Hardball, Anyone?
Not the TV blah blah blah show … the game. The Great Game.
That’s what Stratfor suggests the US is playing in the abduction of that Iranian diplomat … who, Stratfor suggests, is an Iranian intelligence operative:
It is important to note that Sharafi’s position at the embassy is the kind of diplomatic posting that frequently would be a cover for intelligence operatives … kidnapping him would disrupt Iranian operations as the U.S. security offensive in Baghdad gets under way. Second, the United States has been very public in saying it intends to become more aggressive toward Iranian covert operations as part of its effort to bring pressure against Tehran … The snatch of a second secretary would fit into this effort.
Hey, I just remembered. Teheran doesn’t respect our diplomatic immunity or sovereignty of our embassy. So what obligation do we have to respect theirs? Stratfor notes that in addition to supporting insurgents and militias that kill American soldiers, Iran also is suspected of complicity in abduction and murder of five American soldiers in Karbala last month. I’d add the heavily armed force of religious wackjobs who were annihiliated on the murder march outside Najaf a couple of days before Ashoura. OK, we’ve established that Iran has it coming.
Whatever the facts of this particular case might be, the United States has been transmitting numerous signals — official and otherwise — that Iran is vulnerable and is placing itself at risk by opposing U.S. interests in Iraq. The Sharafi abduction seems designed to enhance Tehran’s sense of vulnerability, and hence to fuel disagreements among those in Iran who feel the United States is at a weak point and those who warn that the United States is most dangerous at its weakest … The Americans want the Iranians to view the United States as a dangerous foe, and to moderate their appetite for power in the region … even if the United States didn’t order the Sharafi operation, it still fits into a pattern of warnings that the Americans have been issuing.
… (Re Sharafi:) an opportunity to question him would be of real value to the United States. Maintaining plausible deniability would be the key. But arranging for Sharafi’s abduction by a third party would be a feasible way of obtaining the intelligence sought by the United States. It is therefore quite possible that this was a U.S.-authorized operation executed by Washington’s Sunni allies.
OK, so much for the Americans.
The Sunnis in Iraq — both the nationalists and the jihadists — have reasons of their own to abduct an Iranian official, and hence could have seized Sharafi as part of a completely independent operation. Sunni nationalists and jihadists feel that they are more threatened by Iranian influence in Iraq than by the U.S. military presence …
The Sunnis also recognize that they do not have the means to deal with Iran or its Iraqi Shiite allies by themselves — but the United States has the power to weaken the position of Iran, and by extension, its Iraqi patrons. With tensions between Washington and Tehran at their current heights, there is an opportunity to be exploited.
… On the day of Sharafi’s abduction, the al Qaeda-led alliance called the “Islamic State of Iraq” issued a statement saying U.S. military action against Iran would benefit Islamist militants. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the abduction was an attempt to provoke Iran … into retaliation against the Americans. The jihadists’ hope would be that this could provoke a wider U.S.-Iranian conflict and hence torpedo any U.S.-Iranian dealings.
Fascinating. Maybe someone’s trying to play us, which I think is more likely. Could be useful enough, for the reasons stated above. Sunnis as described above, or even the Iranians, as I suggested in an earlier post, trying to make us look bad and playing a double game.
Or, as Strafor suggests, the Americans are playing hard and dirty. It’s got a Vietnam-era dirty tricks feel about it. And you know something? I’m OK with that. I like it. Fight fire with fire. The Iranian regime is not a sovereign government. It is a dictatorial terrorist organization that got itself voted in on a fixed election, but unlike most terrorist organizations, it is stupid enough to have a return address. It’s been able to get away with that for 28 years. But it is playing above its league.
Bitchslap it a few times, see what happens.
Tigerhawk suggests the United States fess up, and explain we’ll be holding him for 444 days, then they can have him back. I’d suggest adding, according to the highest standards of Iranian diplomatic relations, blindfolds, paradings for political purposes and periodic slapping-arounds.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:49 pm on Tuesday, February 6, 2007
4 Responses to “Hardball, Anyone?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Maybe Bush is having our “military” act crazy enough in Iraq that Maliki asks us to leave.
Face saved and problem solved.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Bill’s Nibbles– 2007.02.07
Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the links within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the
February 7th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Hardball, Anyone?
Hardball, Anyone? Jules Crittenden That’s what Stratfor suggests the US is playing in the abduction of that Iranian diplomat … who, Stratfor suggests, is an Iranian intelligence operative:It is important to note that Sharafi’s position at the emb…
February 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
War in the Shadows?
There’s been plenty of evidence in recent months that the US and Iran are fighting a covert war in Iraq — or, more correctly, the US has decided to fight back against the Iranians, who have been waging a war