Attack against Iran? That'll be funny, seeing as how we are FIGHTING FOR IRAN in Iraq

[WilliamPitt]

Think about this, by way of Howie Kurtz's Post review today (yeah, I know):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

David Brooks has an important column. His sources say that Prime Minister Maliki pushed for U.S. troops to withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad, so his Shiite forces could do their thing (such as attacking mainly Sunnis) without interference. Bush insisted that American forces be directly involved.

"Then came the job of selling the plan. The administration could not go before the world and say that the president had decided to overrule the sovereign nation of Iraq. Officials could not tell wavering Republicans that the president was proposing a heavy, U.S.-led approach.

"Thus, administration officials are saying that they have adopted the Maliki plan, just with a few minor tweaks . . . All of this is designed to soothe the wounded pride of the Maliki government, and to make the U.S. offensive seem less arduous at home. It's the opposite of the truth."

(snip)

Slate's John Dickerson wonders why Bush is putting all his chips on an unreliable ally:

"Two months ago, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley wondered whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was clueless, incompetent, or devious. Now, Bush is betting the farm on him. His troop surge is based on a plan that he says Maliki authored. He is banking on the leader's promise to end the vicious cycle of sectarian violence. Bush also promises that Maliki will form a plan to share oil revenues, create new jobs, reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

"The president isn't just asking the American people to buy into a new military strategy for Baghdad; he's asking the country to embrace Iraqi leadership that, in the same speech, the president portrayed as so fragile it would collapse if U.S. troops pulled back. Two months ago, Donald Rumsfeld considered the government so infantile he referred to giving it more responsibility as 'taking our hand off the bicycle seat.' Bush's plan takes as a matter of faith that Maliki can deal with Muqtada Sadr and his militia--to which the Iraqi prime minister is politically beholden. It assumes that ragtag Iraqi troops will shortly be trained, equipped, and capable. Bush was admirably blunt this time about his past mistakes and the slog ahead. But the confidence he expressed in the Iraqi government--without caveats, doubts, or warnings--seemed utterly fantastical."

===

So, for clarity...the Shiite coalition in Iraq is dominated by two groups, Dawa and SCIRI. Both are creatures of the Iranian government, and have been since the 1980s. Bush has essentially chosen sides here, jumping in fully with the Shiites against the naughty Sunnis...even though the Shiites in the Iraqi government are being puppeteered from Terhan.

George may be dumb, but even he knows that bombing an ally - and after this latest move, Iran is definitely our ally in Iraq - is impolite.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Clearly our Israeli allies want us to eliminate the Iranian nuclear enrichment...

facilities.

Now, according to Flynt Leverett, we could have negotiated something, but have chosen instead to pursue a path of direct confrontation. Moreover, again according to Leverett, we've asked for Iranian help in the past (Afghanistan) and then stabbed the Iranians in the back.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Yeah, the US has a long history of backstabbing in the region.

Just ask the Kurds. You know, the guys who pinned down a US unit the other day.

[Junkdrawer]

4. A link to Leverett's charges on The Washington Note...

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001828.php

[Blue_Roses]

5. Explains Lieberman backing down

from the Katrina investigations.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Joe 'Let's make support of Bush bipartisan' Lieberman...

He never disappoints...

[iconoclastic cat]

2. I have no way of knowing if that makes sense.

Do you think Bush would be constrained by the "will" of a Shiite militia or by some sense of loyalty?

[LSK]

6. is the Brooks article available anywhere besides NYTimes.com???

[leveymg]

7. There is another reason for Bush to stall and randomize the situation. Oil.

The hydrocarbon law hasn't been signed, and this gives Bush a last chance to coerce the Shi'a and the Kurds to sign away their ownership rights to the multinationals.

Without the threat of an attack on Iran, and the heightened tensions between the US and the Kurds in the North, likely the civil war would reach the point where any agreement between the three groups would become simply impossible.

This is stall to gain time and try to reorder things enough so that Exxon-Mobil gets its 75-year concession.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Kurds were allies of Iran during the Iran/Iraq war too

And the Kurds are about all we have left over there who are not shooting our soldiers on site.

Don

[leveymg]

9. Report of confrontation at the airport when the Americans tried to fly out the Iranians.

who has been seized at the diplmatic post. Earlier this morning, I saw a link to an article that reported an armed confrontation with the Kurds - at first I couldn't believe it. Just went back to find it, and the post has been pulled.

Anyone know what's going on?

Now, if this is true, the whole thing is beginning to make better sense.

PS - Here's how AP spun that story. "All a big misunderstanding among friends". Double-sorry about the FOX link. Anyone see this reported anywhere else?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243271,00.html

Five Iranians Seized by U.S. Troops in Iraq Remain in Custody
Friday, January 12, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi foreign minister said Friday that the five Iranians detained by U.S.-led forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, also said U.S. forces tried to seize more people at the airport in Irbil, 220 miles north of Baghdad, prompting a confrontation with Kurdish troops guarding the facility that was resolved without casualties.

In Washington, a Pentagon official said that after troops detained the people in the building, they got intelligence indicating that another person might have escaped out the back door and fled to the airport.

So an American team was sent to the airport, where they "surprised" Kurdish forces, who apparently had not been informed they were coming and wondered who they were and what they were doing there, said the Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about the incident on the record.

"No shots were fired, no one was injured, it was just a tense situation," said the official, who said it was possible a Kurdish commander had been informed but word had not reached troops at the airport.

[LSK]

10. maybe Bush STILL doesnt know that Iran is a Shiite country

[kentuck]

11. Maybe we can get Chalabi, the Iranian, to advise us?

Like he did with Iraq, huh?

[antigop]

12. Did you read George Will's column today?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/16444719.htm

>>
But the president is right in framing his new policy as a ukase to Iraq's government: We are buying you time, and not much of it, for you to dash to competence concerning security matters. Bush's policy probably will not succeed, but at least we will know what were the parameters of the possible, given the government produced by those Iraqi elections that once were the source of so much U.S. confidence.
>>

So they escalate, let the Iraqis "buy some time", and then when it fails, blame the Iraqis -- it's THEIR fault. They pass the blame to the Iraqis.

[Disturbed]

14. Bush 41 and Bush 43 are backstabbing Assholes.

Anyone that trusts them are fools.

[KoKo]

15. Why are you posting Howie Kurtz and David Brook's Opinions?

What is going on, here?

Are you being a "Devil's Advocate" or something? :shrug:

[lovuian]

16. ahhh Iran is NOT Bush's Ally... Iran is Saudi's and Israel's

NIGHTMARE so me thinks Howie is pretty out to lunch here

:crazy:
My Motto is Actions speak LOUDER than words

what is Bush's Actions
attacking Iran Consulate
Buildup of 45 warships in the Persian Gulf
Troops surge in Iraq
Economic Sanctions

all those spell WAR

[scarletwoman]

17. For more "clarity": the Sadrsts are NOT creatures of the Iranian government.

They are a home-grown Shia nationalist movement. They most emphatically do NOT take orders from Iran.

Look at the recent meeting between bush* and Hakim, leader of the SCIRI faction -- and Maliki himself is an old DAWA hand, btw -- al Sadr is a COMPETITOR for power in Shia Iraq. They SCIRI and DAWA bosses will happily sacrifice Maliki if it means they can get rid of the populist al Sadr. Because once either U.S. or Kurdish troops start "clearing" operations in Sadr City, Maliki is toast.

And because Muqtada is a true populist/nationalist, because he even holds some street cred among some Sunnis for his consistant anti-occupation stance, he is the most dangerous leader in Iraq for bushco. DAWA and SCIRI will play ball in gratitude for the U.S. ridding them of Muqtada.

Bush is only siding with *certain* Shiites.

sw