra
Via Glenn Reynolds, the Times of London is reporting that Iranians on the ground in Basra directed operations against the Maliki government and the United States in the recent fighting there, and that General David Petraeus is going to cite it in his forthcoming Congressional testimony. Glenn suggests that this is "[a]nother thing that Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to hear about, I suspect," which is manifestly true. However, she did predict it last week in her preparation of the media battlespace, no doubt as part of her broader effort to destroy the interest of the media in the substance of the general's testimony:
Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”
It is not risky to speculate that Pelosi had some advance notice of the general's most persuasive arguments for staying the course. In any case, she seems to have missed the point: If the Iranians have put this much skin in the Basra game, surely they would not have "dictated" a ceasefire if they were not worried about the outcome.
The real question is how the surrender branch of the Democratic party (is it really only a branch?) will persuade American voters that they can both retreat in the face of a direct military confrontation with Iran -- of all countries -- and nevertheless be relied upon to defend and assert the national interest of the United States.
15 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Apr 06, 04:34:00 PM:
"...assert the national interest of the United States."
That's not the goal. The very concept of sovereign nations is under attack from one-worlders.
In 1992 former Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston wrote a book called "The Twilight of Sovereignty." The title says it all.
By 
, at
Sun Apr 06, 06:04:00 PM:
i believe this latest action by iran will serve as a casus belli for putting a naval blockade on iran. they will do something rash, and then the trap will close. the recent dumping of adm. fallon is part of this, i believe.
By , at
Sun Apr 06, 09:07:00 PM:
Oh, I don't see anything as apocryphal or Act of War-like such as blockade by the US (that might up the price of oil worldwide), but frankly the Sunni majority countries of the Arab Penisula have got to be sweating this one out.
If the US withdraws from Iraq TOTALLY and leaves Iraq to the gentle devices of Iran and their Qods Force (a likely outcome if Mr. Obama is elected come November), Iraq soon will be subverted to an Iranian vassal state, a real Civil War would break out in Iraq, and most of the Gulf States might immediately go to a war footing.
If this were cleverly played, the US could get them all to up the oil production and drop the worldwide price as a condition for us remaining in the region.
Cleverly played? Nancy Pelosi and her party of nitwits? Sometimes I even amuse myself.
-David
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Apr 06, 10:12:00 PM:
The problem I see is that the far-left portion of the Dem party sees absolutely nothing wrong or undesirable about abandoning an ally in the middle of their fight for survival against a terrorist enemy, and seem clueless about the chain of events that they would put in place.
Oh, and cjm? There is almost nothing that Iran could possibly do that would make the Left consider it a threat enough to call it a caus belli, with the possible exception of nuking the New York Times.
By Noumenon, at
Mon Apr 07, 12:58:00 AM:
I'm pretty sure the left doesn't regard Maliki's action as being in the national interest of the United States. They think he's just another militia and if he were strong enough to stop the fighting, they'd support him, but if not, they won't. Of course they're not doing anything to help him. You may be right, the antipathy to the war effort might come first and the effort to recast the government as an arm of the Badr/ISCI militia might follow that. I know I had a gut sympathetic pro-Sadr reaction before I stepped back and asked whose side I should be on, and I don't know where that came from.
Once you recast Basra as militia-vs-militia and not US-vs-Sadr then Iran's involvement won't bother you, since they're not actually fighting against Americans. I don't think the U.S. has any more right than Iran to be in Iraq supporting various militias, so I don't really care about that as long as no extra Americans get killed.
Also, if Petraeus is really planning to say "we can't leave Iraq because Iran is fighting us there" like the Times article says, that is bullshit. He is so obviously filling in an argument of the form "we can't leave Iraq because X", whether or not X has anything to do with our original goals and whether or not our staying there will actually improve X. How come before a war, saying "Iran will get involved and fight us too" would be a reason against invading, but after we're there, it somehow becomes a reason we should stay?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 07, 07:34:00 AM:
Noumenon -
There might be a nit or two to pick in your comment.
The idea that the army of Iraq is just another militia is a political fiction, starting with the part about the Miliki government actually having been elected in a monitored process. There are all sorts of tribes and sects in that Army, and while the exercise has not been defection-free Iraq's army today is far more "national" in its composition than it was under Saddam.
I don't think the U.S. has any more right than Iran to be in Iraq supporting various militias, so I don't really care about that as long as no extra Americans get killed.
Are you American? If not, an understandable if legally incorrect position, insofar as the United States is in Iraq now with the authorization of the United Nations, and Iran is not. If you are American, then I suppose I do not understand. As between one country or the other achieving its geopolitical objectives in Iraq, you are actually indifferent?
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 08:03:00 AM:
Tiger.
Ref yr. last question:
Probably not.
By Noumenon, at
Mon Apr 07, 11:43:00 AM:
I guess I have to agree that Iraq's army is a lot more than a militia (I started questioning that framing when I started typing my post). Heck, if Sadr hadn't pulled out the army would have been representing him too.
insofar as the United States is in Iraq now with the authorization of the United Nations, and Iran is not.
Strange, I just ran into this "we're in Iraq on the authority of the United Nations" a few weeks ago, when Frederick Kagan was trying to tell Nir Rosen that this is not an "occupation." Up till then I pretty much thought everyone understood America didn't give a care what the UN thought and was invading no matter what. I guess the UN could be passing resolutions condemning America in Iraq all the time and they're not. But you wouldn't feel any less legitimate if they were doing that, would you? The UN doesn't really count for much with me either.
As between one country or the other achieving its geopolitical objectives in Iraq, you are actually indifferent?
I would separate "thinks they have a right to be there" from "wants them to achieve their goals." Like even if I thought Iran should own Iraq, I wouldn't think they had a right to nuke Baghdad. I'd want them to win some kind of annexation referendum.
But let's say under the most one-sided view possible, that Iran's geopolitical goals were "protect itself from being invaded by Iraq or America" and America's goals were "steal all the oil," I think it would be right for me to support Iran's objective over America's whether I was from America or not (I am, I'm from Wisconsin). I could stand to be a little more pro-American when things are on more of an equal ground.
By Fat Man, at
Mon Apr 07, 12:50:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Fat Man, at
Mon Apr 07, 12:52:00 PM:
"the surrender branch of the Democratic party (is it really only a branch?)"
Nah, it's the whole party. Just ask Joe Lieberman.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 01:13:00 PM:
"Iran's geopolitical goals were 'protect itself from being invaded by Iraq or America'." So killing Iraqis IN IRAQ is a legitimate Iranian response to what? Please, let us know where we can find the news about Iraqis killing IRANIANS IN IRAN.
"America's goals were "steal all the oil[.]" Reading this one is like watching the 110th rerun of "Night of the Living Dead." Again, please let us know where the news reports are that Iraqi oil is NOT being sold on the international market, but is being "stolen" by those eeeeeeeeeevil Cheneyites.
Now, after setting up a couple of totally lame straw men, we get:
"I could stand to be a little more pro-American when things are on more of an equal ground." This one is pretty much a pure, unadulterated head scratcher. History would demonstrate that "more equal ground" equates to more deaths. Until the Union army acquired better leadership the U.S. Civil War was "on more equal ground." How did that stalemate work out?
So, sorry, you have to choose. It's pretty clear which side you'd come down on.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 03:25:00 PM:
You guys should chill out. The truce in Basra was negotiated by members of Maliki's party and Sadr's representitives with a Qods
moderator on Iran itself. Iran
is backing both sides, and like
a father settling a dispute between
it's kids stepped in before things
got out of hand.
The do not want to see a flood of
refugees, and plan on being friends with whoever comes out on top. Oddly enough, they are the best friend we could have, as they are the only ones with any power over Sadr. Today, Sadr is seeking
"council" with the religous leaders
in Najif. Dollars to doughnuts there will be an Iranian envoy present, who will seek to prevent
all out civil war from breaking out. It is not in there interests.
By Noumenon, at
Mon Apr 07, 11:14:00 PM:
Anonymous, I failed to make myself clear at all, it looks like. What I was saying was, "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Iran's geopolitical goals were sweetness and light (self-defense) and America's goals were purest evil (steal the oil), would you expect me to want America to achieve its goals just because I'm American?" I was trying to establish that in at least one hypothetical case, the most extreme case, it would be right for an American to take Iran's side over America's. So those were intentional straw men, I just didn't explain it right.
And then I was trying to say, "In the real world, where it's more of a toss-up whose goals are superior, I should probably lean toward the Americans more than I do," just out of self-interest. (I have the same problem in real life, I never take my own side in a fight.) So I was talking about when the objectives are equally impure, not when the sides are evenly matched.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 08, 06:59:00 AM:
I have the same problem in real life, I never take my own side in a fight.
Your honesty in that is admirable. I think there are a lot of people, virtually all of them on the left, who share that tendency (not that there are not lefties who do not). I think Americans understand that, at some unconscious level, and are concerned that they will populate the administration of either Democratic candidate, but particularly Obama's.
By Noumenon, at
Wed Apr 09, 11:44:00 AM:
I don't see it as a vice, mostly, since I think most people are wired by evolution to take their own side too strongly, and exaggerate the wrongs that have been done to them. So golden rule demands that I take the other person's side a little bit more than I want to.
Just sometimes when I get forced out of a position or fail to back up a friend because his case isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, I feel a little bad about it.
