| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iran's Busted Iraq Bid |
| 2008-04-10 |
| Basra 'Rising' was Tehran's Op April 10, 2008 -- A GAMBLE that proved too costly. That's how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse. Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions: * Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran. * The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front. * The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties. The Iranian plan - developed by Revolutionary Guard's Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" - aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral. The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure. To seize control of Basra, Quds commanders used units known as Special Groups. These consist of individuals recruited from among the estimated 1.8 million Iraqi refugees who spent more than two decades in Iran during Saddam Hussein's reign. They returned to Iraq shortly after Saddam's fall and started to act as liaisons between Quds and local Shiite militias. In last month's operation, Quds commanders used the name and insignia of the Mahdi Army, a militia originally created by the maverick cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as a cover for the Special Groups. Initially, Quds commanders appeared to have won their bet. Their Special Groups and Mahdi Army allies easily seized control of key areas of Basra when more than 500 Iraqi security personnel abandoned their positions and disappeared into the woodwork. Soon, however, the tide turned. Maliki proved that he had the courage to lead the new Iraqi Security Force (ISF) into battle, even if that meant confronting Iran. The ISF showed that it had the capacity and the will to fight. Only a year ago, the ISF had been unable to provide three brigades (some 9,000 men) to help the US-led "surge" restore security in Baghdad. This time, the ISF had no difficulty deploying 15 brigades (30,000 men) for the battle of Basra. Led by Gen. Mohan al-Freiji, the Iraqi force sent to Basra was the largest that the ISF had put together since its creation five years ago. This was the first time that the ISF was in charge of a major operation from start to finish and was fighting a large, well-armed adversary without US advisers. During the Basra battles, the ISF did call on British and US forces to provide some firepower, especially via air strikes against enemy positions. But, in another first, the ISF used its own aircraft to transport troops and materiel and relied on its own communication system. The expected call from the Najaf ayatollahs to stop "Shiite fratricide" failed to materialize. Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, gave his blessings to the Maliki-launched operation. More broadly, the Shiite uprisings in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and other cities that Quds commanders had counted upon didn't happen. The "Green Zone" wasn't evacuated in panic under a barrage of rockets and missiles. After more than a week of fighting, the Iraqis forced the Quds commanders to call for a cease-fire through Sadr. The Iraqi commander agreed - provided that the Quds force directly guaranteed it. To highlight Iran's role in the episode, he insisted that the Quds force dispatch a senior commander to finalize the accord. The Iran-backed side lost more than 600 men, with more than 1,000 injured. The ISF lost 88 dead and 122 wounded. Some analysts suggest this was the first war between new Iraq and the Islamic Republic. If so, the Iraqis won. To be sure, the Iranian-backed side lost partly because Iran couldn't use its full might, especially its air force. (That almost certainly would've led to war between Iran and the US-led coalition in Iraq.) The battle for Basra showed that Iraq has a new army that's willing and able to fight. If the 15 brigades that fought are a sample, the new Iraq may have an effective army of more than 300,000 before year's end. But the battle also showed that the ISF still lacks the weapons systems, including attack aircraft and longer-range missiles, needed to transform tactical victories into strategic ones. The Iranian-sponsored Special Groups and their Mahdi Army allies simply disappeared from the scene, taking their weapons with them, waiting for another fight. Tehran tried to test the waters in Basra and, as an opportunist power, would've annexed southern Iraq under a quisling administration had that been attainable at a low cost. Once it became clear that the cost might be higher than the Quds force expected, Tehran opted to back down. Yet this was just the first round. The struggle for Iraq isn't over. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #7 "yew sure don't sound lawk yur frum around here" writ large. Uproot the invasive weed by the roots. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-04-10 20:19 |
| #6 Al-Quds is also sorely mistaken in thinking they could "woodwork" their way out of this disaster. Both Maliki's internal security forces as SOCOM are going to be on southern Iraq like flies on you-know-what, until they root out every trace of al-Quds. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-04-10 15:54 |
| #5 Who wants Afghanistan? We should give it to Pooty. That worked well last time. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-04-10 15:19 |
| #4 If we gave Afghanistan to China as Lebensraum - (like Tibet and Siberia are) then Iran would find a populous powerful greedy neighbor sharing a long border.... just thinking.... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-04-10 15:17 |
| #3 Iran isn't dumb enough to use their own, easily identifiable forces. They will wait until the US is pulling out and they have nukes. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-04-10 14:38 |
| #2 I'm surprised that Iran did not wait until just before the U.S. election or (if a Democratic victory) until after a new president. There is no way Iran could commit it's own forces with the U.S military in Iraq. They would be defeated on the ground and Iran itself would be subject to air attack. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-04-10 14:33 |
| #1 If the NY Post story is accurate, it would also explain 1) why the ISF threw in a 'green' unit into the fray, 2) why the mortar/rocket targeting in the Green zone was so accurate,3)why IP defections happened so quickly and 4) why US 'expertise' wasn't brought in at the start. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-04-10 13:22 |