Not that I’ve heard. Does anybody know?
Apparently so, at least in 2006.
Well no, they want to go forth and fight Evil, and the more Evil to fight, the better. But as far as they’re concerned, the main problem is not that Evil may not be so easy to defeat–America always wins after all–but how to overcome political opposition to the military actions they want to take. So evidence that their intended target really is Evil is welcomed.
I don’t know to what extent Iran is providing arms to Iraqis: the rockets fired into the Green Zone could have been Iranian made (I note that the most cogent argument against this allegation is “they’ve lied before, therefore they cannot be right now”), but I don’t know of anyone who has made a rational case that the explosively formed penetrator IEDs did not come from Iran.
But to your previous point: I think Iran providing arms to insurgents is evidence that Iran is concerned about the US presence in Iraq. In fact, considering how much hand-waving you’ve engaged in by hyping the chance of Bush invading Iran, I think it is absurd to now do a 180 and claim that Iran doesn’t care if we’re in Iraq or not.
Iran is the only Shiite based Islamic Government. Iraq has a huge Shiite base and many of the holy sites (think Persia and not borders).
There is already an undercurrent of resistance in Iran in regards to the government and in part to religious rule. Particularly in Elections are limited to fundamentalist candidates through a screening process so the will of the people is highly skewed. The greatest threat to Iran is democratic rule and currently the countries on either side of it (Iraq, Afghanistan) have shifted in that direction. It would make sense the the United States is seen as a threat to the ruling religious leaders of Iran.
Of course they see U.S. as a threat – not because we provide an example of democratic rule, but because we’ve been on bitterly hostile terms with the Iranian government since 1979.
I’ve long since come around to thinking (and posted so on several occasions) that the Bush Admin will not take military action against Iran before W’s term ends; they can’t, they’ve shot their bolt, they’ve exhausted not only their military capital but their political capital for such a venture.
And it should be equally obvious to the Iranian leaders.
The greatest threat to Iran is an attack or outright invasion by America. The possibility of us killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians, including the leadership, and devastating Iran like we have Iraq is a far, far larger threat than democracy.
And Afghanistan and Iraq haven’t shifted towards democracy, but towards warlordism/anarchy; in the case of Iraq, also towards theocracy.
Uh huh.
And of course the Iranians care whether we’re in Iraq or not – but they have time on their side. They don’t much need to stir the pot. They can afford to wait until we get fed up and leave. They’ll still be there, right next door. And then Iraq will be more or less theirs, whether they ever send a single soldier across the border or not.
For once, Magiver, Der Trihs is not only right but inarguably right on each and every assertion made. U.S. invasion is a greater threat to Iran than democratic states on its borders; and there are no such states on Iran’s borders as yet.* Iraq is a failed state. Afghanistan is a failed state.
*Maybe, before too long, Pakistan. We may hope.
Concur, but take no comfort. You are saying what so many of us said “No, this won’t happen because it’s stupid, it would make no sense.” And then they did it anyway.
We give the Iranians very little reason to trust our bona fides, never mind trust our good sense. Maybe America isn’t spoiling for a fight, despite public belligerence that suggests otherwise. But if your were an Iranian responsible for the safety of your fellow citizens, would you trust the Americans? Hell, does anybody?
Isn’t that supposed to work the other way round? You gather evidence, and then advance to the conclusion?
“Your Honor, Ravenmann can present no proof that he didn’t kill Cock Robin!”
“String him up.”
So, the the EFPs have been intercepted being driven into Iraq from Iran and the analysis of the production of the items that’s been around for three plus years somehow doesn’t count as evidence?
Even if it’s relatively obvious to them, wouldn’t they still plan for the unlikely case where it would nevertheless happen? Which country wouldn’t?
Sure. But why would supplying Iraqi insurgents be part of that planning?
You got? You bring.
I expect this from Der Trihs. But OK. If you must. Lets look at the logic of it. How is this war going to get funded? Where is the political support? If Iraq is a failed state then why would Iran worry? Did it occur to you that a war with Iran would destroy the cease-fire agreement with Shiite leaders in Iraq?
The government of Iran is not well liked on many fronts. They need a scapegoat for their failed economy and social brutality. Israel and the United States have always been that scapegoat. Wasn’t it you who asked the significance of internet cables getting cut in Iran? . They have created their own electronic Berlin Wall to keep ideas out. They’re desperate to maintain control of a religious empire and personal freedom is their worst nightmareThe Shaw was deposed by internal struggle and the current government is in the same predicament.
Bush has made no attempt at putting together support beyond Der Trihs’ imagination. And if he did, there’s no support in either houses. When Pelosi and Reid end their sessions with “death to Iran” then we’ll have a conversation starter. Until then, there is no political support for a war with Iran from any branch of the government, ZERO.
A NY Times summary of the situation. Note part about strongest evidence being “based on an examination of intact E.F.P.’s intercepted as they are shipped into Iraq from across the Iranian border.”
McClatchy story saying shipments suspended after European intervention.
2006 story with Richard Clarke calling evidence Iran’s role in EFP’s “strong.”
PDF of a report from Anthony Cordesman of the independent Center for International and Strategic Studies, quoted here: “Jaysh Al Mahdi (JAM) and other hard-line Shi’ite groups and militias have had steadily rising Iranian support. This has not yet included the advanced anti-tank guided missiles that Iran sent to the Hezbollah for use against Israeli forces… It has meant better rocket launchers, better rockets, more EFPs and IED components, more mortars, and other weapons. It has also meant some direct Iranian financing of elements of the JAM and other militias, more Iranian training and advisory presence (evidently including a presence in some EFP cells) and may have meant direct Iranian support of hostile operations against US, UK, and IAF forces.”
Bush would demand the money, and Congress would hand it over, like they always do.
What makes you think he needs any ?
Because WE are there.
And ? When has the fact that something is obviously a bad idea stopped these people ?
I never said that he had any support. Why do you think he needs any ? He has the troops, there. He has a Congress that wouldn’t impeach him short of him killing and eating Congressmen. He has a Congress that caves in to his demands on a regular basis. He even has nukes, if he decides he wants to go that far.
There doesn’t need to be. Who’s going to stop him ? The only reason we aren’t in a war with Iran this very moment is that Bush and his neocon friends at the moment haven’t decided to start one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm
Strangely the Saudi Ar4abian funding of Iraq insurgencies gets little play in America.