The Iranian timeline in Iraq
(Note: Pete Abel graciously included this post, originally written for The Reaction, in today’s Center of Attention. I have decided to post it here as well, however, if only for the sake of convenience. The first half of the post concerns the new Democratic bill on Iraq, sans timeline for withdrawal. The second half — click on “Read the rest…” — concerns claims by a U.S. official in Baghdad that Iran is waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq and that it will initiate an escalation of violence over the summer to push the U.S. out.)
Two interesting developments:
1) AP: “Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops”.
2) NPR: “[T]he Pentagon is considering maintaining a core group of forces in Iraq, possibly for decades”.
On the Democratic compromise, see The Anonymous Liberal, who provides this cogent analysis. Although some on the left may be angry with the Democrats for making this significant concession,
[B]y any reasonable metric, the Democrats have already won this debate. The public supports their position by a 70/30 margin. The problem is that this president is immune to normal political pressures. He’s been resigned for some time now to the fact that only about 30% of the country is with him on this. And he knows that that 30% is pretty solidly behind him. He’s not running for re-election, and he cares only about his long term legacy. In other words, despite having lost the political fight, he feels no pressure to concede.
What that means is that no matter how well the Democrats manage to frame this funding stalemate, no matter how unreasonable they manage to make Bush look, he will not give an inch.
In other words, there’s not much the Democrats can do, at least until January ’09. Bush was never going to agree to a timeline, and, in my view, a timeline wasn’t in the Democrats’ best interests regardless. They’ve made their points, backed Bush and his Republican supporters into a corner, and, if this bill passes, set up another and likely more pressing battle with Bush once the fiscal year ends at the end of September, General Petraeus offers his assessment of the surge (which isn’t working), and a few more months of Republican discontent, as well as ongoing failure in Iraq, have passed.
But there is another player here: Iran. And it has its own agenda for Iraq:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
“Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it’s a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,” a senior US official in Baghdad warned. “They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government].”
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran’s Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. “We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus’s report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements],” the official said.
So Iran may be supporting both sides of the key sectarian divide with the goal of intensifying the insurgency over the summer so as to force the U.S. out of Iraq.
Does this make sense? Sort of. Well, no.
Given the sectarian tensions in Iraq, would Iran be able to bring together for a common purpose al Qaeda and the various Sunni insurgents on one side and Shiite militias on the other? Would Iran really be able to coordinate such a plan? Would the various parties even agree to it? They are fighting each other, after all, not just the U.S.
Furthermore, Iran may very well want the U.S. out of Iraq, but Iran’s position seems to be stronger with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq than it would be with the U.S. liberated from that quagmire. Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, or at least withdraws the bulk of its forces, American attention would likely turn to Iran. Of course, Iran may not be reasoning along these lines, or reasoning at all. Perhaps it believes that the U.S. has been so weakened by Iraq that it would not be able to engage Iran militarily. Perhaps it has been deluded by dreams of regional grandeur. Perhaps it truly does believe that it can act as puppetmaster to both Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, that it can buy off and control both sides of the sectarian divide before ultimately asserting its control more directly in post-occupation Iraq. So much is possible with Tehran.
But isn’t it also possible that much of this is just U.S. spin, a preemptive explanation for what could be an escalation in violence (both against the U.S. and more generally) over the summer? In other words — so the spin could go, later this year — it’s not that the surge isn’t working, or that there hasn’t been real progress in Iraq, it’s that Iran is intentionally sabotaging efforts to achieve peace and stability by supporting both Sunni and Shiite elements against the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Put another way, it seems that the U.S. is shifting the blame for failure in Iraq to Iran.
What this also means, if true, is that the U.S. could use alleged Iranian intervention in Iraq — the “proxy war” against the U.S. — as an excuse to launch a military campaign against Iran. If Iran is already waging war against the U.S., after all, wouldn’t the U.S. be fully justified in responding?
Vice President Cheney recently talked tough on Iran, and there is certainly a desire among the warmongers, including some of the leading neocons, to engage Iran militarily. Here, according to the spin, is just the sort of excuse they’ve been looking for.
All of which is to say, let’s see. The article in The Guardian (gullibly) relies on the claims of an anonymous U.S. official in Baghdad. The appropriate response to the claims of an anonymous U.S. official in Baghdad is skepticism. Although Iran may very well have a new agenda for Iraq, and although that agenda may very well involve playing both sides against the U.S., it would be foolish to accept the claims of an anonymous official in Baghdad without considering how the U.S. is playing this game.
Everyone has an agenda, after all.
21 Responses to “The Iranian timeline in Iraq”
The Democrats don’t have to pass a bill to end the war in Iraq.
Iraqi and American blood is on their hands.
Anonymous Liberal is being silly here.
Bush doesn’t have to feel the need to concede. Wars cost money. He’s not immune from reality. If the Congress doesn’t give him a check, he can’t fight his war. Arguing they’ve won the moral battle, but won’t actually do anything about it is absurd.
This was a huge defeat for the Democrats who will apparently vote for a bill that could just as easily have been passed by Bill Frist’s Congress.
They’ve guaranteed that instead of resolving this question, now, we’ll be having this debate all over again in September, at which point Bush will again promise to veto any restrictions the Congress tries to set. And of course, he’ll have every reason to believe that he’ll be successful.
The Democrats picked up the Republican’s rubber stamp and rendered themselves irrelevant. Life is about to get much harder for them from here on out.
Michael, who are the sources? Where is the proof?
Stop mistaking gossip and U.S. government propaganda as “journalism.”
How about you write a post on TMV about how the U.S. is conducting its own proxy war inside of Iran?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051707G.shtml
Okay… I went through that Guardian article again. There are at least 20 anonymous quotes.
The only quote with a source is from an Iranian official.
Simply insane. That reporter should be fired immediately.
this ties with Iran are not a new accusation
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_1_05_PEB.html
Well, I find it possible that they could form a temporary alliance across Sectarian lines because of the extreme hatred of America. However, it definitely doesn’t seem like a good long term plan. If the succeed they loose because 500 years of disagreement can’t be solved by one common enemy. The smart thing to do would be to keep America around, and focus on using the blinding hatred it produces to try and reach some sort of religious compromise over the underlying dispute.
Speaking of compromise, I’m actually quite happy with the Democrats for their actions. They raised the issue, got a huge amount of discussion going, and then in the end allowed the practical concerns of the nation to trump their ideologies. Over the past 6 years, we have had too much ideology and not enough practicality. Changing one ideology for another doesn’t really change that equation.
I just wanted to comment on the “not in Democrats’ best interest” part that was quoted with a link to Michael Stickings. If the purpose of passing or not passing legislation, such as a timeline for withdrawal, is to score political points, escape blame, and win votes, then I’m OK with what is said. However, if the purpose of a withdrawal was to stop the killing and injuring of American soldiers, then failure to pass it was not “in the Democrats’ best interest.” My point is that the political game should not be the only way we score a party’s successes and failures.
I’m not sure what practical concerns you’re thinking of. It’s almost universally accepted that the current course of the war is going badly. There has been virtually no political progress in Iraq, the parties remain divided and the security situation remains dire.
If Congress thinks that the current strategy is doomed to failure (and both Republicans and Democrats seem to share this view), then it’s their obligation to force a change. Congress cannot claim credit while watching a disaster unfold. This isn’t Bush’s war. It’s ours.
Whether you think the current policy is a mistake or not, they’ve done nothing to change it. There will be no change on either the political or the military front. The Democrats haven’t even bought themselves a seat at the table. The president decided to ignore them and they caved in.
Iraq will increasingly become like another fictional “nation” – Yugoslavia. Iran, Syria, the US, the UN cannot hold back the tides of history and keep the artifice whole.
Iran probably realizes this (unlike most in the West and US, who still cling to the notion that “Iraq” is “nation.” Iran likes working through proxy forces and it’s primary goal is not to control all of Iraq (which they realize is impossible), but to use those proxy groups to contain spillover and establish a buffer between the Sunni’s and the border. Iran my try for a proto-state in the south a la Hezbollah, but that will be a long and difficult road for them.
Chris provides the comic relief in this thread, railing against the anonymous sources in one article while touting (as he has in several threads now) a theory of US support of anti-Iranian proxies based on a host of presumably different anonymous sources. What’s good for the Goose is apparently not good for the Gander.
The reason that Bush needs a blank check, is that he knows that putting any meaningful teeth on the benchmarks would be futile. He knows there’s almost no chance that the Iraqis will make any political progress. I still think he’s mostly considering his legacy, and doesn’t want to have it consist of being the president who lost in Iraq and destabilized the ME. The Democrats can’t do anything meaningful to limit the war without considerable bipartisan support. They have thin majorities which make it difficult to override a presidential veto.
After the 06′ election they knew that the GOP in Congress were starting to believe that the war was lost, and were hoping to pick up their support on some of these bills. But the GOP has decided to give Bush until September- so there really isn’t that much that can be done until then. Somehow as the ’08 election nears, the GOP will have to make it look like we can’t leave no matter what.
Entropy:
There are actual sources listed in the article by Alain Gresh. Maybe you should try reading.
I’m sorry… I meant to say…
“Entropy obviously didn’t read the article,” said a senior Pentagon official.
This is repeated widely, but it’s simply not true. George Bush can’t force Congress to give him a bill and he needs money to finance his strategy. Congress only needs a majority to pass a bill, and if Bush vetos it, they only need a majority to pass another bill. In short, if Bush continued vetoing bills he’d be cutting off his own funding.
The Democrats are worried they’ll be blamed if he doesn’t accept their terms, but they don’t actually need bipartisan support.
Chris, I did read the article, but only the portion you quoted above had to do with US support to anti-Iranian proxies. Maybe you should read what you quoted again, which is “numerous sources confirm” without naming the sources. The article does point to the piece written by Col. Gardner who makes the same allegation. His source? The Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA. So you’re right, there is one named source, albeit a completely biased and unreliable source, though to you he may represent the Word. He got the job when his predecessor was removed in an Ahmadinejad purge of the Foreign Ministry, so you know he’s a trustworthy source of information.
Then of course there is the ABC News report which makes the same claim citing anonymous US and Pakistani “officials.” And then there is the Seymour Hersh article who calls is source an anonymous “government consultant.”
So where exactly, besides the honorably Ali Akbar Soltanieh are your non-anonymous sources again?
Entropy -
Never argue with a moron; they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
AR,
Awww… is that why you have trouble finding people to talk to?
Entropy,
The article cites specific people and reports. The sources may be unreliable in your opinion, but at least you have the information necessary to make that judgement. The Guardian article gives the reader none of that information. That’s the difference.
Chris,
What people? Name them please. Soltanieh we already know about.
One report “citing” another report is not sourcing. It may be good enough for a high school term paper, but does not provide any credibility unless the primary sources for the cited work do. And that’s why your article and the Guardian article are no different in terms of their anonymous sources. Both rely on them. That you disagree with the content of one article and agree with the content of the other says a lot about your capacity for confirmation bias but says nothing about the validity of either article’s sources and therefore the validity of either article.
Entropy,
You’re attributing to me an opinion I do not hold.
I never said that Alain Gresh’s article was some paragon of journalistic integrity or veracity.
I linked to it as more of: “If you believe that Guardian article, how about you try this one out…”
With that said, I still think the Gresh article is on a level of magnitude higher than the Guardian article in terms of sourcing.
I’m willing to condemn both, are you?
Chris,
I unwilling to condemn or hail either article. I bet that both have at least elements of truth to them, but that was not my point to begin with. I criticized you because you criticized one article for poor sourcing while putting forth another article with equally poor sourcing.
Anonymous sources are part of journalism today, but that doesn’t mean that articles using them are bad or good. Often they contain part of the truth but almost never the entire truth.
[...] Democratic war-funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal, the one that I addressed here (and Shaun Mullen here), see The Washington [...]