| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran's covert action in Iraq |
| 2004-04-25 |
| On April 4, 2004, Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr, a pro-Iranian Iraqi cleric, called on his followers to "terrorize your enemy," meaning the Americans and all those Iraqis cooperating to bring about a constitutional government. This led tens of thousands of the cleric's armed and unarmed followers to attack U.S. and Coalition forces in four Iraqi cities. This was a preview of the violence and turmoil Iranian covert action could inflict in the coming months. This threat is the current September 11, because the administration has not yet "connected the dots" revealing Iran's secret but discernible activities. Following removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Iranian clerical dictatorship began a covert effort to set up an allied Shi'ite Islamist extremist regime in 60 percent Shi'ite Iraq. Iran has prepared this for many years and recruited political, military and covert agent assets among the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites who fled Iraq to live in Iran. The Iranian dictatorship is acting to bring about a "second Iran" in Iraq in five ways: (1) Those Iraqi Shi'ite clerics who agree with the heretical Khomeini view that the clergy should rule society in all aspects are used by Iran to build a power base from their mosques and associated social services. Iran views as the future religious leader of Iraq Ayatollah Al Haeri, an Iraqi cleric who has lived in Iran for the last 30 years and who, when Baghdad was liberated last year, issued an edict telling Iraqi clergy not to cooperate with the United States.The Bush administration must immediately counter Iran's covert assets and planned actions or risk major setbacks to its goals in Iraq. Indeed, if Iran brings about an anti-U.S., pro-Iranian Shi'ite extremist regime in Iraq, the risks to the United States and its allies from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) would dramatically increase. And it would defeat the Bush "forward strategy for freedom" in the entire Middle East. A first step is recognizing, analyzing and understanding the intent of Iran and its Iraqi allies and what they have done to date. Next, there is an urgent need to work with moderate Shi'ite leaders to build pro-democratic political parties and a broad pro-democratic political coalition that can withstand and overcome the pressures, coercion and terrorism of the pro-Iranian Shi'ite groups. This means revising the currently self-defeating and much-too-limited efforts to aid genuinely democratic Shi'ite and other political parties and groups. The pro-democracy Iraqi media also needs to be enlarged, and, as a corollary, the pro-extremist, Iranian-funded media needs to be restricted. This is an inescapable element of the early stages of a post-dictatorship transition where anti-democratic groups and media have sources of support far greater than those now available to moderates. It also is necessary to quickly arrest all extremist leaders advocating violence and disarm their thousands of armed followers. It is may be necessary to detain many of these armed extremists for some time, to assure they are cannot join anti-U.S. terrorist operations. Such detention should be humane. Efforts should be made to educate these misguided people about the values of political democracy and tolerance and to counter lies they have been told by extremist leaders for the last year. The best defense against Iranian destabilization of Iraq is helping Iran's people to politically liberate themselves from their dictatorship. While the Iranian regime has a 25-year record of effective and brutal terrorism and secret action abroad, it is weak, fragile and vulnerable at home. Ironically, while the United States may face difficulty fending off covert Iranian political action in Iraq, it has the symbolic credibility of its democratic institutions and the knowledge and experience to encourage the Iranian people to free themselves. President Bush has spoken eloquently and often about the Iranian people's right to freedom. Now he needs to instruct his State Department to cease all its open and secret "dialogue and engagement" activities with the clerical regime. These legitimatize the dictatorship and discourage those in Iran who might otherwise act to bring about a democratic future. Taking these actions now in Iraq and encouraging the Iranian people to liberate themselves this summer could result in two democracies. Otherwise, there is grave risk the removal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein will ultimately result in two Irans — two Shi'ite extremist regimes in the region. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #12 Anybody have a solution regarding Iran. It's always been the tough nut for me. Yes..Judicious Application of Tactical Nukes. :) As the saying goes "There are few problems in this world that cannot be solved with the judicious applications of high explosives." |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-04-25 5:58:07 PM |
| #11 They think that if we never vaporized the USSR, we won't do it to them either. I think this is a key point. But from 9-11 to now, the American population - as well as the free world - has come to understand the kamakazi nature of the Islamists. I just posted about this on another thread and I strongly believe that we now better understand our enemy than we did before. They only understand strength. Truces, words, agreements are meaningless. Anything short of MAKING them comply is not understood by them. We understand that now - we didn't before this war began. As everyone starts to grasp this, it makes it easier for us to act with the understanding of the American public....just like Israel's current hit lists are understood. As for Kerry - I agree, he has a chance, if the dead come out in force, which they might. You raised some interesting questions, that I'm sure Bush lays awake at night pondering. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-25 3:47:07 PM |
| #10 What "covert" action? There's nothing covert about what those Islamonazi asshats are doing, except in the mind of the "news" media. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-25 3:31:21 PM |
| #9 Mike, Good post. To me the perplexing issues arise out of the timing and sequence of events when you factor in election year politics. (Of course, it is arguable that election year politics shouldn't be factored in at all. The strength of that argument depends on whether you think that Kerry is electable and what he would actually do if he were elected, as opposed to his campaign rhetoric. I personally think that Kerry can beat Bush in the right circumstances, and that as a war president Kerry would be close to a disaster. Both those points are debatable.) Factoring in election year politics, here are a couple of imaginable scenarios. 1- We do nothing until November. This "plays it safe" on the political side, but takes the risk that the Iranian offensive in Iraq cannot be contained and/or that the Iranian nuke program reaches fruition. 2- We go full speed ahead now. Take out the Telephone Building in Tehran, give the Iranian dissidents some muscle, crush their stooges in Iraq. Very positive strategically, but could put Kerry in the White House. 3- We play it halfway and assume that Bush has the political breathing room for one limited offensive move. In that scenario, the question I would ask you is whether taking out the Iranian nuke program is feasible, or in other words, can we pull off an Osirak? It would be much easier to justify this politically than it would be to justify an attack on Tehran. Or better yet, can the Isrealis with their extended-range F-16's pull off an Osirak for us? |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-04-25 12:56:52 PM |
| #8 Matt- Let me point out that whether or not the Black Hats have nukes, they're going to do this anyways. They think that once they have one weapon - which took decades to build - we will quail in fear and allow them a free hand. All it really does isprove how badly they understand the lessons of the last sixty years or so, and how restricted their view of the world is (Most have never been more than a short journey from their home towns before going to Teheran or Qom). They think that if we never vaporized the USSR, we won't do it to them either. They think that we will not go to war for Israel. They think that a nuclear strike is an E-ticket to Paradise and the 72 Virgin Raisins(TM). They're wrong on all counts. First, the Soviets just never pissed us off that badly. Secondly, when it comes down to it, it's not the American people who will go to war for Israel - it's the President of the United States. Third - and most importantly - there is no real Iran. It's a bunch of provinces and tribal areas that share a common religion. If we cut Teheran out - a city where like most 3rd world thugocracies, ALL the communications and ALL the bureaucracy run through a single set of government buildings - there IS no Iran. You'll have a bunch of surviving Black hats run to Qom (the 2,89,546th holiest site in Islam), but they have no way to command anything there...and they KNOW it. That's why they stay in Teheran - because that's where the power is and if they lose it, it's over. Look what happened when Baghdad went down. A 'Ryan Doctrine ' strike wouldn't bring a nuclear response, assuming they had a deliverable weapon- if anything, it might bring about the Revolution. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-04-25 12:08:25 PM |
| #7 Now imagine the same scenario, but with the Black Hats having nukes. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-04-25 11:30:21 AM |
| #6 Only if we employ more John Clarks |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-04-25 10:10:28 AM |
| #5 The scary thing is that Tom Clancy called this one at least five, six years ago in Executive Orders, which I don't have on my bookshelf at college so I don't remember exactly when it was published. In the book, an Iranian mole assassinated the *unnamed* Iraqi President, nicknamed "The Mustache." In the chaos that followed, as the generals were scrambing to protect themselves, Iran stepped in with social services and such, and eventually the two merged into a "United Islamic Republic." Only difference today is that they're having to move a lot more quietly thanks to our presence there, but the similarities in many cases are striking and scary. Wonder if employing "The Ryan Doctrine" of dropping precision-guided bombs on our enemies would work . . . |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-04-25 9:35:40 AM |
| #4 Why aren't we funding the revolutionary movement in Iran? It does have one and with some outside support could become much stronger. There are also a substantial number of Kurds in Iran. Given finacial and military (equipment only) they would probably give the Mad Mullahs a real headache. A bit of this should have them too busy to worry about Iraq. It would be fairly easy to implement. |
| Posted by: Michael 2004-04-25 5:55:49 AM |
| #3 I take it the Iranians are intending to bring together the politicised clerics, al Sadr's followers, Hezbollah/Hamas and Al Dawa in one Shi'ite movement calling for the rule of Ayatollah Haeri, supported by all those nice propaganda outlets they have set up? Or will they continue to leave these different groups alone as part of a divide an rule policy. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2004-04-25 3:58:26 AM |
| #2 As I remember, Reagan had us destroy their entire navy as an object lesson. In this case I would think that we have thoroughly debriefed all of Sadaam's stooge Iranians about where the infiltrators and AQ personnel might be staging. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-25 2:47:48 AM |
| #1 Anybody have a solution regarding Iran. It's always been the tough nut for me. But Iran is the elephant. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-04-25 2:11:39 AM |