February 27, 2006
Also...
Also, concerning the Mosque bombing, there is some evidence that it may be an Iranian caper. Which is very interesting, because various people have been claiming that Muqtada al Sadr and his militias are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Iran, and that Iran could, maybe IS, blackmailing us with the threat that they can use the Sadrists to throw Iraq into civil war whenever they like. That's a point made in this piece by Spengler, which I never got around to blogging about. "...Muqtada already has warned that if the United States attacks Iran, his militias will rise in Iraq..." That threat looks a lot less credible right now.
I think the problem with analyses like Spengler's is that they resemble the plans I used to draw up when I played military board games in my youth. "I'll strike here. And there. And while he reacts to that I'll drop my paratroops on his supply lines and he will be helpless!" The problem was that I assumed the other chap would not attack me, and I assumed my cardboard battalions would be successful in their attacks. Either of which could turn out to be wrong.
Spengler writes:
....Much as Washington complains about Iran's efforts to arm militant Shi'ites in Iraq, it cannot do anything to hinder this except to deliver and execute a military ultimatum. The longer Washington dallies, the more resources Tehran can put in place, including:
- Upgrading Hezbollah's offensive-weapon capabilities in Lebanon.
- Integrating Hamas into its sphere of influence and military operations.
- Putting in place terrorist capability against the West.
- Preparing its Shi'ite auxiliaries in Iraq for insurrection....
We can't do anything to hinder? Says who? Iraq may be arming "militant Shi'ites," But everything we are doing in Iraq is tending to make Iranian infiltration more difficult. The stronger the Iraqi government and military grow, the less likely militia uprisings become. And arming terrorists is useful as a threat, but actually using them turns them into targets, and justifies retaliation against Iran.
Spengler could just as logically have said: "The longer Tehran dallies, the more resources Washington can put in place."
Posted by John Weidner at February 27, 2006 08:08 AMIranian involvement here just doesn’t ring true to me – the risk/reward equation is out of whack. Iran’s theocrats dream of a Shia dominated Iraq as an ally in their glorious Islamic Revolution. If fingered as the culprit in this bombing they can kiss those dreams goodbye forever. I can’t believe they would have rolled those dice just for the mere possibility of a civil war.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at February 27, 2006 09:10 AMMike,
Your belief that the ayatollahs wouldn't roll the dice assumes that the ayatollahs are entirely rational. Given the rhetoric coming out of Ahmahdinejad's mouth lately, and how the ayatollahs have not repudiated it, an assumption of rationality on the part of the ayatollahs may not be a good one.
Posted by: Hale Adams at February 27, 2006 09:29 AMHale,
True, “rational” and “Ahmahdinejad” seldom meet in the same sentence. If Iran is behind it then I can only conclude that they are either desperate or irrational. Both are good qualities to see in an enemy – as long as they don’t have nuclear weapons.
Iran may have financed and armed these terrorists without having much control over what they DO. That's the downside of their tactics.
People talk about Iran controlling Hamas or Hezbollah, etc, but they may be "controlling" loose cannons...
Posted by: John Weidner at February 27, 2006 11:16 AMNow THAT is a theory I could get behind. What a wonderful PR victory it would be if we could plausibly link Iranian financing to the guys who actually planted the bombs. But why am I dreaming of such things? Our own damn media would discredit any such link no matter the facts.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people in the world who would probably believe such an accusation even without evidence.
I suggest we accuse them of it, and then let them, and their media allies, sputter and deny and howl that there isn't any evidence...
Posted by: John Weidner at February 27, 2006 12:14 PM
