| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iranian influence on the rise in southern Iraq |
| 2006-05-27 |
| Southern Iraq, long touted as a peaceful region that's likely to be among the first areas returned to Iraqi control, is now dominated by Shiite Muslim warlords and militiamen who are laying the groundwork for an Islamic fundamentalist government, say senior British and Iraqi officials in the area. The militias appear to be supported by Iranian intelligence or military units that are shipping weapons to the militias in Iraq and providing training for them in Iran. Some British officials believe the Iranians want to hasten the withdrawal of U.S.-backed coalition forces to pave the way for Iran-friendly clerical rule. Iranian influence is evident throughout the area. In one government office, an aide approached a Knight Ridder reporter and, mistaking him for an Iranian, said, "Don't be afraid to speak Farsi in Basra. We are a branch of Iran." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #16 I can't speak for anyone else, but I love to read well thought out opinions by people who know more than I on the subject at hand. This place is nicknamed Rantburg University for cause (and some of the posters are actual, salaried professors, too). If you would be kind enough to pick a name/nic/nym for yourself that I could remember, Mr. CP7868/Phagum Grang3925, insted of what Fred's clever little anonymizer assigned, I'll keep an eye out for your thoughts -- with pleasure! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-05-27 13:45 |
| #15 Time to nail the |
| Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-05-27 13:03 |
| #14 I am CP7868 with a new cookie. I love our Brit cousins as much as anybody - the troopers and operatives, that is. I'm the biggest fan imaginable for the courage of and some of the impromptu actions taken at the lower levels - the famous bayonet charge being an example. No Sandhurst SooperTwooper made that call. But, in case you haven't noticed, that was a long time ago. What we know now is that they're under siege, if not holed up in their redoubts 24x7 - and have been for a long time. No more heroics, unless you think making it back alive after the World's Shortest Patrols should count. I chalk it up to their leadership. The upper levels of the MoD and UK Military are morons. The choices they've made, such as tossing the far more advanced and integrated US systems and cooperation therein for the EU joke, prove the point. They'll have to hitch a ride to battle, assuming they can get the French to even sign off on a mission. Management of their "zone" in the south is another. I don't buy for one minute the idea that the US has encouraged them to be "soft" in the south, to let militias grow and strengthen to the point that they run everything, that the Iraqi forces in that region are in cahoots with them, that they can kill innocents at will with the Brits utterly ineffective against them, to allow the smuggling of Iranian arms of all types, to allow unchecked the inflow of Iranians and Iranian-trained jihadis, to allow tankers stuffed with ballots, etc. I'm sorry, but I think that idea ranks among the dumbest things I've ever read. I presume that's what this forum is for, airing opinions. BTW, I do believe the Najaf Opn was almost entirely a US affair with the fledgling Iraqi forces following far behind. AirCav and Jarines did the number on Tater and his henchmen there. And, speaking of the devil, if it weren't for Sistani hurrying back from London after his mysterious medical emergency, Tater would've been fried. The Milaki Govt is, indeed, a branch of Iran. I see very little reason for optimism if keeping Iraq as an entity separate from Iran is your goal - and the fact that Jabr is still there should suffice for proof. The Mullahs have to go to salvage the situation. Or partition the mess and let the south go to Iran. |
| Posted by: Phagum Grang3925 2006-05-27 12:35 |
| #13 I say again...pop 1 oil terminal. That's all it would take. But we do not have the balls to do it. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-05-27 12:26 |
| #12 Definitely! |
| Posted by: Odysseus 2006-05-27 12:24 |
| #11 then the action against Iran is also post-emptive. Started back in '79 with the hostages, then Beirut bombing, then..... they've been asking for an ass-kicking for a LONG time. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-27 11:35 |
| #10 It's interesting to me that both people adamantly opposed to the Iraq War and people in favor of it think of it as having been a pre-emptive war. We fought this war AFTER Iraq had invaded both Iran and Kuwait, lobbed missiles into Israel, financed terrorist groups around the world, harbored notorious terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, and even plotted the assassination of a former American President during his trip to Kuwait. Our action struck me as distinctly post-emp. If one were looking at a historical situation, between say the Byzantines and the Turks, this action would be viewed as just one battle in a longer struggle and certainly not as a farsighted/foolish (pick one to taste) pre-emptive action. |
| Posted by: Odysseus 2006-05-27 11:22 |
| #9 This year: lots more live fire exercises for upperclass cadets were added, and yes IED training too. Next year increased time for foreign language/culture immersion (that one has been a couple years in the planning). There's been an increase recently in Arabic, Chinese majors. One top guy a double Arabic/Russian major. The cadets know what's coming down. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-05-27 10:57 |
| #8 I just listened to the President speak at the West Point Commencement. After the usual jokes about absolving minor demerits, he spoke very seriously to this class, the first to start post-9/11, the first to start knowing they were going to war. He spoke of how the world changed after the free world defeated fascism, only to find itself faced with Imperial Totalitarian Communism, and how the West Point curriculum was changed to meet that threat. And then he went on to elaborate how the world now faces a new Imperial Totalitarian threat, and how West Point changed once again to meet the new need. He did not, interestingly, name the new Imperial Totalitarian threat, but he did talk about added Arabic classis, how to deal with IEDs and man checkpoints, and repeated pledges he'd made in the past: to act not reactively to attacks, but pre-emptively as we did against Saddam Hussein's Iraq to prevent future attacks, not waiting until they become actual or even imminent. This may apply to Iran. I do hope so. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-05-27 10:43 |
| #7 We have this long article and several comments about the Sunni in Southern Iraq and the name Sistani is never mentioned. A crucial piece of the equation is being ignored. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-27 10:40 |
| #6 Do not be too quick to dismiss the strategy employed by the British. First of all, examining the tactical situation on the ground: 1) Iraq is and will be a Shiite-dominated country. This means that sooner or later it would be expected that Iranians would have their nose in the tent. It is better than they do it now, while we (all) are still there, then later, to undermine the new nation. Plus, the British are hopelessly outnumbered there. They could never have dominated the Shiites like the US dominates the Sunnis. 2) While the Brits offer the carrot to the Shiites, the stick is close at hand. Remember the pure slaughter of Najaf, the first time Sadr tried it on, with Iranian backing? The other Shiites do not care for Sadr and his henchmen much, and saw how weak, yet brutal, they really were. 3) The US has been encouraging the Brits to be soft and non-threatening to the Shiites, which also encourages the Shiites to be less monolithic, and more concerned with their own divisions. The biggest of which is the patriotic Shiites vs. those more loyal to Iran. 4) War or peace, Iran will want the US forces to be bogged down in southern Iraq. The counter to this is that southern Iraq be fully Iraqi managed, so that any fight that starts down there will be against them, and not the US. To do anything down there, first the Iranians have to steal power from the Iraqis. The Iraqis will not be cool with that. 5) It is very expensive of many things to set up a *conventional* underground in a foreign country. It is also very easy to thwart such an underground when it is unpopular. Weapons caches, fifth columnists, recruiters, handlers, and strategists can be neutralized gradually or quickly. Imagine the Iranian surprise when there is a "night of the long knives", and much of their underground is rolled up. 6) There are many Shiite allies down south who want to return the favor to Iran. No doubt the Brits have been cultivating much support from Shiites who see the Iranian threat, and are sympathetic of the plight of typical Iranians under the heel of the Mullahs. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-05-27 10:31 |
| #5 Whether Brits used a hard or a soft approach in Southern Iraq they would still lose the power struggle. So, while British unjustified smugness rubs me the wrong way too, it's not the core problem. The only likely successful approach is to defeat Iran directly, even with the likely blowback. With Bush at about 29% in the polls I don't see that happening at all, unless we react after an immediate causus belli of 9-11 proportions. |
| Posted by: Odysseus 2006-05-27 10:00 |
| #4 Agreed. The Brits blew this one big time, all the while smirking at our "unsophisticated" "brutish" approach. They forgot that Basra isn't Dublin. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-05-27 07:08 |
| #3 To be honest, yes. Iran has been very busy and spending a LOT of money, buying agents, elections, militia, and Shia ministers. They would have it completely in the bag except for one tiny detail... Soft power, that cute soft beret approach, is not just a dismal failure, it's a total fucking disaster. The south is Iranian militia territory. The UK troops are merely tolerated - as long as they don't get in the way. Otherwise, they're tits on a boar. UK military leadership in the south is beyond abysmal, it's insane. Jabr, the 2nd-most obvious Mullah-tool in the bizarre Shia disaster of a "government" should've been shot between the eyes, not handed another ministry to subvert to Mullah ends. It would be A Very Good Thing if someone took this asshole out with extreme prejudice, then repeat for all of the others who are beholden and loyal to the Mullahs, not Iraq. That tiny detail... At this point, it appears that only overthrowing the Mullahs of Iran will derail this concerted and successful campaign to subvert and effectively absorb southern Iraq into the New Persian Empire. If the Mullahs are deposed and removed as both a threat and an agent of subversion in Iraq, then the situation is possibly recoverable without partition. I believe it will require wet-work within the Iranian-purchased government. Start with Jabr and Jaafari. I apologize for ranting on, but this has been building for at least a couple of years, with milestone events along the way which were clear warning signs, to this obvious end. Please pardon my bluntness, but surprise at this point is, IMHO, silly. |
| Posted by: Cromolet Phavish7868 2006-05-27 03:11 |
| #2 Quit paying their salaries. Also IEDs work both ways. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-05-27 02:55 |
| #1 They think they can possibly win? |
| Posted by: newc 2006-05-27 02:34 |