Article

2004-02-09 Iraq-Jordan

Zarqawi letter sez insurgency failing, wants to kill Shiâites

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-02-09 12:08:24 AM|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It even laments Iraqâs lack of mountains in which to take refuge.

Iraq has plenty of mountains, although they are full of Kurds.

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-9 12:57:05 AM|| 2004-2-9 12:57:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Am I misrembering-- or isn't Zarqawi thought to have ties to Teheran? But how could the Mullahs be supporting someone conniving to use Iraqi Shi'ites as cannon fodder?

Makes no sense to me...

Posted by Wide-eyed-CIA-guy 2004-2-9 1:18:18 AM|| 2004-2-9 1:18:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Zarqawi runs back and forth between Iraq and Iran and his primary instrument in Iraq (Ansar al-Islam) was recently a participant at an Iranian terrorist summit. I don't pretend to understand for a moment the mullahs' rationale here unless maybe they figure he'll whack Sistani in the process.

Two possibilities:

1) Mullahs don't give a shit about the Iraqi Shi'ites, they're too busy keeping their own house in order and need al-Qaeda muscle to do it.

2) Zarqawi never intended this letter to be seen by the mullahs, it was meant for internal distribution within al-Qaeda's top brass alone.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-2-9 1:26:20 AM|| [http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2004-2-9 1:26:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Powerline via Crooow postulates this:

It's tempting to speculate, however, that Zarqawi himself may be in custody. First they raid his safe house in Baghdad; then they leak the news that they found a seven-pound block of cyanide salts there; now we have a memo written by Zarqawi to his al Qaeda bosses. It could be a coincidence, but it seems likely that the U.S. military has captured Zarqawi already, or, at a minimum, is closing in on him.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-2-9 1:43:27 AM|| 2004-2-9 1:43:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 But how could the Mullahs be supporting someone conniving to use Iraqi Shi'ites as cannon fodder? Makes no sense to me...

Ethnic differences. I suspect that, to the Iranian (Persian) mullahs, the Iraqi Shi'ites are Arab and thus lesser.

Posted by Pappy 2004-2-9 2:01:24 AM|| 2004-2-9 2:01:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeahhhhh... "ethnic" differences. Not that the 'persians' would like to see every arab wiped off the face of the planet. Nope, nuh huh. No conflict there, ever.

Posted by 4thInfVet 2004-2-9 2:18:48 AM|| 2004-2-9 2:18:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 p.s. apparently irony is dead on Rantburg

Posted by 4thInfVet 2004-2-9 2:22:58 AM|| 2004-2-9 2:22:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 4th, of course, Irony could never die here. Not going to happen.
Iranian Persian Shi'ites consider themselves to be different than Iraqi Arab Shi'ites.
And when it comes down to it, they're both hated by the Wahhab Sunnis (Al Queda, the Saudis and Baathists) who think that the Shiites are "polytheists" and kuffir-lovers (Jews, Christians, etc.).
So, yeah, what's a little ethnic and theological difference between Muslims when you're fighting the Great Satan?

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2004-2-9 3:12:30 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-2-9 3:12:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 p.s. apparently irony is dead on Rantburg

Thanks 4Iv, you rang a bell... Come to think of it, haven't the Mullahs used Iranian Shi'ites as cannon fodder?

Pappy-- ethnic shmethnic. Weren't Don Corleone and Don Barzini both Sicilian? Mobsters clash because clashing is in their DNA. No small surprise then if the Iranian branch of the Shi'ite mob has "issues" with the Iraqi branch of that mob. Ethnicity will do as a pretext. But if that fails, they'll cook up some other pretext such as "doctinal differences", whose holy sites are holier, whose beards are longer or whatever. Because in the end, mobocrats only know one rule: keeping their mob on top of the heep.

Posted by Wide-eyed-CIA-guy 2004-2-9 3:19:54 AM|| 2004-2-9 3:19:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 puhleeze--sistani comes from the quietist school of shia clergy-- believes in separation of mosque and church--he's an enemy of the theocrats from qom--who love the political power and the ability to score money from side deals with the bazzaries--islamic politics gives me a headache

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2004-2-9 3:31:35 AM|| 2004-2-9 3:31:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 SOT-- didn't say that Sistani was a mobocrat. Just said that the Iranian Mullahs are and so can be expected to cook up pretexts to oppose anybody who threatens "their" mob. If Sistani is as you describe him-- which I think he may very well be-- all the more reason for the Mullahs in Teheran to want to destroy him. Allah forbid that among the Shi'ites there be a respected cleric opposed to rule by Mullah!

Catch my drift?

Posted by Wide-eyed-CIA-guy 2004-2-9 4:06:59 AM|| 2004-2-9 4:06:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 All the speculation ignores the elephant in the middle of the room:

Starting a war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would give the US a black eye and tie up -- possibly endanger the existence of -- large amounts of the US military. That's what al'Qaeda and the Iranians want to see.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-9 6:53:46 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-2-9 6:53:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 muslims targeting muslims. And then the truth is spun so much so as to make the US (and of course, Israel) the culprit in the war on the ROP(tm).

Posted by PlanetDan 2004-2-9 8:54:45 AM|| 2004-2-9 8:54:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I think I need to issue a fatwah against irony on Rantburg. Given your propensity to take fatwahs really seriously!

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-9 9:21:31 AM|| 2004-2-9 9:21:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 good comments guys - youre thinking strategically. Yes 1. The iranian blackhats would probably use any cannon fodder to keep power 2. They probably value Iraqi shiites even less than their own citizens on both ethnic and ideological grounds 3. Yes, their main goal is to take down the US and keep Iraq from being the "first domino" - they'll cooperate with anyone or kill anyone to do that.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-9 9:46:35 AM|| 2004-2-9 9:46:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 LH, I would add that the Iranian Shiites would just as soon have any credible and independent thinking Iraqi Shiite leaders take an infinite lunch break. Their puppet appears to be Al Sadr.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-9 9:59:30 AM|| 2004-2-9 9:59:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Sistani's push for early elections is a direct threat to the Sunni's, no? Whether that is the cause of his attempted assasination or as a pretext by mobacracy types to stir up retribution against the Sunnies is interesting. So does this place AQ as an Iranian dependant and is the current conflict in Iraq the battle ground for AQ/Iran and not a baathist resurgence? Or is it all combined?

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-9 1:39:11 PM|| 2004-2-9 1:39:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 now i have a headache and am nauseous--sadr is a childish hothead and islamist theocrat--he's too young to get respect from the hawza in najaf as a scholar--its like a physics major at boston university against einstein--sistani being einstein in this tortured analogy--so the wilayat khomeini boys from qom in iran are allies with the young theocrat and would like nothing better than to give sistani an early trip to paradise--he's bad for business

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2004-2-9 2:56:30 PM|| 2004-2-9 2:56:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Pappy-- ethnic shmethnic. Weren't Don Corleone and Don Barzini both Sicilian? Mobsters clash because clashing is in their DNA.

In the US, mobsters clashed only when it is/was in their interests to do so. Part of doing business. BTW, there are/were other ethnicities in organized crime.

No small surprise then if the Iranian branch of the Shi'ite mob has "issues" with the Iraqi branch of that mob. Ethnicity will do as a pretext.

Speaking from personal experience in the Middle East, you underestimate the ethnicity-factor. What ethnicity you are (Bedouin versus "fishing-Arab", for example) and where you are from is significant. I had problems in both Bahrain and Saudi-land because I "looked persian". After they found out I was of southern Italian stock, I merely had to contend with the issues a Yank faces there.

Because in the end, mobocrats only know one rule: keeping their mob on top of the heep.

I'll agree with that. But there's no familia with this group. They tend to use those they consider lesser and expendable before they use their own.

Posted by Pappy 2004-2-9 3:02:40 PM|| 2004-2-9 3:02:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 SOT - I think you are absolutely right about the Qom - Najaf power struggle. Iraq is the real center of Shia Islam. Since Saddam was in power and shut down Najaf, all of the Shia big guys there, including Sistani, had to head to Qom. All of the money from the faithful followed them. The Iranians don't want to see that go away.

Nevertheless, I think the paramount Iranian goal is the one that LH mentioned...do anything to make the US fail, even if it means killing a bunch of Shia's.

Posted by remote man 2004-2-9 4:17:16 PM|| 2004-2-9 4:17:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "BTW, there are/were other ethnicities in organized crime."

Yup - even back in the heyday of the South Italian mob, there were Jews, Irish, etc. More recently there have been chinese, russians, hispanics, etc. So stop picking on the Eyetalians.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-9 4:22:28 PM|| 2004-2-9 4:22:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Lucky - it looks like the main insurgency so far has been Baathist, though that is (all too) slowly fading. Zarqawi, working as agent for AQ was hoping to stir up a non-baathist Sunni arab resistance. Success has been limited. So alternate strategy is to hit Shiites and Kurds, hoping to provoke violent Shia/Kurdish backlash, which would push sunni arabs into the welcoming arms of Zarqawi and AQ. This seems clear from the memo, assuming it all survives the 48 hour rule (but this IS the NYT). It also seems pretty clear that Iran is behind Al Sadr, whose strategy is to portray Sistani as in the American pocket, in contrast to himself. This puts Sistani in the position of having to show himself tough with the americans, yet still reach the compromise the shia need. Its speculation as to whether Iran and Zarqawi are in kahoots - yet given the fact that senior AQ operatives seem to be in Iran, under some form of house arrest that seems to really be disguised permission to operate freely, its just a matter of "connecting the dots" So the question becomes - is there any reason, religious or ideological, why Iran COULDNT be working with Zarqawi to kill Iraqi Shiites? I think we've come to a consensus here that there isnt. This still doesnt prove it 100%, and i suspect that if they have theyve covered their tracks very carefuly - certainly Zarqawi doesnt seem to mention Iran support in this memo - then of course Iran might be working with senior AQ, and Zarqawi might be out of the loop on Iranian support - precisely to avoid a leak if hes caught. Of course that would mean no direct cooperation between Zarqawi and Al sadr - which makes sense to me.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-9 4:32:43 PM|| 2004-2-9 4:32:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Anonymous2U,

Perhaps that is why the brass are recently so confident they will nab Binny by ballot time.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-2-9 11:07:25 PM|| 2004-2-9 11:07:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 LH, It would be intersting to know were the memo was going, postal wise. To say it was addressed to AQ leaves a...?

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-10 1:51:39 AM|| 2004-2-10 1:51:39 AM|| Front Page Top

21:29 Anonymous3999
16:33 Anonymous
16:32 Anonymous
07:45 B
01:51 Lucky
01:27 Lucky
01:00 Phil Fraering
00:57 Lucky
00:53 Old Patriot
00:33 Old Patriot
00:30 Zhang Fei
00:29 Damn_Proud_American
00:12 Anonymous
00:11 Phil Fraering
23:51 Barbara Skolaut
23:41 Rafael
23:37 Les Nessman
23:28 Rafael
23:23 Rafael
23:22 Garrison
23:20 Anonymous
23:16 Anonymous2U
23:08 Anonymous2U
23:08 Barbara Skolaut