US blames Iran for recent string of bombings [Archive]

FireGarden

25th March 2008, 12:37 PM

Is there any reason why I should trust this accusation?

Consider Ahmadinejad's recent visit:
How far in advance was it advertised?
Ahmadinejad's March visit was announced in February:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403480.html?hpid=sec-world

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel to Iraq next month in the first such visit by a leader of the Islamic Republic,

Compare that visit with Bush's visits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7274921.stm

Our correspondent says Mr Ahmadinejad's visit could not contrast more strongly with those of Iraq's only other presidential visitor since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, President Bush, whose trips have been unannounced, brief and confined to American military bases.

Ahmadinejad's comparison:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23429996/

He even took a swipe at U.S. President Bush for making secret visits to the country he invaded.

Unlike Bush's trips to Iraq, Ahmadinejad announced his journey in advance, drove in a motorcade down Baghdad's airport road -- once known as "The Highway of Death" -- spent the night and even traveled to a Shiite holy shrine in northern Baghdad, albeit under the cover of night.

"The visits should be declared and open. And all those who come on stealth visits, we should ask them why they visit this country in a stealth manner?" Ahmadinejad said.

Basically,
The billions of dollars America is in the process of spending have bought Iran a very friendly Iraqi government.

The attacks which are blamed on Iran make it harder for the pro-Iranian Iraqi government to govern, and so make it more likely that the pro-Iranian Iraqi government will fall.

Why would the Iranians want to risk that?

Oliver

25th March 2008, 03:41 PM

Maybe one day you will understand that Iran and Al-Qwida-and at egypt(gama al ismalia-the Muslim brother)-are the same.

they do the 9/11 ,and they will do much more bad thinks.
i am sure that many people today has much more knowledge then before the 9/11,and they understand that iran is dangerouse for the free world.
and she is much dangerouse then 10 years before-then she was only local probleam.

:boxedin::boxedin::boxedin::boxedin::boxedin:
Cohen Avshalom Charly
Israel /Haifa
www.icarus5.com (http://www.icarus5.com)

BS. Iran is as much a threat as Saddams nuclear WMD holocaust whinery that cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands [&innocent] lives so far.

Ergo: The deadliest threat in the Middle East is the US-Israel coalition.

Any evidence to the contrary?

Loss Leader

25th March 2008, 04:58 PM

Ergo: The deadliest threat in the Middle East is the US-Israel coalition.

Any evidence to the contrary?

Well, just this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7973903@N06/1326204738/).

PAC

25th March 2008, 05:28 PM

The people of Iran have been reported to be much more moderate than their
leaders. Many in Iran are in favor of improved relations with the West and the US. Iran has an occupying force of Westerners (mostly the US) on it's easter border and western border. Imagine if Canada and Mexico were occupied by a force we consdiered hostile towards us!

Did our policy push the Iranian people into a more hostile government than their general beliefs? If so, just one more of the general predictions about entering Iraq that are, unfortunately, becoming reality.

So, rather than cultivating the support of the Iranian people the Bush administration is continuing with it's intial foreign policy approach. We could call them "no-learners". Too bad they threaten all of the world as well as us.

mrbaracuda

25th March 2008, 05:45 PM

The people of Iran have been reported to be much more moderate than their
leaders. Many in Iran are in favor of improved relations with the West and the US.

And that makes any threats coming from their military and religious fanatics go away how? And how many are you talking about? Some fringe student movement, or the majority?

I'm pretty sure "the people of Germany" had been reported to be more moderate than the NSDAP and were in favour of improved relationships with America and the UK. I don't see how good relationships would have stopped them from taking over France and all those other countries.

I guess people should have learnt something from that, too. :covereyes

PAC

25th March 2008, 05:55 PM

mrbaracuda

25th March 2008, 06:06 PM

I don't see the connection. However, my point is that the Bush administration may be creating a self-fullfilling situation. The US in not generally cited as an example of positive foreign relations. We have nothing to lose by engaging the people of Iran. We have a lot to lose by continuing
to lead with our ego rather than our intelligence.

All that comes to my mind is the sanctions imposed on Iran. What exactly are you talking about and how would you engage the people of Iran? :confused:

WildCat

25th March 2008, 06:19 PM

Did our policy push the Iranian people into a more hostile government than their general beliefs?
No, not at all. The Iranian people have little say in who their government is, even though they undoubtedly want more moderate people in power. The problem is the mullahs who run the country don't allow any moderates to run in the elections, and this assures that the hard-liners continue to hold the reins of power.

BeAChooser

25th March 2008, 06:55 PM

So, rather than cultivating the support of the Iranian people the Bush administration is continuing with it's intial foreign policy approach. We could call them "no-learners". Too bad they threaten all of the world as well as us.

So you are saying that General Petraeus is lying?

BeAChooser

25th March 2008, 07:39 PM

Is there any reason why I should trust this accusation?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html "October 7, 2007, Petraeus added, there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias and there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members -- the Iranian unit the United States accuses of training and arming insurgents. "There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said. "It has provided some shoulder-fired, Stinger-like air-defense missiles. It has provided the explosively formed projectiles and it has provided 244 mm rockets, in addition to mortars, mortar rounds and other small-arms ammunition." Petraeus also said the Iranians "are implicated in the assassination of some governors in the southern provinces."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/12/iran.iraq/index.html "January 12, 2008, U.S.: Iranian bombs rise in Iraq, CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait (CNN) -- Attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq with bombs believed linked to Iran -- known as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) -- have risen sharply in January after several months of decline, according to the top U.S. commander in Iraq. ... snip ... "In this year, EFPs have gone up, actually, over the last 10 days by a factor of two or three, and frankly we're trying to determine why that might be," Petraeus said."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29593.html "U.S.: Iran reneged on pledge to quit supporting Iraqi militias, March 5, 2008, BAGHDAD — The top two U.S. officials in Iraq said this week that Iran was still training Iraqi Shiite Muslim militias, in violation of its promises to Iraqi leaders. ... snip ... "There is no question that Iran has continued to train the so-called special groups," Petraeus said, referring to what the U.S. military calls "rogue" elements of the militia that's loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. "We have individuals in detention, and have detained them fairly recently, who had explained how they received the training, the whole process for going to and from Iran," he said."

UnrepentantSinner

26th March 2008, 01:10 AM

And that makes any threats coming from their military and religious fanatics go away how? And how many are you talking about? Some fringe student movement, or the majority?

I'm pretty sure "the people of Germany" had been reported to be more moderate than the NSDAP and were in favour of improved relationships with America and the UK. I don't see how good relationships would have stopped them from taking over France and all those other countries.

I guess people should have learnt something from that, too. :covereyes

False analogies all over the place in this one.

Most educated and urban Iranians do want to see detente if not reproachment with the U.S. Whenever C-SPAN has a guest like USA Today's Linda Slavin on Washington Journal there are always a couple of calls from Iranians watching on illegal satellite dishes expressing a desire for better relations with the U.S.

And it's not their military and religious fanatics who are making threats. For the most part they're politicians concerned about their positions and power or the Mullahs who see Iran as a regional hegemon. Kooks like Ahmadjinidad who do see the world through apocalyptic colored glasses seem to be in the minority.

Also, where is your evidence that Iran has tanks and planes on the border with Iraq and are ready to invade? If it ain't there, your Nazi Germany/France analogy falls apart.

UnrepentantSinner

26th March 2008, 01:37 AM

So you are saying that General Petraeus is lying?

Non sequitor much?

PAC

26th March 2008, 02:55 AM

So you are saying that General Petraeus is lying?

Please help me understand your response. I am missing the connection.

mrbaracuda

26th March 2008, 09:47 AM

False analogies all over the place in this one.

Most educated and urban Iranians do want to see detente if not reproachment with the U.S. Whenever C-SPAN has a guest like USA Today's Linda Slavin on Washington Journal there are always a couple of calls from Iranians watching on illegal satellite dishes expressing a desire for better relations with the U.S.

And it's not their military and religious fanatics who are making threats. For the most part they're politicians concerned about their positions and power or the Mullahs who see Iran as a regional hegemon. Kooks like Ahmadjinidad who do see the world through apocalyptic colored glasses seem to be in the minority.

Also, where is your evidence that Iran has tanks and planes on the border with Iraq and are ready to invade? If it ain't there, your Nazi Germany/France analogy falls apart.

Ok I agree, not the best analogy, at least the last part. But you know what I was getting at, right?
Also, if I'm not mistaken the White House / US government has made it clear that it does not oppose the people of Iran, but the government.

What I can't get my head around is how you can strengthen those moderate people of Iran or have a better relationship with Iran without also strengthening the government that is rattling their sabres, even if only verbally. Without the US presence in the area and Pakistan being an ally of the US, Iran might take it a step further.

So I wouldn't talk about "no-learners" when you're talking about Iran with its current government and theocracy and the stance of the US government.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for PAC to clarify what exactly he's talking about and how the US could "engage" the people of Iran without the aforementioned strengthening of the Iranian government that would go in my opinion hand in hand with it, since all I can think of is the imposed sanctions that is not only affecting the Iranian government but also the people.

BeAChooser

26th March 2008, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you are saying that General Petraeus is lying?

Please help me understand your response. I am missing the connection.

Geggy's response to an article stating that General Petraeus told the BBC that "Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone" and that "Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets" was "Is there any reason why I should trust this accusation?" He further wrote that "US has a history of accusing Iran of supplying weapons and bombing materials into Iraq and the hands of Talibans yet no evidence has ever been found."

Now I see no way Petraeus could not be lying if what Geggy claimed is true given what Petraeus is quoted saying in the links I provided. Let me highlight a few quotes:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html "October 7, 2007 ... snip ... "There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said. "It has provided some shoulder-fired, Stinger-like air-defense missiles. It has provided the explosively formed projectiles and it has provided 244 mm rockets, in addition to mortars, mortar rounds and other small-arms ammunition."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29593.html "March 5, 2008 ... snip ... "There is no question that Iran has continued to train the so-called special groups," Petraeus said, referring to what the U.S. military calls "rogue" elements of the militia that's loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. "We have individuals in detention, and have detained them fairly recently, who had explained how they received the training, the whole process for going to and from Iran," he said."

Note that the attacks on the Green Zone were apparently conducted by Muqtada al Sadr's militia.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p01s13-woiq.html "Across Iraq, battles erupt with Mahdi Army, March 26, 2008 ... snip ... Rockets fired from the capital's Shiite district of Sadr City slammed into the Green Zone Tuesday, the second time in three days, and firefights erupted around Baghdad pitting government and US forces against the militia allied to the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

And need I remind you that Sadr has gone to Iran several times during the past few years? And his own staff maintain he didn't flee there but went there on his own accord.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_manchurian_mullah_637677.htm "Sadr has spent much of the last 10 months in Iran, living in a 14-bedroom villa in Tehran's posh Farmanieh neighborhood. From there, he travels 90 minutes to Qom twice a week, for a crash course designed to transform him first into a Hojat al-Islam (Proof of Islam) and then a full-fledged ayatollah (Sign of God)."

BeAChooser

26th March 2008, 11:28 AM

So let me repeat the question I asked geggy ...

Is General Petraeus lying to us?

PAC

26th March 2008, 04:16 PM

Again, where is the connection? I never mentioned anything about General
Petraeus!

BeAChooser

26th March 2008, 05:01 PM

I never mentioned anything about General
Petraeus!

I guess I didn't quite understand your comment: "So, rather than cultivating the support of the Iranian people the Bush administration is continuing with it's intial foreign policy approach. We could call them "no-learners"." How are we to cultivate support of the Iranian people if their leadership is actively helping Iraqi insurgents destabilize Iraq and kill Americans? By ignoring those actions?

Darth Rotor

26th March 2008, 05:23 PM

I guess I didn't quite understand your comment: "So, rather than cultivating the support of the Iranian people the Bush administration is continuing with it's intial foreign policy approach. We could call them "no-learners"." How are we to cultivate support of the Iranian people if their leadership is actively helping Iraqi insurgents destabilize Iraq and kill Americans? By ignoring those actions?
PAC appears to adhere to the fantasy world political argument that one can engage a people whilst cavalierly ignoring the people in charge in a country.

He is slightly correct. Any policy we undertake, pro, con, or indifferent to Iran, will get a reception among the Iranian people to the extent that they find out about that policy. H0ow the policy, its intents, and its implications are filtered (or not) as it is processed along the way to any group of Iranians receiving it can influence their reaction to it.

The reality is, ya gotta deal with their government.

"The majority of Iranians are X, Y, or Z."

May or may not be true.

At this time, more Americans don't support the war than do, but

The War Is Still Very Much In Progress

Sentiment if fickle in any case.

PAC's appeal to some political influence of this majority in Iran seems to be a non sequitur, since that majority has little to do with the Ayatollahs and rulers of Iran, any more than the influence of a large portion of Americans who oppose President Bush will stop, or materially influence, an air strike in Afghanistan tomorrow. That sentiment does not percolate up into power wielding, nor any substantive influence on policy and action at the national level.

DR

FireGarden

27th March 2008, 03:58 AM

So let me repeat the question I asked geggy ...

Is General Petraeus lying to us?

Swear him in!

WildCat

27th March 2008, 06:34 AM

Swear him in!
He's scheduled to testify before Congress April 7 and 8. Will you be calling him a liar then?

pgwenthold

27th March 2008, 07:07 AM

UnrepentantSinner

27th March 2008, 07:31 AM

He's scheduled to testify before Congress April 7 and 8. Will you be calling him a liar then?

Maybe after BAC clarifies what the hell his apparently non-sequitorial comment to PAC's post we can discuss FG's response to your troll, but how about if we let one fog clear before we roll in another?

WildCat

27th March 2008, 08:01 AM

Whether he is "lying" doesn't matter. What matters is, is he right?

Colin Powell gave a great dog-and-pony show to the UN right before the Iraq war. It was all bullstuff. Who cares whether it was a lie or not? It was all wrong.

Perhaps we should learn something from the past?
Except our troops have been finding shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, sophisticated anti-tank shaped charges, captured Iranian operatives, and captured Iraqis have told of their training inside Iran.

This isn't stuff we inferred from spy satellites and disinformation from questionable informants.

WildCat

27th March 2008, 08:06 AM

Maybe after BAC clarifies what the hell his apparently non-sequitorial comment to PAC's post we can discuss FG's response to your troll, but how about if we let one fog clear before we roll in another?
My "troll"? What the hell are you talking about?

FG wanted Petraeus sworn in, and he will be.

eta: FG wasn't even responding to me...

fishbob

27th March 2008, 08:35 AM

quoting General Petraeus:
. . . there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias . . .
. . . . there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members . . . .
. . . . . There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs . . . .
. . . . . There is no question that Iran has continued to train the so-called special groups . . . .

My BS detector goes crazy when I read these kind of statements.
Yours should too.

pgwenthold

27th March 2008, 11:14 AM

and captured Iraqis have told of their training inside Iran.

This isn't stuff we inferred from spy satellites and disinformation from questionable informants.

Oh, so THIS time the informants are reliable?

Do you LIKE being led around by the nose?

BTW, we don't have information from "captured Iraqis." We have what elements within the military are telling us that captured Iraqis have said. We've heard that story before, too.

Interestingly, Curveball wasn't considered a "questionable informant" (at least by the rah rahs) until he was shown to be wrong. On the leadup to war, however, it was "We have Iraqi defectors that have told us about the existence of WMD programs."

I guess some people will never learn.

mrbaracuda

27th March 2008, 11:36 AM

Colin Powell gave a great dog-and-pony show to the UN right before the Iraq war. It was all bullstuff. Who cares whether it was a lie or not? It was all wrong.

Makes you wonder just how tight Saddam's system really was that not even American spies could enter! :boxedin:

WildCat

27th March 2008, 11:56 AM

Oh, so THIS time the informants are reliable?
No, this time we aren't relying on informants at all.

BTW, we don't have information from "captured Iraqis." We have what elements within the military are telling us that captured Iraqis have said.
So you think Petraeus is lying?

We've heard that story before, too.
No, we haven't.

I guess some people will never learn.
I guess some people (and you are apparently one of them) don't understand the difference between first-hand information and hearsay.

WildCat

27th March 2008, 12:48 PM

Damn, even CNN is in on the Iran conspiracy (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/27/basra.analysis/?iref=mpstoryview)!

"Al-Sadr is involved in a very complicated relationship with the Iranians," said CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware. "The Iranians do provide funding and support for his militia, yet at the same time they're trying to rein him in and get him to adopt a certain political agenda, which from time to time he resists."

Ware said Iran wants to use al-Sadr's populist base to advance its agenda in Iraq. "However, they don't want to see him get too big for his boots or to rise to a position where they can no longer have sway over him."

Iran has weakened al-Sadr by encouraging dissension within his Mehdi Army and backing hardliners -- known as the Special Groups -- who break away and keep up the fight against the U.S. occupation, Ware said.

"Iran's very good at putting pressure on you, forcing you to split, and anything that squeezes out the side, Iran picks up and turns into hardline factions," Ware said. "That's exactly what's happened to Muqtada. He's had purge after purge after purge of belligerent commanders, and they've all been swept up by Iran.

Maybe you Iran deniers should start a thread over in Conspiracy Theories detailing this conspiracy between the US Military and CNN to blame Iran for meddling in Iraq?

FireGarden

27th March 2008, 01:18 PM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jub2Xo90q7gFhFOlIGmmBHokoNQAD8VLVF3O1

Sadr's militia seem to be responsible for the rocket attacks against the Green Zone.

For the fourth day this week, suspected Shiite militiamen sent rockets and mortars into the Green Zone in central Baghdad. The volleys on Thursday began in the morning and came in about once an hour well into nightfall.

The attacks on the Green Zone are being carried out in tandem with growing clashes between Iraqi government forces and the Mahdi Army militia led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

By bombarding the Green Zone, the followers of al-Sadr are not only targeting the Iraqi government, but also the hub of the American political mission and its influence on the Iraqi government.

Iran backs al-Hakim -- Sadr's rival.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23429996/page/2/

Iran has appeared to cut political ties to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and thrown its full backing behind his rival, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the country's most powerful Shiite political insider. Ahmadinejad met with al-Hakim during his visit.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Aziz_al-Hakim

was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (president in December 2003).

He went into exile in Iran in 1980. His party is one of the largest in the pro-Iranian Iraqi government.

He was the top candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005 but has not sought a government post because the Alliance had decided not to include theologians in the government[citation needed].

Muqtadr al-Sadr, otoh, was known as "Mulla Atari" for his preference for video games over "the intricacies of Shia law and theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

As far as I know, he didn't go into exile during Saddam's rule.

It's not that he's anti-Iran... He just hasn't done anything for them to trust him.

Why would Iran risk losing al-Hakim to back al-Sadr?

FireGarden

27th March 2008, 01:26 PM

CNN:

Iran has weakened al-Sadr by encouraging dissension within his Mehdi Army and backing hardliners -- known as the Special Groups -- who break away and keep up the fight against the U.S. occupation, Ware said.

Gareth Porter at anti-war.com extends this to the US:
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589

When he took command in Iraq in early 2007, Petraeus recognized that the U.S. occupation forces could not afford to wage a full-fledged campaign against the Mahdi Army as a whole. Instead it adopted a strategy of dividing the Sadrist movement.

Petraeus and the ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, hoped that there were leaders in the Sadrist movement who would be willing to give up further military resistance and accept the U.S. occupation and the existing government.

For months, the command tried to generate a "dialogue" with "moderates" in the Sadrist camp. It issued a series of statements hailing Sadr's willingness to change the purpose of his movement. Most recently, on Jan. 17, Odierno said, "I believe he is trying to move forward with more of a religious organization and get away from a militia type-supported organization" But he admitted, "That could change."

Meanwhile, Petraeus targeted selected elements of the Mahdi Army in raids in Sadr City and the Shi'ite south, portraying its targets as "criminals" and "rogue elements" which had broken away from Sadr and were armed, trained and financed by Iran. Odierno suggested in his Jan. 17 press briefing that such renegade groups were causing "the majority of the violence."

But the "moderate" Sadrists who would be willing to make a deal with the U.S. never materialized. Last July, a U.S. commander in Baghdad claimed that Sadrist representatives had initiated "indirect" talks with the U.S. military. But in January, Odierno would say only that they had been meeting with "local leaders" in Sadr City, not with representatives of the Sadrist movement.

Everybody plays divide and conquer.

I think my question is an important one:
Seeing as Iran has already won everything in Iraq, why would they risk losing everything by backing al-Sadr? Or any group that attacks the pro-Iranian Iraqi government.

WildCat

27th March 2008, 01:27 PM

Why would Iran risk losing al-Hakim to back al-Sadr?
Who were you responding to?

FireGarden

27th March 2008, 01:35 PM

My question is aimed at anybody who thinks that Iran is backing al-Sadr and helping him fight the Iraqi government.

You mentioned, earlier, Iranians being arrested in Iraq. According to Gareth Porter:
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589

It was the ISCI leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim who had invited two IRGC officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organization. The Iranian officials were seized in the home of home of Hadi al-Ameri, the leader of the Badr Organization and detained by the U.S. military.

Those are the areas Iran is investing in.

WildCat

27th March 2008, 02:05 PM

My question is aimed at anybody who thinks that Iran is backing al-Sadr and helping him fight the Iraqi government.
I don't think anyone was claiming Sadr was fighting, he's called for a cease-fire for at least a year. The point was his militia (the Mehdi Army) is now out of his control - as soon as he forces out one of his generals Iran co-opts them for their own purposes.

Did you read the CNN article I posted?

And some people posting in this thread are denying that Iran is at all involved in training and arming Shiite militias. The Mehdi Army is just one of them.

PAC

27th March 2008, 04:47 PM

I guess I didn't quite understand your comment: "So, rather than cultivating the support of the Iranian people the Bush administration is continuing with it's intial foreign policy approach. We could call them "no-learners"." How are we to cultivate support of the Iranian people if their leadership is actively helping Iraqi insurgents destabilize Iraq and kill Americans? By ignoring those actions?

Bush's initial foreign trip was to Europe where he pushed the Neo-Con ideas which might be boiled down to...we are America, we've got the power' you'll do it our way.... He was not well received and thus began a great decline in our influence with other countries....all of this pre 9/11. They are no learners. What is to be gained from the "Axis of Evil" talk and the sabre rattling with Iran? My point is that there are other approaches which might bring about much better results. There are moderate leaders in Iran and they may have a chance to gain additional power. When Bush swaggers on the international front he hinders the ability of these leaders to gain more influence in Iran. We're in a global situation, and quickly becoming more so.
The rest of the world needs the US less each year. Alienating much of the world will not pay dividends for America. We will become the joke of the world and reach a point of being ignored.

PAC

27th March 2008, 04:50 PM

PAC appears to adhere to the fantasy world political argument that one can engage a people whilst cavalierly ignoring the people in charge in a country.

He is slightly correct. Any policy we undertake, pro, con, or indifferent to Iran, will get a reception among the Iranian people to the extent that they find out about that policy. H0ow the policy, its intents, and its implications are filtered (or not) as it is processed along the way to any group of Iranians receiving it can influence their reaction to it.

The reality is, ya gotta deal with their government.

"The majority of Iranians are X, Y, or Z."

May or may not be true.

At this time, more Americans don't support the war than do, but

The War Is Still Very Much In Progress

Sentiment if fickle in any case.

PAC's appeal to some political influence of this majority in Iran seems to be a non sequitur, since that majority has little to do with the Ayatollahs and rulers of Iran, any more than the influence of a large portion of Americans who oppose President Bush will stop, or materially influence, an air strike in Afghanistan tomorrow. That sentiment does not percolate up into power wielding, nor any substantive influence on policy and action at the national level.

DR

I never stated that we should ignore the government of Iran. In fact, I believe we should engage them. It is the Bush administration that has stated they do not wish to engage the Iranian government.

WildCat

27th March 2008, 05:36 PM

There are moderate leaders in Iran and they may have a chance to gain additional power.
You really think the mullahs will allow moderates to gain power?

mrbaracuda

27th March 2008, 06:33 PM

My point is that there are other approaches which might bring about much better results. There are moderate leaders in Iran and they may have a chance to gain additional power.

What are those approaches? Please try answering the other questions I've asked throughout the thread as well, thank you.

Whack01

27th March 2008, 07:29 PM

Iraq was arming and training terrorists aswell as working on WMD's last I heard from the folks I voted for.

Suffice to say I trusted our intelligence apparatus more than I trusted a bloodthirsty dictator to say he didn't have wmd's. Apparently my trust was misplaced. Bad intel was fed to me through various sources (eg that al qaeda leaders met with senior Iraqi intelligence officials in europe, this was later debunked).

I do not oppose the war in Iraq, but why the hell should I trust a thing our intelligence agencies say now? (and by association the white house)

WildCat

27th March 2008, 07:32 PM

I do not oppose the war in Iraq, but why the hell should I trust a thing our intelligence agencies say now? (and by association the white house)
This info isn't coming from intelligence agencies, it's from the military.

UnrepentantSinner

28th March 2008, 01:10 AM

My "troll"? What the hell are you talking about?

FG wanted Petraeus sworn in, and he will be.

eta: FG wasn't even responding to me...

This - "He's scheduled to testify before Congress April 7 and 8. Will you be calling him a liar then?"

Because FG didn't call him a liar. Why up the ante instead of noting he would be testifying and leaving it at that?

FireGarden

28th March 2008, 03:08 AM

I don't think anyone was claiming Sadr was fighting, he's called for a cease-fire for at least a year. The point was his militia (the Mehdi Army) is now out of his control - as soon as he forces out one of his generals Iran co-opts them for their own purposes.

So this let's get this straight....
It's not al-Sadr who has decided to act against the people who have been arresting members of his militia. It's Iran.

Then why does Sadr's aide say this in a Sadrist newspaper:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/verbal-wars-of.html

Last Friday, in the Shiite holy city of Kufa, Sadrist cleric Sheik Abd Al Hadi Al Mohammedawi compared Iraq’s government to late dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the Sadrist newspaper Ishraqat al Sadr, Mohammedawi told worshippers: “Today, the political parties are using the same old Saddamist methods. They have changed from the olive uniforms to the turbans.”

Mohammedawi warned that the government was making a colossal mistake in carrying out raids against Sadr supporters. “They do not realize that the Sadr movement is a volcano throughout Iraq. If it explodes it will crush all of the rotten heads until there are no tyrants on the face of the earth… but this is not our desire,” the paper quoted Mohammedawi as saying.

And, while you and CNN may think that it is only those leaving al-Sadr who are fighting, the AP says:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jub2Xo90q7gFhFOlIGmmBHokoNQAD8VLVF3O1

The attacks on the Green Zone are being carried out in tandem with growing clashes between Iraqi government forces and the Mahdi Army militia led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

By bombarding the Green Zone, the followers of al-Sadr are not only targeting the Iraqi government, but also the hub of the American political mission and its influence on the Iraqi government.

And Reuters says:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL27277457

The government says it is fighting "outlaws", but Sadr's followers say political parties in Maliki's government are using military force to marginalise their rivals ahead of local elections due by October.

[...] Reuters television pictures showed masked Mehdi fighters firing mortars, waving rocket launchers in the air and dancing with children in the streets. Some showed off captured government vehicles sprayed with Mehdi Army slogans.

[...] Police said Sadr followers had set ablaze a building of Maliki's Dawa party.

[...] Sadr's aides say his ceasefire is still formally in place. But his followers have staged a "civil disobedience" campaign, forcing schools and shops to shut, and Sadr has threatened to declare a "civil revolt" if the crackdown is not halted.

So Sadr's aides imagine the ceasefire is still in place, because it allows for self-defense. But Sadr does not blame the shelling of the Green Zone on people who have left his militia. Cat got his tongue?

And, even if you're right, that just moves the focus of the question. Why would Iran back anything which is fighting the pro-Iranian Iraqi government? Do you not believe that the Iraqi government is pro-Iranian?

Just for the record, how much of the Mehdi army can leave al-Sadr and join Iran in attacking the pro-Iranian Iraqi government before Sadr loses everything? Like, say, the ability to close shops as an act of civil disobedience. Or the ability to organise large demonstrations. (An Interior Ministry source said hundreds of thousands took part. -- Reuters)

And some people posting in this thread are denying that Iran is at all involved in training and arming Shiite militias. The Mehdi Army is just one of them.

I notice you don't name names.
Does that mean you noticed the info I gave regarding Iran providing training and arms to the Badr Organization? -- an organisation whose links to Iran go back to the Iran-Iraq war.

Has Sadr complained about the perfidious Iranians who both train his Mehdi army and steal his generals away? Cat got his tongue, again?

I think that America says Iran steals away generals because a ceasefire with America is the kind of surge-success they want to trumpet. So they have to say (or imply) the formerly fire-brand cleric is mellowing. But he's losing control of his generals! That's why the surge isn't a complete success.

E.J.Armstrong

2nd April 2008, 07:24 AM

Is there any reason why I should trust this accusation?

No.

The US government including the US military and US CIA have lied to the world so often that it would be frankly idiotic to take anything they claim at face value - now or at any time in the future.

Undesired Walrus

2nd April 2008, 07:29 AM

No.

The US government including the US military and US CIA have lied to the world so often that it would be frankly idiotic to take anything they claim at face value - now or at any time in the future.

Careful about the word 'lied'. I'd think you would be hard pressed to claim they had fabricated during the build-up to the Iraq war.

Remember, Bush kept mostly to the 'regime change' storyline, it was Blair who kept harping on about WMD's, shooting himself in the foot by declaring Hussein could remain as long as he gave them up.

WildCat

2nd April 2008, 08:25 AM

Has Sadr complained about the perfidious Iranians who both train his Mehdi army and steal his generals away? Cat got his tongue, again?

I think that America says Iran steals away generals because a ceasefire with America is the kind of surge-success they want to trumpet. So they have to say (or imply) the formerly fire-brand cleric is mellowing. But he's losing control of his generals! That's why the surge isn't a complete success.
First of all, it's the press doing there own investigations that says Iran is stealing Sadr's generals away - no the US government.

What I think is happening here is Iran needs Sadr around as a figurehead, but doesn't want him to have too much actual power (power is reserved for the mullahs in Iran). That the recent cease fire orders came from Iran is clear, but Iran can't publicly reveal that. So Sadr is allowed to take credit for the cease-fire (even though he said all along he wasn't behind the recent militia activity and didn't condone it) to save face, and Iran still has the power behind the scenes.

Why does Iran want to control the militias even though the Shiite Iraqi government is nominally pro-Iranian? Because they can control the militias behind the scenes and let the politicians take the blame for all that goes wrong when they inevitably do. It's the same tactic they use in Iran - the mullahs actually control everything, but the elected politicians are there to take the blame for when things go bad.

FireGarden

2nd April 2008, 12:49 PM

First of all, it's the press doing there own investigations that says Iran is stealing Sadr's generals away - no the US government.

How does that make them right?
Sadr has a newspaper. Why does he remain silent about the perfidious Iranians? Why does he not complain that, when his generals come back from being trained in Iran, they no longer follow his orders?

My guess is because it doesn't happen.

What I think is happening here is Iran needs Sadr around as a figurehead, but doesn't want him to have too much actual power (power is reserved for the mullahs in Iran).

Because they're not satisfied with Maliki and al-Hakim?

Maybe.
Sadr is, in fact, the popular candidate. And there are elections scheduled for October. Sadr's group say that Maliki launched this attack in order to take out the opposition.

Iran's friendly with both sides. So they have nothing to lose, regardless of who wins the election.

Sadr wants America out of Iraq and has already demanded a timetable. So America has no choice but to back Maliki.

That the recent cease fire orders came from Iran is clear, but Iran can't publicly reveal that.

The meeting to arrange the ceasefire took place in Qom. And Maliki's group say that an Iranian on America's terror list was there. That last part may not be confirmed. But the meeting is reported in several sources. Here's one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080402/cm_huffpost/094631

This past weekend we had a powerful demonstration of what dialogue with Iran could accomplish in Iraq. A major escalation of conflict between Iraqi government forces and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia was halted when Iraqi parliamentarians from the government coalition negotiated an agreement with Sadr. This agreement was negotiated not in Annapolis, but in the Iranian city of Qom. The head of Iran's Quds force - which the Bush Administration, at the urging of Senator Clinton, has designated as a terrorist organization - helped broker the agreement, McClatchy News reports.

The Guardian couldn't confirm that last detail, but says the meeting took place in Qom.

So it seems the Iranians CAN take credit for the peace deal. Why would they NOT want to take credit?

So Sadr is allowed to take credit for the cease-fire (even though he said all along he wasn't behind the recent militia activity and didn't condone it) to save face, and Iran still has the power behind the scenes.

Where did Sadr say that his militia was not recently active?