| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Syria and Iran Make Nice |
| 2005-08-05 |
| August 5, 2005: The average number of IED (âImprovised Explosive Deviceâ â mostly. car bombs and roadside bombs) attacks in Iraq are down, and the percentage of attacks that are intercepted has been rising. But the casualty rate from IEDs has been rising as well. The primary reason for this is that the terrorists are using increasingly larger bombs. In addition, some attacks have been coordinated so that automatic weapons or RPG fire is used to draw attention away from the actual bomb, thus making it more likely that the distracted drivers will take their vehicles close enough to the bomb to get hurt. This indicates that the terrorists are using more experienced people to set up and use IEDs. The bombs are increasingly detonated by wire, because of the increasing use of jammers by American forces. UAV surveillance is also spotting more IEDs, and even the people setting them up. All of this has forced the terrorists to concentrate on fewer, but much more skillfully set up, IED attacks. An additional problem is that U.S. forces are increasingly taking the fight into enemy territory (western Iraq), where most of the terrorists have their bases and hide outs. This means itâs easier for the terrorists to set up more, and larger, IEDs. The overall American casualty rate has been going down, but thatâs because the terrorists have pretty much given up trying to have gun fights with U.S. troops, and are having a harder time firing mortar shells or rockets at American bases. The pressure on Syria to stop being a transit area for foreign terrorists entering Iraq has had some effect. Syria claims that it has 5,000 troops on the Iraq border, which carry out 50 patrols each day, in addition to maintaining 557 fixed posts. The Syrians insist this is sufficient to severely limit illegal crossings in the day time. Night time security is dependent on night-vision equipment the U.S. and Britain said they would supply, but so far have not. There are also complaints that the Iraqis have not made a similar effort on their side of the border. This is not true, but the Iraqis have only recently put border police back on the border (they largely disappeared two years ago.) The Syrians also claim that, recently, they have stopped 1,240 foreign Islamic militants, and some 4,000 Syrian Islamic militants, from crossing into Iraq. Still, Iraqi officials have been blunt in accusing Syria of providing sanctuary for Saddamâs henchmen, who are still allowed to operate freely in Syria. This includes building car bombs in Syria and driving them across the border illegally, along with suicide bombers, as well as weapons and money for terrorists operations in Iraq. The Syrians are caught in a bind. While they want to please they Iranian allies, they are getting mixed signals from Iran. The Islamic radicals in Iran, who control parts of the military, police and intelligence forces, encourage Syria to assist the Iraqi terrorists, even though these guys are anti-Iran (Saddamâs followers and al Qaeda). But the Iranian radicals hate the United States so much (as the âGreat Satanâ), that they will deal with the devil in order to hurt American efforts to bring real democracy to Iraq. The Iranian radicals tolerate democracy only if religious officials have veto power, like they do in Iran. Meanwhile, the Iranian government is trying to support the Iraqis, because they understand that an Iraqi democracy will be controlled by Shia Arabs, and their Kurdish allies. This is good for Iran, even if the Iraqi government is not dominated by the Shia clergy if Iraq. Moreover, the Iranians, who are supporting religious groups in Iraq, believe they have a chance of getting a new constitution adopted that gives the religious authorities a lot of power. The Iranian leadership knows that most Iraqis, even Iraqi Shias, donât want a clerical dominated government as exists in Iran. But as the Iraqi committee hustles to write a draft constitution by August 15th, there is still a chance that the religious leaders will get a lot of power. But in the long run, Iran has more influence in Iraq than it has had for centuries. While the Iraqis are mostly Arabs, and the Iranians mainly Indo-European, and have traditionally been enemies for thousands of years, they are united by their Shia religion, which has long been persecuted by the Islamic Sunni majority. Al Qaeda, and the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq, are particularly deadly foes of Shia Islam. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, Iraq and Iran both want these two groups defeated. Itâs a small, but influential, bunch of radicals in Iran who are obsessed with destroying the United States, and the West in general, that offer some help to al Qaeda. Fanatic flakes like this are what make the Middle East such a dangerous place. These guys are not only way out there in terms of philosophy and goals, but are willing to use murder and suicide in hopeless attempts to achieve their goals. You have to deal with them, if only to kill them. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #3 I seem to recall that, post-liberation, there was a massive flow of Iranian pilgrims to Shiite holy places in Iraq. The discussion at the time was that the Iraqi holy places outranked the Iranian holy places. Also, that the Iraqi ayatollas were more highly respected for their knowledge than their Iranian counterparts. I suspect this must concern Khameini, et al, because Sistani is speaking up in support of Iraqi democracy, to which the Iranian version can't compare. Not to mention that the Iranians could follow Sistani without giving up being good little Shiites, a real threat given the dissatisfaction of the Iranian masses. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-05 18:13 |
| #2 I call bullshit on some of this article's points, mainly that the Iranian and Syrian govts don't control the forces that are allowing the suicide bombers and Sunni war architects to operate out of their countries. They know and are coordinating the allowance of these activities. They have much to gain from a populace of Shiia that are in fear of and at war with the Sunnis. Civil war would benefit the Iranians in that their boyz in Iraq, the Badr Brigades aka the Red Guard, will then be needed to protect the populace from the Sunnis. Sure some Shiia die as a result of this, but that's a small price to pay for the increased loyalty to the Ayatollah that comes with a fear of the Sunnis. Imagine the Shiia Ayatollah's in charge of a Iran friendly Iraq, what a coup for the Iranians. The article does make mention of, correctly I think , of the Iranaian moves to place more power in the hands of Ayatolla Sistani and his army, but its not without some coordination with the Al Q and Sunni militantss, as ludicrous as cooperation may seem between the traditional enemies. Politics make strange bedfellows. A Shiia populace afraid of the Sunnis is a Shiia populace in need of Iranian leaning politicos and groups. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-08-05 17:11 |
| #1 An additional problem is that U.S. forces are increasingly taking the fight into enemy territory (western Iraq),.. Taking it into true enemy territory like Syria or Iran would be ideal. These guys are not only way out there in terms of philosophy and goals, but are willing to use murder and suicide in hopeless attempts to achieve their goals. You have to deal with them, if only to kill them. And the faster this is done, the better. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-05 10:09 |