I suppose that would make sense if Iran’s leaders desired more than anything else to embarrass the U.S.
But what would make sense for Iran to want is to see the U.S. depart Iraq and reduce our forces in the region, leaving behind a weak, Shi’ite-dominated, Iraq that was closely allied to Iran.
Iraq already is weak and Shi’ite-dominated, and its government and dominant factions are quite Iran-friendly. So if we pull out, they’ve pulled off the entire package.
Attacking Baghdad by means traceable to Iran would give us one more reason to stay, and would drive a wedge between Iran and the Shi’ites in Iraq. Certainly if the next President is a Democrat, s/he’ll have an easier time getting out more quickly if things are quiet.
So pardon me if I don’t believe for a second that Iran is doing this. It makes no sense at all.
I don’t know if Iran is doing as Petreaus says, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t make sense for them to stir the pot. The more casualties the US suffers, the more Americans are going to want us out of Iraq. And primarily, I can see Iran wanting us out of Iraq figuring they’ll pick up the pieces after we’re gone. They probably aren’t too excited about a McCain administration, and if things look like they’re going OK in Iraq he has a better chance of beating Obama or Hillary.
The idea that Iran could provide weapons to Iraki doesn’t seem outrageous to me. For instance, even assuming that Iran isn’t particulary interested in making the situation more unstable than it is already, they could have to provide weapons to friendly Shia militias in order to stay in good terms with them.
I suspect one could think of a dozen different explanations for Iran providing weapons, whether Iran wants to stir the pot or not.
Also, the fact that a weapon is Iran-made doesn’t prove that it was provided by the current Iranian authorities.
Of course, I don’t trust at all the current US administration, either, so for all I know they could be lying.
Well, since all other evidence we’ve ever seen from this administration regarding Iraq has been a pack of lies … er … innocent intelligence mistakes, I can think of no reason why we should believe anything they say now. If Ahmedinejad admits Iranian guilt during a two-hour cross-examination on live TV and signs a stack of affidavits confirming the same, then I MIGHT believe Bush and his cronies. Otherwise, the safe assumption is that they’re lying … er … innocently mistaken.
Yes indeed, it is shocking and terrible for a nation to arm and fund the representatives of an occupying power and a government it set up - so we should be ashamed of our actions against the Russians in Afghanistan. And of course we didn’t even live next door.
If I were running Iran, I certainly would agree to quietly allow the insurgents to buy arms against the country that called me a member of the Axis of Evil. We and the Soviets did this for years.
The way you stop this kind of thing is not to have a hissy fit about the suppliers of the arms, but to have conditions in the country good enough so that few want them, and the rest are loyal enough to turn in insurgents in their midst. Some more jobs and electricity for the Iraqis would fix this problem better than saber rattling.
Any plan for victory in Iraq that depends upon the cooperation of Iran to succeed is a stupid plan. We should assume that Iran will do whatever it can to game the situation to their advantage and plan accordingly.
The fact that Petraeus is publicly complaining about this means either:
Our current plan in Iraq is a stupid plan.
The administration has ulterior motives toward Iran.
Of course, it’s also possible for both of these to be true … .
Of course, there’s no reason we can’t live with that. When we pull out, Iraq will be part of Iran’s sphere of influence. (Unless there’s a U.S.-Iran war, and then all bets are off.) Fine, Og knows we don’t need it in ours.
The irony is that the only way of keeping Iraq out of the Iranian sphere of influence is to have it ruled by the Sunni minority, which implies and autocratic state. The desire for democracy in Iraq pretty much handed it over.
I suppose that could have be averted if there was a peaceful transition to Shia rule with no decrease in quality of life.
This supposes that the U.S. would think about leaving if things calmed down. I’m not sure I’m buying that, and I wouldn’t think the Iranians would either.
But here’s the basic problem – we really don’t understand what’s going on in Iraq or Iran, and we never have. We have really poor insight into the drivers of people’s behavior there – whether it’s tribe, ethnicity, sect, domestic politics, or whatever. We can guess at half a dozen reasons why the Iranians – some Iranians, rather – might want to stir the pot, and half a dozen reasons why they wouldn’t.
This is why it unnerves me not a little to see Petraeus fingering the Iranian government for a direct attack on the Green Zone. Is he sure of what he’s saying, and are we going to draw the appropriate conclusions? We should all have plenty of reasons to doubt by now.
When Russia was in Afghanistan we were behind the insurgency. We financed BenLaden and his army. It is what governments do. We are far away from the middle east,yet we still determined that we should get involved in their politics and wars. Iran is on the border. Do you not think they have a huge interest in the events in Iraq.?
An American takeover of Iraq would be very dangerous for them.
The neocons seem to display a certain smug vindication in response to reports that Iran is behind attacks on Americans or otherwise meddling in Iraq (or for that matter, Amadinejad’s “wipe Israel off the map” remark).
Shouldn’t they be thunderstruck that, instead of planting democracy in the Middle East and seeing it flourish and eliminate the terrorist threat, they’ve gone and let a tiger out of its cage?
Why not? We are. We are providing money and weapons to people who were insurgents quite recently, have we any reason to believe they won’t be insurgents tomorrow? We are arming Sunni tribal militias on the pinky promise that they will only be used against AlQ. You buy that reasoning?
Depends on how your willing to define “supports insurgents”. Iran supports its Shia co-religionists for the good and sensible reason that they regard thier mutual confession as an oppressed minority, Iran being the only majority Shia nation. Even if Iran confined its assistance to blankets, medicine, etc., they would be unburdening the Shia, who might then apply scarce resources to other ends, i.e., weaponry. If Iran supports the Shia in any meaningful way, they simply cannot help but support the Shia insurgency.
Don’t Sunni nations support the Sunni minority? Are they precise and circumspect in this, taking great pains to ensure that their support is not misapplied?