Trevor Loudon's New Zeal blog has moved to

redirecting you there now

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Squeezing Iran

I have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, for several reasons.

Most of my opposition was moral, but I also doubted US resolve to carry the war to its conclusion. Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War have, in my opinion, shown that the US is far too willing to handicap its fighting forces, for political reasons.

Maybe things are different now. Maybe there is a small window of opportunity.

President Bush has nothing to lose. His presidential term ends in 2008. He faces a largely hostile, socialist dominated House. If he loses in Iraq, he will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history.

President Bush has one ace up his sleeve. He is the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces.

His only chance to redeem his reputation, is to go for broke in Iraq-that means he has to get tough with Syria and Iran.

Clearly that is what he is doing. Given that the war has happened, the best option now is to win it decisively, then get out. Then concentrate on what should have been done in the first place; destroy Al Qaeda and its support networks.

Below are excerpts from an excellent article From Frontpage Magazine, by Nobel Prize nominee, Kenneth R. Timmerman

Squeeze Iran

A sea change is beginning to occur in Iraq: for the first time since the insurgency took off, the terrorists are starting to run.

This is occurring not because the United States has successfully promoted political dialogue among Iraq’s torn communities, although a successful dialogue is certainly to be desired.

It is occurring not because the United States has given in to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission and others, who have suggested a policy of unilateral capitulation to the terror-masters pulling the strings of the insurgency in Damascus and Tehran.

Nor is it occurring because we have suddenly become better at winning “hearts and minds” in Iraq, although such an effort, as described by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, would appear to be sound counter-insurgent policy.

The terrorists are on the run for one reason only: they fear the United States.

In Tehran, they are now referring to the United States as mar-rouye domesh vastadeh – the Cobra standing on his tail,” says Shahriar Ahy, an Iranian-born political analyst who helped build the post-war broadcasting network in Iraq.

The sea-change began on January 10, when President George W. Bush announced that the United States would no longer tolerate Iranian and Syrian intelligence officers using Iraq as a playground for their murderous games.

When he announced the troop surge in Iraq, Bush also put Iran and Syria on notice. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops,” he said. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Those weren’t idle words. That very night, U.S. forces raided an Iranian intelligence headquarters in the Kurdish town of Irbil, capturing six Iranians. The Iranian government screamed that they were diplomats, but apparently only one had any sort of diplomatic credentials. My sources tell me this was Hassan Abbassi, a well-known strategist who is close to president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The other five turned out to be Revolutionary Guards officers. My sources identified three of them by name, and told me they were providing a treasure trove of intelligence to their U.S. interrogators (who appear to be receiving help from an intelligence expert from the opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq).

They are key people in the Sepah Quds,” the overseas terrorist arm of the Revolutionary Guards, a former Iranian intelligence officer told me.

Iranian exiles and Kurdish sources identified another captive as Brig. Gen. Mohammad Djafari Sahraroudi, a Kurdish affairs expert who is wanted by Interpol for his involvement in the 1989 murder in Vienna of Iranian Kurdish dissident Abdulrahman Qassemlou.

Also among those detained was Mohammad Jaafari, an aid to National Security advisor Ali Larijani, the sources said.

“The mullah infiltration of Iraq is far more extensive than the U.S. has thought,” said Iranian exile Sardar Haddad. “They have infiltrated every single ministry, especially the defense and interior ministries, not just with one or two people, but massively.”

Referring to the Irbil incident, “It’s not five Iranian agents, but 5,000,” he added.

The U.S. is also investigating Iran’s alleged involvement in the kidnapping and murder of five U.S. soldiers near Karbala on January 20, and reportedly has detained two high-ranking Iraqi generals suspected of collaborating with the attackers.

I am told that those interrogations have turned up astonishing information, including documents sent by the Iranian regime to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki, offering to “welcome” an extended visit to Iran by Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and top members of his Jaish-al Mahdi militia.

According to one source, the generals revealed the names of nearly a dozen top Iraqi politicians who were on the payroll of the Iranian government, including a Shiite member of parliament convicted and sentenced to death in Kuwait for his involvement in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait city.

Yesterday, U.S. forces arrested deputy health minister Hakim Zamili, accused of helping Shiite militiamen to infiltrate his ministry. He was also accused of funelling money to Shiite death squads loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.

The U.S. Cobra is finally standing on its tail. This strategy is clearly working.

Read the whole article here.


Blogger mah29001 said...

I personally think that if Bush took the Douglass MacArthur route with Iraq and Afghanistan, he would have an easier time with Iran and even North Korea. But he didn't take that route.

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Ahmadinejad's real views are summarized on this website:

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But what about the Iraqi government and the Shia majority? They are close to Iran and will go nuts if the place is attacked. The US would have to use Iraqi airspace and possibly land as well in any realistic air campaign, and the Iraqi government would not allow this. So Bush would have to blatantly disregard the Iraqi democracy he says he is fighting for.
A Shia uprising, or even just armed action by the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades (the second of which is now largley incorporated inot the Iraqi police and armed forces) could easily cut off the supply line that goes from Kuwait to Baghdad, and leave the US forces in most parts of the country reliant on air drops. This is real double or nothing stuff, and it goes badly the US might never recover its influence in the Middle East.

Does Act have a policy of support for US air strikes against Iran?

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An additional point is that any air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would have to use nuclear-tipped weapons in order to reach through the bunkers in which sites exist. If you think the war is unpopular now, wait until it has nuclear dimension.

5:25 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

Anonymous, you often attack people like me or Trevor to be "Communists", but you sure love to promote "peace" movement propaganda which someone like Seymour Hersh stated how the U.S. is "prepared" to use nuclear weapons against Iran and other "peace" movement types while never condemning the Iranian President's rabidly anti-Israel/anti-Jewish comments are counterproductive.

You call me and Trevor to be "Communists" for you simply being a troll, but when it comes for someone like you to promote propaganda obviously coming from Communist fronts. Well, the shoe is on the other foot now to see who is the one that could likely be the only Communist sympathizer and I doubt it's me or Trevor.

5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you talking about?

6:35 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

Come on, I highly doubt Bush is going to attack Iran by using nuclear weapons or any other weapons that are quite similar to it. It's just simply insane and mindbogging.

And what's more what about that Iraqi offical charged with using U.S. tax payer money to fund the insurgency against U.S. forces?

6:39 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

The Douglass MacArthur route should have been the proper venture for Iraq and Afghanistan. Then America would have an easier time with Iran.

6:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home