Iran Wants War
Iran just doesn’t want to fight it. The New York Sun reports that the U.S. military has captured documents providing evidence that Iran is backing Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. Against each other.
Now that doesn’t make sense, does it? Shiite Iran backing Sunni insurgents who kill Shiite Iraqis. Except that until last year, they weren’t fighting each other, at least not enough, and that didn’t suit Iran at all.
This is because Iran benefits from chaos and violence that (a) ties down the United States and could lead to U.S. political failure in Iraq, and (b) ties down Iraq in Iraq and could lead to Iraqi political failure in Iraq. Perfect conditions for a Shiite strongman/Iranian stooge to take power in 60 percent Shiite Iraq. But it’s a win-win as long as chaos and unspeakable violence continue. Iran is setting the conditions to discredit the United States, boot the United States from the region, and weaken the United States globally, while dominating Iraq and ultimately the Arab world. Where the rest of the oil is.
If the value of the blood and treasure we are expending in Iraq and our vital national interests there are not now evident, I don’t know what it will take.
Skeptics, please note that Iran also wants nuclear weapons. As stated here earlier, U.S. naval and land forces appear to be moving into positions that could allow them to destory much of Iran’s WMD development capability and air defenses, while defending Iraq and our forces there from a flanking attack by Iran’s proxies (see above).
There are some people who are of the opinion this is our own doing, because we invaded Iraq. That position ignores the fact that Saddam had corrupted the sanctions regime and was awaiting its imminent collapse to resume his WMD programs. It ignores the fact that the Iranian nuclear program was already underway. It would have been a race to see who gets there first.
We have already derailed half of that problem. We have the ability to derail the other half, if we have the will. Just as we have the ability to bring something approaching peace and stability to Iraq, a nation that was doomed to tear itself apart violently on sectarian lines, just as it is doing now, with Iranian meddling, in our absence. With our presence, we can keep it a controlled burn and even begin to stamp it out. If we have the will.
Or, we can let Iran defeat us, without even fighting us.
BIG UPDATE: Khamenei reportedly dead. Stay tuned.
My own recent posts on the above:
Others:
Iranwatcher Michael Ledeen of AEI at PJM express. “There is no escape from the war Iran is waging against us, the war that started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour.”
I’m waiting for Ledeen’s take on Khamenei’s departure from this vale of tears, meanwhile, he said in the abovelinked piece before that news broke, the jockeying for power was already under way, and that’s a good thing:
As it happens, this is a particularly good moment to go after the mullahs, because they are deeply engaged in a war of all against all within Iran. I wrote in NRO two weeks ago that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been carted off to the hospital–a major event, of which the Intelligence Community was totally unaware–and his prognosis is very poor. That information has now trickled out, and I found it today in the Italian press and on an Iranian web site. The mullahs are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle, which includes former president Rafsanjani, Khamenei’s son, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s favorite nut ayatollah. We should propose another option to the Iranian people: freedom.
“When we finally realized after 9/11 that we had been in a war against radical Islamist terrorists for several years, the need to address Iran was obvious. However, we have mostly tried to convince ourselves that we could compartmentalize the war on terror to specific battlefields: Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not going to be that simple, and in truth it never was.
We have to face the fact that we are already in a big war, a World War of its own kind. Does that mean we stage a massive attack against Iran? No, but it does mean that we have to at least recognize them as the enemy behind most of the terrorists we fight, and quit fooling ourselves into thinking that they have a stake in a peaceful democratic world.”
Michael Rubin at NYDN: More “Axis of Evil” rhetoric and diplomatic pressure on Europe, Ahmadinejad could do the job.
Tracinski at RCP: The path to victory in Iraq runs through Teheran. I like the following three sentences a lot, and the rest of them, too:
The president’s current opportunity should not be underestimated. As weak as he seems, politically, President Bush has no real competition in setting policy for Iraq. Between the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the Iraq Study Group had its 15 minutes of fame and faded away without having any significant effect on the debate over the war. The Democrats who take control of Congress this month have no unified message on Iraq other than a vague, general defeatism, and they offer no definite plan for what America should do–except, of course, their usual plan to carp about whatever the administration does.
The Daily Mirror has Reuel Marc Gerecht saying Israel does it for us within the next two years. I’m guessing sooner rather than later, by us. An Israeli attack comes with more political problems, without giving us any real benefit of cover or deniability, and there’s a matter of proximity and probably firepower.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:45 am on Thursday, January 4, 2007
12 Responses to “Iran Wants War”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Excerpt and link added to ‘OK, so now can we bomb their asses? — Update 2.
Bomb bomb bomb,
Bomb bomb Iran,
Bomb bomb bomb,
Bomb bomb Iran,
Bomb I-ra-a-an
January 4th, 2007 at 2:58 am
How about we let someone else fight Iran?
Someone who can afford it…
January 4th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Jules,
i just wish there were more Americans lining up to help. When will we wake up?! Where are the heroes in our communities standing up for this war? Are we all too scared of being wrong? Then we haven’t thought deeply enough. We will all either eventually think deeply enough and choose the right side or get smacked by this HUGE LOOMING WAR ON OUR WAY OF LIFE. I know which side I’m on baby.
THE RED BLOODED, CHRISTIAN NATION OF THE U.S.A.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Jules:
I don’t think we have the ability to bring anything close to peace in Iraq - even with more troops.
Until there is the political will among all the parties for a settlement, the insurgency will continue - with or without help from Iran and Syria. And as long as the insurgency continues to kill Shias, Sadrites and the Badr Organization will continue to purge Sunnis from Iraq until we have a monumental human tragedy on our hands.
I agree that Iran is a problem. But going to war with them will only make matters worse and won’t solve a thing in Iraq.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I hope that there if still free speech on this forum.
These article pushers the limits of illogic to new levels.
By all accounts the war is going well in some respects for Iran although it is mostly shia being killed in Iraq and the death of civilians serves no logical end for Iran.
Speaking to a retired Iranian captain I was told that if Iran was funding and supporting Iraqi insurgents that things would play out allot more like Lebanon. For example proper anti tank missiles not 1950,s Russian RPG’s and home made roadside bombs from the Internet.
The insurgent problem is keeping good US soldiers on what they are calling holly land American soldiers on Islamic land was a main reason given for 911 crimes. Why would Iran want American troops on Islamic land any longer than necessary?
Iran has a shia government in Iraq if America withdrew Iran would be in a stronger position then if they covertly keep American troops bogged down there.
My Iranian friend said that 300,000 troops and engineers could move in and fill the left by an American troop withdraw.
The nuclear issue is again most absurd
1 If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon China would happy give them one through their proxy state North Korea. China would do this in order to secure much needed energy supplies from Iran. This includes enriched uranium, which Iran hopes to produce destroying the Australian Canadian monopoly.
2 the acquisition of nuclear weapons has not protected the intrusion of American forces into Pakistan.
3 The land that Israel occupies is most holy and sacred land to use nuclear weapons on holly land would be totally against Allah according to my Iranian sources. Who also inform me that there is a fatqar on nuclear weapons meaning death to all that posses nukes including US, China, Russia and Israel.
This article refers to Iran’s flanking but the only flanking I see is the allied forces surrounding Iran and Syria with Afghanistan on top, Iraq on the bottom and Lebanon nipping at the side.
Covert chaos only serves the interests of the allies it will bring more troops and help install a pro western sunni government.
Do not be alarmed the AFP (Australian Federal Police) has deemed me depressed not dangerous.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I looked at the map, before the invasion of Iraq, and thought then that Iraq was just the next step toward Iran and Saudi Arabia, take your choice on which first.
The Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman are American lakes, our Navy rules supreme there.
After Iraq we had air bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, and maybe Turkmenistan. We have an Air Force that can rule the sky, pretty much regardless of what anyone else does.
Seems to me, unless things have really changed since my days in uniform, that there is no particular reason for one brick to stand on another in Iran. Last I heard our Zoomies and Rotorheads loved to see things explode. There is not one square inch of Iraq that is not within range of our aircraft.
We could blow Iraq to bits and then give the contract to rebuild it to Halliburton.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:34 am
It’s hard to know where to start with your comment misanthropic. (Incidentally a well chosen moniker, I’m guessing it’s an accurate one.)
misanthropic said…
I hope that there if still free speech on this forum.
I’ve often seen similar openings on many comment threads. Meant to disarm, it’s a sure indication of objectionable material to follow.
misanthropic said…
These article pushers the limits of illogic to new levels.
Ah, that didn’t take long. Never has such an illogical article(s) ever been written.
misanthropic said…
By all accounts the war is going well in some respects for Iran although it is mostly shia being killed in Iraq and the death of civilians serves no logical end for Iran.
It is hard to imagine things going much better for Iran in Iraq, not only are they supplying and controlling a large chunk of the insurgency, and parts of the nascent government, but, there is a concerted effort on behalf of their enemy (us) to deny they are even involved, even peripherally.
misanthropic said…
Speaking to a retired Iranian captain I was told that if Iran was funding and supporting Iraqi insurgents that things would play out allot more like Lebanon. For example proper anti tank missiles not 1950,s Russian RPG’s and home made roadside bombs from the Internet.
Just last month the US military stated that Iran is supplying the latest, armor piercing weaponry to the insurgents in Iraq. The roadside bombs you casually toss aside are sophisticated weapons, not internet black powder nuisances. They are stamped with manufacturing codes that identify them of recent Iranian origin.
Your Iranian captain is indulging in the tried and true Shia tradition of takiya, purposeful deception in matters of diplomacy.
The only way that Iraq would be like Lebanon is if the Iranians wanted open war with the coalition countries.
(Incidentally, this where I disagree with Mr. Crittenden’s analysis. Iran doesn’t want war, Iran is at war, they just don’t want us to figure it out.)
misanthropic said…
The insurgent problem is keeping good US soldiers on what they are calling holly land American soldiers on Islamic land was a main reason given for 911 crimes. Why would Iran want American troops on Islamic land any longer than necessary?
Iran has a shia government in Iraq if America withdrew Iran would be in a stronger position then if they covertly keep American troops bogged down there.
My Iranian friend said that 300,000 troops and engineers could move in and fill the left by an American troop withdraw.
Iran could not simply rush troops in if the coalition troops were to leave, this would, rightly, been seen as a raw power grab by a hostile neighbor that would concern Iraq, it’s neighbors and a large chunk of the rest of the world. However, I seem to recall an historical precedent for an unfriendly neighbor taking over another country while the world twiddled its’ thumbs, satisfied with the empty pretext of an “invitation”.
Maybe this is a reason enough for Iran to stir the pot in Iraq, an Iranian supported Shia government in Iraq may well extend an invitation to Iran to help suppress the chaos that will certainly ensue if the coalitions troops were to leave at this juncture. Such diplomatic cover would certainly be worth a few extra months of infidel feet on Muslim land.
I also take issue with your characterization of Iraq as Muslim land. Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews have lived there for thousands of years.
Your analysis of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is also astonishingly naïve. I’ll be happy to dissect it for you if you desire.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I looked at the map, before the invasion of Iraq…
I suppose you failed to notice that large mountain range separating the two countries that would be hell on armor right?
Small oversight…
January 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ’surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
January 4th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hopefully our ’surge’ will not include too many of these types…
They’re all inbred redneck mutant losers. John Kerry has assured me of this.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
minor ripper
You obviously know nothing about the rather strange, odd and occasionally off-putting humor that men in combat are capable of. They operate under a great deal of stress, probably 23 out of 24 hours a day. Maybe more.
Your ilk, really, are not worthy of passing judgment.
The NCOIC knew he was doing wrong (wrong in a very minor sense.) He admitted it right there on the tape. And yet you still castigate.
Enjoy your delusions.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
blar, blar, blar at this point he pondered why they had called him misanthropic!!