Rumsfeld: Iran aiding Iraq insurgents; another war before November?

[BrainGlutton]

According to a front-page story in today’s (9/8/04) Washington Times, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is accusing the Iranians of supporting the Iraqi insurgents: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123001-6570r.htm

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld charged yesterday that Iran is fueling the deadly insurgency in Iraq with money and fighters.

But, in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that the United States has limited options because other nations are “not willing” to join in pressuring Iran, which has shown behavior that Mr. Rumsfeld said is “not part of the civilized world.”

<snip>

His remarks came after American troops suffered some of their highest casualty rates in recent weeks in Iraq, including the loss of seven Marines in a car bombing on Monday.

Mr. Rumsfeld repeatedly has accused Iran of “meddling” in Iraqi affairs, but has offered few details.

Military sources have told The Times that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard helped fund Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr. The radical cleric’s ragtag Mahdi’s Army has staged a series of deadly insurrections in southern Iraq and in the Shi’ite slums of Baghdad.

A U.S. military intelligence report obtained last week by The Times states that most of his foot soldiers are criminals who were freed by Saddam weeks before the allied invasion.

Asked for details yesterday on Iranian meddling, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "They have put people in there. They have put money in there.

“By ‘they,’ I’m not going to say which element of the government or whether it’s even known to the government. But money has come in from Iran. People have come in from Iran. And it’s a very difficult thing to stop,” he said. “Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior.”

Asked whether Iran is funding Sheik al-Sadr, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “There’s a lot of speculation to that effect.”

What does this portend? Up to now the Iranians have played what many consider an admirable peacemaker role between the Shi’ites and the interim government. Are they changing their policies? Have they been secretly supporting the insurgency all along? Or is Rumsfeld just saying this to prepare the ground for an attack on Iran in case Bush’s poll numbers look squishy in October? That is, if it appears Bush is losing on the two big issues this year – the economy and the Iraq occupation – I wouldn’t put it past the Admin to start another war just to divert our attention from those things.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: From the New York Times, September 16, 2004:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-site.html

VIENNA (Reuters) - A senior Iranian official said on Thursday that the latest allegation that Tehran is hiding a nuclear site from U.N. inspectors was a lie and denied that the U.N. nuclear watchdog had even asked to visit it.

``This is a new lie, like the last 13 lies based on news reports that have been proved to be lies,’’ Hossein Mousavian, Iran’s chief delegate to this week’s meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told Reuters.

A prominent nuclear expert had said on Wednesday that new satellite images showed the Parchin military complex, southeast of Tehran, may be a site for research, testing and production of nuclear weapons.

David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank, also said that the IAEA had requested to inspect the site but that the request had been ignored.

Mousavian said: ``They have not asked to see the site.’’

He added that the allegation was timed to influence discussions on a draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program that could set the stage for November showdown at the IAEA.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States has reached an agreement with France, Britain and Germany on a draft U.N. resolution on Iran that calls for an immediate halt to Tehran’s uranium enrichment program, a diplomat said late on Thursday.

It's a text that all six countries can live with,'' a Western diplomat close to the talks told Reuters, referring to discussions between Canada, Australia and the European Union's big three’’ on Iran’s nuclear program, which Washington says is a cover for a nuclear weapons program.

Iran’s program for uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel for power plants or nuclear weapons, is the most controversial part of Tehran’s atomic plans, which it says are limited to electricity generation.

The preliminary agreement, which still has to be approved by most of the 35 nations on the governing board of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ended nearly a week of discussions on the text, which the diplomat said would set the stage for a November showdown over Iran’s nuclear program.

I honestly do not know whether to be relieved or alarmed at these developments.

[PatriotX]

With which troops?

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

According to a front-page story in today’s (9/8/04) Washington Times, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is accusing the Iranians of supporting the Iraqi insurgents…

Rummy’s had a bit of trouble with confusional thinking this past week: Fri Sep 10, 2004 03:44 PM ET

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mixed up al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein twice in a speech on Friday about the war against terrorism.

“The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Masood, lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein, by Osama bin Laden, Taliban’s co-conspirator,” Rumsfeld said.

“Saddam Hussein, if he’s alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we’ve not seen him on a video since 2001,” Rumsfeld said.

I’m sure that in his latest outburst, he meant to finger Belgium, rather than Iran. No doubt a ‘clarification’ will be issued tomorrow.

[XT]

SimonX nailed it (yet again)…what the hell would we attack Iran WITH? We won’t even get into the warm bodies, either (though gods know where we’d get them from AND hold onto Iraq). Our logistics is stretched supporting Iraq BG…the cupboard is simply bare and will be for a while to come.

Air strikes into Iran? Possible, maybe even probable. But an out and out invasion? Only in the wildest wet dreams of the supper war hawks at the Pentagon…or the rabid fear dreams of the most out of touch anti-war crowd. Its just not going to happen.

-XT

[Loopydude]

Nope. Not to say an attack on Iran won’t happen, but not until after the elections. Then Bush can draft without worry. Woe be, perhaps, to the next Republican candidate, but what does Dubya care?

[RickJay]

There’s not enough political capital in it, since he’s leading the polls. Wait until just before the 2006 midterms, and they’ll come up with some phony story to justify another war. It may be Iran, but there’s two years to come up with a more helpless victim.

[John_Mace]

If Bush wins re-election, it will be in spite of, not because of, the war in Iraq. Whatever you might think of Bush, he isn’t so stupid that he’d compound that error several times over by invading a country that actually has **some **ability to fight back.

Ain’t gonna happen.

[squeegee]

John: agree with your point re this election. However, the 2002 mid-terms were indeed weighted towards the GOP; I think there’s little doubt it was because of the Iraq war hysteria. Perhaps GWB believed his advisors that we’d win easily in Iraq, and he’d look justified going to war by this time in the election cycle. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

SimonX nailed it (yet again)…what the hell would we attack Iran WITH? We won’t even get into the warm bodies, either (though gods know where we’d get them from AND hold onto Iraq). Our logistics is stretched supporting Iraq BG…the cupboard is simply bare and will be for a while to come.

Air strikes into Iran? Possible, maybe even probable. But an out and out invasion? Only in the wildest wet dreams of the supper war hawks at the Pentagon…or the rabid fear dreams of the most out of touch anti-war crowd. Its just not going to happen.

-XT

Well, if you read my OP, I was speculating about the possibility of an attack on Iran, not necessarily a full-scale invasion. But a bombing raid on their nuclear facilities would still be an act of war. Of course, a bombing raid, while it might set back the Iranians’ nuclear-bomb program, would do absolutely nothing to stop the Iranians from supporting the Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq – assuming they really are doing that. Are they really doing that, or is Rumsfeld just forgetting to take his meds? Where’s Tamerlane when we need him?

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

…stop the Iranians from supporting the Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq – assuming they really are doing that. Are they really doing that, or is Rumsfeld just forgetting to take his meds? Where’s Tamerlane when we need him?

The charges of Iranian intereference may well stem from internal bickering within Allawi’s government, rather than hard evidence.
See this post for a bit more. AFAIK, nothing new has come out since late August.

[PatriotX]

One should wonder what exactly Mr Rumsfeld said.

Maybe he’s talking about Iranians crossing the border to be fighters w/o Iranian gov sponsorship. Cousin Ali coming from Iran to help protect his kinfolk during the troubling times.
Maybe he’s talking about the Iranian gov sending agent provocateurs.
Maybe he’s talking about iran sending divisions of special forces across the border to help train Iraqi insurgents.

Maybe he’s talking about charities sending money and humanitarian aid. Surely some insurgent somehwere eats at a soup kitchen that’s sponsored by some Iranian group.

Who knows?

In the past, Rumsfeld’s shown himself to be content with being merely ‘technically correct.’

[BrainGlutton]

@SimonX

One should wonder what exactly Mr Rumsfeld said.

Maybe he’s talking about Iranians crossing the border to be fighters w/o Iranian gov sponsorship. Cousin Ali coming from Iran to help protect his kinfolk during the troubling times.
Maybe he’s talking about the Iranian gov sending agent provocateurs.
Maybe he’s talking about iran sending divisions of special forces across the border to help train Iraqi insurgents.

Maybe he’s talking about charities sending money and humanitarian aid. Surely some insurgent somehwere eats at a soup kitchen that’s sponsored by some Iranian group.

Who knows?

In the past, Rumsfeld’s shown himself to be content with being merely ‘technically correct.’

From the Washington Times story (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123001-6570r.htm):

Mr. Rumsfeld repeatedly has accused Iran of “meddling” in Iraqi affairs, but has offered few details.
Military sources have told The Times that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard helped fund Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr. The radical cleric’s ragtag Mahdi’s Army has staged a series of deadly insurrections in southern Iraq and in the Shi’ite slums of Baghdad.
A U.S. military intelligence report obtained last week by The Times states that most of his foot soldiers are criminals who were freed by Saddam weeks before the allied invasion.
Asked for details yesterday on Iranian meddling, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "They have put people in there. They have put money in there.
“By ‘they,’ I’m not going to say which element of the government or whether it’s even known to the government. But money has come in from Iran. People have come in from Iran. And it’s a very difficult thing to stop,” he said. “Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior.”
Asked whether Iran is funding Sheik al-Sadr, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “There’s a lot of speculation to that effect.”

Hope that clears things up.

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s another update: According to the Thursday, September 16 broadcast of Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org), the Financial Times is reporting that the Pentagon is seriously debating military action against Iran. I tried checking this out at the Financial Times website (http://news.ft.com/home/uk), but you can’t even run a search without subscribing.

[RickJay]

@BrainGlutton

Here’s another update: According to the Thursday, September 16 broadcast of Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org), the Financial Times is reporting that the Pentagon is seriously debating military action against Iran. I tried checking this out at the Financial Times website (Financial Times), but you can’t even run a search without subscribing.

Remember, the U.S. bombed Cambodia and Laos, too, the latter case being pretty much on the order of low-level genocide. Of course in those cases the country that could fight back was the main event, so it’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s close.

[BrainGlutton]

@RickJay

Remember, the U.S. bombed Cambodia and Laos, too, the latter case being pretty much on the order of low-level genocide. Of course in those cases the country that could fight back was the main event, so it’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s close.

The “parallel” is that the American bombing of Laos and Cambodia was ostensibly intended to wipe out Viet Cong base camps in those countries – but their governments, if I recall correctly, were not actively aiding the VC nor accused of doing so. Also, as you point out, they were not in a position to fight back. An attack on Iran would be very different because (1) there are no Iraqi insurgent “base camps” in Iran, so far as I’ve heard (at least, Rumsfeld didn’t mention that); (2) Iran’s government has been accused (rightly or wrongly) of actively aiding insurgents in Iraq; (3) Iran could fight back; (4) Iran is also accused of supporting international networks of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism – which is a very different animal from international communism.

[Squink]

Ari Fleischer; February 12, 2003

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President laid out a timetable several weeks ago when he said, weeks, not months. And I’m not going to go beyond any timetable the President has laid out. But the clock is ticking.

Spencer Abraham; September 19, 2004

“We were very pleased by this consensus, by the closing of whatever gaps existed, in terms of tactical approaches, and we should all expect that Iran should follow the obligation and cooperate fully with the IAEA. The clock is ticking down now on Iran towards the next meeting.”

[BrainGlutton]

The linked article says the IAEA will be meeting again in November – after the election, presumably, so it won’t serve as a launching pad for any pre-election hostilities.

[jshore]

@BrainGlutton

According to a front-page story in today’s (9/8/04) Washington Times, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is accusing the Iranians of supporting the Iraqi insurgents: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123001-6570r.htm

What does this portend? Up to now the Iranians have played what many consider an admirable peacemaker role between the Shi’ites and the interim government.

Recall that the Iranians may actually be the ones who helped get us to invade Iraq in the first place: US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war and Iran used Chalabi to dupe U.S., report says! [Has anyone heard any more about this? It is one story I’ve been anxious to hear more about.]

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s another update, from the September 27 Newsweek (thanx to astro for calling this to my attention) – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

The Iran crisis is more immediate in the eyes of the Bush administration, in part because Iran is among the president’s “Axis of Evil.” Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. “If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution,” said Israel’s new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week. “For obvious reasons,” he added, “we aren’t going to speak of specifics.” U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran’s facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel’s aircraft; They’re also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground.

But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. “The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,” says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. “The question is, what then?” NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, “The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.”

Instead, administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran—by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled “draft” or “working draft” to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration’s abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime’s promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there’s no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level.

The NPT has never banned uranium enrichment. That didn’t stop the United States, France, Germany and Britain from offering a draft resolution at last week’s IAEA Governing Council meeting, demanding that Iran immediately cease such activity. Other council members quickly challenged the provision’s legality. Some members of President George W. Bush’s own party are throwing up their hands at such clumsy doings. “This administration’s nonproliferation strategy consists of flailing around with a two-by-four,” says one disgusted Republican elder statesman. And even the administration must realize that its Iran options are limited now by the chaos already overtaking Iraq.

My reaction: double :eek: !