One of the most absurd accusations against Iran has been that Tehran is secretly arming (and even possibly training) the anti-Imperial resistance forces in Iraq. Why is this an utterly absurd accusation? Because as Robert Dreyfuss explains it in his many excellent articles (see here, here and here) the USA and Iran are supporting the same side in this war: the Maliki government. They are also the only ones to support it, by the way. Even the Shias of Muqtada al-Sadr Mehdi Army are opposing a government which everybody in Iraq sees as a strange, but no less real, US/Iranian “Vichy” regime.
This is not the first time that the Empire is fighting on the side of so-called “Muslim fundamentalists”. For example, while it is well known that Al-Qaeda was largely a US and Saudi creation during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Brendan O’Neill has documented the fact that Al-Qaeda as a fighting force was really brought together in Bosnia, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Likewise, the Al-Qaeda “franchise” in Lebanon, Fatah al-Islam, is also currently supported by the Empire (see here, here, here and here). However, what is interesting in the case of Iraq, is that the US appears to be supporting the pro-Iranian Shias against all the other parties to the conflict (the Redirection of the US policy in the Middle-East notwithstanding). The fact is that Iran and the USA appear to be objective allies in the war in Iraq. The question is: why is that?
There are three main reasons for this seemingly outlandish arrangement:
1. The Neocons did have hopes that the US force would be greeted as liberators by the oppressed Shia of Iraq. To a certain extend, they were, indeed, cautiously welcomed by the Shias, not out of a deep sence of love for anything American, but simply because the US occupation removed Saddam and his Baathist thugs from power.
2. The Neocons did have to put up at least a facade of democracy in Iraq and denying the reigns of power to the Shia majority would have been politically too dangerous.
3. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani did not request, but demand free direct elections from the US occupation regime which had to cave in to this demand or face an immediate and overwhelming insurrection by the Shia majority.
So in the case of Iraq, the Empire really had no other option that to put the Shias in power. The most powerful, best organized, best armed and best trained Shia clearly were those who had spend many years in exile in Iran being trained and financed by the Iranians to overthrow Saddam and take power. The Empire did try to avoid this situation, but was typically helpless and the most pro-Iranian forces have since been in control in Iraq.
While all other parties to the war deeply resent the “Persians” as these pro-Iranian Iraqi Arabs are often called, the Sunni Resistance (including the Al-Qaeda Wahabis) in particular hates them and regularly fights against them (there are also tensions between the pro-Iranian Shias and the nationalists of Al-Sadr, but these have not been nearly as bloody as the conflict with the Sunnis and the more secular former Baathists). In fact, many believe that a US withdrawal would precipitate a loss of power by the current regime. It is thus quite clear that the Iranians need the US occupation forces to remain in Iraq and fight against the enemies of the pro-Iranian regime in power.
All that talk about Iranian IED and Hezbollah fighters in Basra are, at best, unsubstantiated exaggerations and, most probably, complete fabrications of the US propaganda machine to find a Neocon-compatible scapegoat and blame Iran for everything which went wrong in the “new Middle-East” dreamed-up by the Neocons, from the defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq to the crisis in Gaza.
Frankly, I did not expect anything better from the Neocon’s propaganda. What is amazing and truly frightening, is that the Imperial Senate has unanimously passed a resolution blaming Iran for the death of US soldiers in Iraq. Yes, unanimously.
After passing a resolution supporting the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon, the House also adopted a Neocon-sponsored resolution demanding that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad be condemned by the UN for “inciting genocide” . Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against this text. Dennis Kucinich was even blocked from putting a correct translation of the words of Ahmadinejad in the official record even though the translation used in the media was based on a mistranslation. And now it is the Imperial Senate which adopts a self-evidently idiotic resolution unanimously, blaming Iran for US casualties in Iraq.
There is no doubt in my mind that all these resolutions serve only one single purpose: to establish a legal basis (at least in terms of US law) for a “defensive” war against Iran. The Empire fully understands that the UN will never allow an aggression against Iran and that nobody, besides Israel, wants another extremely dangerous war in the Middle-East. Having lost any hope for making such a war legal in terms of international law, the Neocons are now falling back on the next best option: attempting make such a war legal in terms of US law (thus making it impossible in the future for US lawmakers to oppose it).
There is no doubt that the Empire is suffering from a severe case of “political multiple personality disorder”: American soldiers are dying every day to protect Iran’s allies in Iraq, while other American soldiers are preparing to initiate an aggression against the patron of the very regime which American soldiers are protecting with their lives today.
If any good at all can come from such absurd and needless tragedies, it hopefully will be that it will finally open the currently firmly shut eyes of the American public to the reality that the Neocons regime in Washington does not care in the least about the USA or about Americans. This is not even an issue of “dual loyalty” any more: this is clearly high treason at the service of a foreign power: Israel.
How many more Americans will have to needlessly die before this Neocon occupation government and the Soviet-style Nomenklatura which supports it will be given the boot and before its leaders sent to rot in jail for treason?
Tell me NOW that(living in the USA) is better than Germany in 1939 and I will not chew off my own leg!
Saker,
The Guardian is is running a story about how Cheney has won over Bush, who has OK’d strikes against Iran.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html
The Brit reporters say that it’s all to prevent an Israeli strike and is planned for next year but the time frame seems wrong. Why leak the story now?
John,
Thanks for the link. I am quite sure that leaks are the one last resort which those who oppose an agression against Iran use to try to stop it from happening.
Ever since it became clear that Iran is the main objective of the Neocon’s hatred there have been a truly amazing amounts of leaks, more than ever before. I believe that there is a very large segment of the US ruling elite which opposes a war against Iran, not out of some deep seated humanitarian or ethical concern, but out of basic self-interest. The ONLY political force which is trying to push the USA into a war with Iran are the Neocons and since they have a total control over the US Congress, the US corporate media and the US government structure leaks are the only option left to those who are opposed to this folly.
You can expect even more leaks before the actual attack begins.
datta – I asked an aunt of my wife who lived under Hitler’s rule whether there were more swastikas then or more (Chinese made) US flags in the USA today. She said that there are definitely more flags today. But then she also added with a smile that at least Americans do not stand up in their living rooms when Dubya speaks on TV like the Germans who stood up when the Fuhrer spoke on the radio…
Saker,
This feels closer to happening than the next year time frame that the Guardian reporters are reporting. Debka had down that the Big E carrier group is in fact deploying as a 3rd group (counter to the NY Sun, Eli Lake story; Debka’s stuff on carrier deployments has been accurate up to now) and I’ve been seeing chatter to the effect that there are F-16 fighters deploying into Iraq, also B-1’s flying around for the first time in long while. Just those 2 things and a gut hunch. Maybe I’m becoming Sec. Chertoff in my senility?
Just those 2 things and a gut hunch. Maybe I’m becoming Sec. Chertoff in my senility?
Count me in for the same symptom. I had the war pegged for March already and it did not happen.
Some very well informed folks (such as Ray McGovern) say that it is not imminent for sure. I am very dubious. It is really hard to suge forces and to keep them onstation. Most of all, you simply cannot put forces on and off combat alert with every swing of Dubya’s mood.
Also – keep in mind that leaking that the attack is scheduled to happen in 6 months or more could be a typical stratgegic deception aimed at achieving tactical surprize.
There are many indicator and warings which one should keep track of to acertain whether the attack is imminent or not, but I do not have access to any of them. Open source info is great for about 80% of analytical needs, but there is this remaining 20% which cannot be substituted for.
There would be very time-consuming means to use only open sources to try to check out this stuff but they would require more time than I have. Besides, I am not fundamentally interested in the “when and how” but primarily in the “whether”. After all, my blog is not some private early warning blog, but a political discussions blog :-)
But, emulating our great friend Chertoff (whose name, by the way, means “from the Devil”, or “Satan’s” in Russian. His family roots are Jews from Russia, I believe. I wonder how they got that endearing last name…), I also have this really bad gut feeling about all this.
The crazies are going to do it, and my bet is that they are going to do it sooner than later.
Thanks for the response. You saved a leg today!
Interesting story on today’s democracynow:
Report: Nearly Half of Foreign Militants in Iraq Are Saudi
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that nearly half of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops in Iraq have come from Saudi Arabia – one of Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East. Of the 19,000 prisoners being held by the U.S. in Iraq only 135 are foreign-born fighters and half of them are Saudi. U.S. officials have so far refused to publicly criticize Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq. Meanwhile in Washington the Democratic-led Senate has unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Independent Senator Joe Lieberman to censure not Saudi Arabia but Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Lieberman said the Senate has a “choice between turning a blind eye to the murder of our troops and confronting those who are murdering them.”
datta,
but not according to this blog from an article in the LA Times.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/another-one-bites-dust.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center