Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq (The Guardian)

[Up2Late]

Source: The Guardian

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone (in Baghdad). The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top (of the Iranian government)."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September (when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements)," the official said.

"Certainly it (the violence) is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

---

WARNING: The source for this is an Un-named "senior US official in Baghdad," So this could be complete B.S. RW Spin, but it's coming from The (U.K.) Guardian, which is usually fairly reliable, so judge for yourself on this one.

I have a shiny new Dime for the first here who can figure out who this "...senior US official in Baghdad..." is.

[sam sarrha]

1. the sky is falling the sky is falling .. better F*CKING NUKE IRAN,!!!

that is so pathetic, why are we there anyway.!! they are not going to sign over all the oil profits to us... just gt the hell out of Iraq,

[BigRed1975]

2. Doesn't take much of a stretch...

to see that Iran is meddling in the Iraq war and helping to foment sectarian violence. It is not important to identify that senior official although it makes for unwarranted skepticism about the role of Iran. What is important is that if you understood enough about the region to predict the sectarian violence, then you clearly understand there is no way that Iran is not protecting their interest by doing everything they can to drive us from the country.

We will not be leaving the country entirely for this precise reason..no matter who wins the 2009 election. We will not be withdrawing or even drawing down prior to the next president. Bush won't budge, and I believe the Democratic congressional leaders are too smart to fall for the temptation of cutting off the funds. If they were to fart around and cut off money, the current money runs out in mid summer...right about the time the troops are expected to face increased hostilities. A rising body count coupled with a Congress that has cut off operational funds...a recipe for disaster for the Democrats who will then own this failure right along with Bush.

The next president will be tasked with withdrawing in an orderly fashion, and he/she will be leaving a residual force. The "experienced" guy Richardson has a naive plan for Iraq. He will have to renege if elected and leave residual forces. The partition plan from Biden is a nonstarter. Its nothing more than anglo American hubris that bears no relationship to a workable solution given the cultural and geopolitical realities of the region.

[MindPilot]

4. So basically what you're saying is "go shopping"...

We're mired in Iraq (and probably Iran) for-freaking-ever. We're screwed either way, and all our votes, protests, LTEs mean nothing because the Dems are too smart to pass up the opportunity to say "fuck you" to the people who elected them to stop the war.

I had such high hopes...

Welcome to DU, BTW.

[Recursion]

7. I think it's a sad truth

We're there; if there's a last helicopter flying off the embassy roof after Bush made a big deal about how cutting the funding was why this had to happen, say hello to another Republican Congress and good bye to the liberties we have left.

Then again, maybe it's worth it; that's a moral gut-check we need to have as a party. But the American people have a long history of shooting the messenger at the ballot box.

[BigRed1975]

8. Didn't mean it that way...

Certainly not with the FU emphasis...LOL. But the reality is we can't neatly un-ring the bell in Iraq. We lost the moment the lead tank crossed over into Iraq from Kuwait. The outcome was totally predictable, just as it is predictable that Iran is now throwing bee-bees on the floor while we're trying to skate.

Cut the funds is a great little trap that the Republicans have set for us realizing that we have a thirst to pull the plug...some would advocate regardless to the situation on the ground for the troops. But history shows this is an unpopular thing to do to troops in the field. It will do nothing but backfire on the Dems, leaving us vulnerable to be blamed for the failure of this war. The fact is the pubs have had all they need to wage this war for the last 4 years unfettered by the Dems. Come election 2008, this is Bush/con war, not our war. Pelosi and Reid feel the heat from those who want to cut the funds. Reid responded to this by sticking out the resolution last week. They both know its political suicide to do so. You think if Hillary is the nominee that the election could be close. I guarantee you we'll lose for sure if the funds get cut.

Big Red

[MindPilot]

30. I think you have fallen for the righty spin

The Dems are--or at least should be--making it very clear the bill is not to de-fund the troops. What they are saying--or at least were before the new WH-Approved bill--is "here's the money on the condition that you have them out by____." When Bush vetoes, HE is the one de-funding the troops.

As it stands now, the Dems have taken yet another step toward making the war their very own when they should be doing everything in their power to make it Bush's War and his alone.

[Recursion]

6. Amen about partition

That's just a divide-and-conquer strategy to give oil companies more leverage in bargaining. The sectarian conflict is hardly inherent in Iraq (there's almost no history of it), it's the deliberate result of our "divide the wogs" strategy, I just think the yokels running the CPA were too stupid to hold on to the reins -- we basically did the Belgian trick with Hutus and Tutsis, apparently because people don't know history anymore.

[BigRed1975]

10. Well..actually...

The sectarian conflict in Iraq is well over a thousand years old. It's the same "background" conflict that has driven even US policy toward Iran/Iraq post Carter years and is the reason why Iran is considered a threat by Saudi Arabia and many of the other Sunni countries. Recall that Iran is a minority Shiite country within the majority Sunni world. It was the British who left the Sunnis in charge of Iraq despite them being the minority party. They did this precisely to suppress the known goal of the Shiite leader at the time to attempt to form his own caliphate. The Sunni ruler was seen as easier to control. Interesting to note that Churchill had to leave Iraq because of financial considerations. Installing the weak Sunni leader was seen as a way to retain control from a distance..i.e. leave behind a dependent colony. Only strong fisted dictatorships such as the kind represented by Saddam suppressed the conflict. Saddam rose to power in 1975 and interestingly enough, the Ayatollah whom Saddam expelled from Najaf to Paris shortly thereafter, was the one who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages. Absent Saddam's hard ass secular rule, Wahabism ideology and Al Qaeda enter into the mix and you have the clash you see today...one which was always there waiting to emerge.

Big Red

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Actually not.

There is of course an historic and ancient schism between sunni and shia, but Iraqis will quickly let you know that at least in the more modern Baghdad region there was no big sectarian divide prior to the invasion. Nobody much cared which branch of Islam you adhered to, and mixed marriages were common. Wahabism's hardline resugence is a relatively recent event. Not something that Saddam was desperately keeping the lid on.

[Recursion]

17. That's a popular meme but not a particularly true one

The Ottomans ruled Mesopotamia with three somewhat autonomous eyalets (Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk), which if you'll look at a map cuts across the ethnic/sectarian division of the country -- in fact, they specifically did not divide it into a shiastan, sunnistan and kurdistan for roughly the same reason the modern Turks don't want that division. They were not particularly repressive or brutal to the Mesopotamians and there wasn't any ethnic conflict of note.

In fact, in the past thousand years, the only time there was sectarian conflict was in the 13th century, when the Safavids, a foreign power, toppled the government and divided the population against each other in order to rule them. Hmmm... sound familiar?

[dave_p]

19. ... and it wasn't the British

... who put Sunni administrators in charge: that had long been the prevailing system under Ottoman rule. The British just installed Faisal as their nominal puppet ruler after the French ejected him from Syria.

Churchill didn't leave Iraq, he was out of government when formal independence was proclaimed (1932) and when the occupation was ended (1946), and way past it by the time Iraqis got a government worth calling their own (1958).

Lawrence liked to potray the 1921 deal as an attainment of Arab self-rule, but he was a gifted self-publicizing fantasist keen to portray himself as the bringer of Arab freedom. In fact the Cairo agreement was just British rule through their own (non-Iraqi) Arab appointee.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "residual forces" - sorry that is patent idiocy.

We can't control the region with our non-residual forces. That situation will continue unchanged or will get worse, but it will not get better. How exactly are we going to leave a smaller force in Iraq that can do anything other than hunker down in fortified air-conditioned bases? We can either stay and bleed or leave and let the region sort out the mess we have made. All respects to Murtha, but there is no viable partial withdrawal strategy.

[MGKrebs]

31. A residual force would not be there to "control the region".

It would be trainers, advisors, intelligence, border assistance, MP's, and I'm sure some commando-types for rescue or selective intervention. At least, that's what I would anticipate.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Wanna bet?

"We will not be withdrawing or even drawing down prior to the next president."

Newsflash: "We're running out of cannon fodder." Any parent who loves their children and has an IQ above 90 will DISCOURAGE them from joining The Armed Forces.

I seriously doubt that Political Elites like the Bushs' and Clintons' are going to sacrifice their blessed children. NEITHER WILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

We love our children as much (perhaps more) than the political elites. If they wish to stay in Iraq, then send THEIR CHILDREN.

What part of "It's NOT our neighborhood!" can you not understand? :grr: :thumbsdown:

[porque no]

25. Au contraire mon frere

The smart play on their part is to keep us in Iraq indefinitely and bleed our treasury and our military dry. The dipshit monkey in the white house has given them EXACTLY what they want, a holy war on their terms. They are willing to fight this forever. There is literally no way that Al Queda or Iran or the Shiites, or the Sunnis or all of them together could defeat the US unless we are stupid enough to sign on to testosterone fueled endless war, half a world away, on bad ground.

Iraq is bad ground for the US military and no length of stay would further help that reality. The smart play by the US is a steady, staged withdrawal, while leaving enough quick strike forces handy to kick some ass to help the emerging government. Pledge money for redevelopment (if Iraqi Democratic government is able to control its use), and solicit help from the rest of the world to cure this madness.

We need to create some good will in the region and right now all we create is death and misery. Bush will go down in history as the stupidest fucking moron president that we could have ever had. If we do not slap him down and end this idiocy in its current form, we will fall.

[MindPilot]

3. "intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal"

Imagine the irony of the Iranians being the ones at long last who force the Democrats to grow a spine.

[BigRed1975]

11. If the Dems grow a spine...

WE don't leave as a result of Iran turning up the heat. We make Iran pay for that mistake and then we withdraw on our terms.

I guarantee if we leave altogether by the end of this year, the region will devolve into chaos. By 2009 there will be a worldwide recession based on the fact that the Persian Gulf is closed to traffic. Universal health care and global warming will be the last thing to worry about.

Big Red

[ShortnFiery]

15. "We make Iran pay for that mistake" HOW? By killing more innocents with dumb-ass "smart" bombs?

:grr: It's time for a full withdrawal. Like Vietnam fiasco that we promised "NEVER AGAIN!" it's time to declare victory and extract our troops from those hell holes (both Afghanistan and Iraq).

[frankieT]

27. YEAH sure talk about "SPINE" and "COURAGE"

and that kind of bulls**t ! I see no courage in advocating war in a very distant country from your home, without going there actually, and for dubious motives.

Actually, the courage and the spine are on IRAQ's people side for long years. It's their country, it's their homes, their land, etc.
I think that US soldiers have nothing to do there.

Even if this iranian plan is true and widespread, they have more rights to meddle in their neighbor affairs, knowing that the majority is Shia and that Saudis, Jordanians, Turks are doing the same with their freaking secrets services and proxy groups, not to mention the british, the israelis, and probably russian and chinese.

If you call that "Iran turning up the heat", I wonder how you would call the the repeated threats by US against Iran since 2001 (at least).

[porque no]

29. You sound familiar with your

"it's either this or that." I don't know of any strong support for total withdrawal in a hurry. Do you? There are some out there that say "get out today" but that isn't even realistically on the table. So I'd have to call your post a red herring, or worse, Repubespeak.

Phased withdrawal is the answer and will occur because the Repubes are going to see the writing on the wall. That writing says "the democrats are trying to fix this mess and bring our boys home but the Republicans, led by GEORGE W BUSH are perpetuating a disaster". It will be a group of Republicans, probably a substantial number, that join the democrats and begin a reasonable drawdown. If they don't, then the voters will get the message. That message is "vote out the Republicans and let's end this mess before we run out of options." The Dems wind up with the presidency and a super majority in Congress.

This farce has got until September until the reckoning.

[nitestar41]

33. As you said earlier...

the violence has been occurring for well over a thousand years. The civil war that is occurring in Iraq that we are at present fighting in, is not our war it is theirs. We can't win it.

How can I put this? When two woman are fighting (or men, maybe) and a male friend (or even a third female) steps in to try and sort it out and make the fighting stop, What often happens? Do the woman listen to what he is saying? OR do they go after him for interfering? In a way the opposing sides in Iraq have essentially joined together for the common purpose of getting us out. We've done one thing they are working together for a common goal, lol, but that common goal is to get the Americans/foreigners out. Once we leave it may devolve into utter chaos but it already is. The Iraqis have to be allowed to stand on their own. We introduced our idea of Democracy to them let's see what they do with it. There is no reason to keep throwing the Men and Women of our armed forces at them.

Ok, so to me that kind of explains my view on the Civil War in Iraq... now let's see if I can explain Iran's behavior...

Think back to when you were still in school... Say you have a younger/older sibling and they are getting beat up everyday by someone tougher. Do you stand by and do nothing? Every day your sibling comes home with a bloody nose or a black eye. No amount of talking or tattling can stop the bully, in fact it just makes it worse. What do you do? You take matters into your own hands, after all no one but you can beat up on your sibling but you.

Iraq is that sibling and Iran is acting in a way like the sibling that can't stand by any longer and watch the bully (Americans/Foreigners) beat up on their sibling.

I know using these kinds of examples is a bit silly but I think in someways they are accurate. We are not wanted in Iraq, so we shouldn't butt in anymore.

[Recursion]

5. We've got a quarter million troops and mercs in the two countries surrounding them

You honestly think they're not going to do everything they can to get us out? Christ, people, this is war.

[dave_p]

9. Your highlighting's absolutely correct

The story's indeed utter BS, I don't know what the Guardian's doing regurgitating such spoonfed crap. Iran doesn't command Iraqi insurgents, and Shia-Sunni cooperation would make WH claims of staying to preventing all-out sectarian civil war redundant anyway.

As for "al-Qaida elements" in Iraq, they're great at murdering Shia and provoking a backlash against the Sunni minority, but they're not much use for fighting real armies. And the last thing Iran wants is to strengthen those idiots.

Sunni nationalist insurgents are a different matter: they've always been ready to fight alongside anybody against the occupation regime, and Iran would do well to move against the Shia sectarian death squad leaders and forge a radical Shia-Sunni alliance. But there hasn't been much sign of that.

"Certainly it (the violence) is going to pick up from their side" is as clear an admission as we've had that the "surge" has failed. If violence is certain to escalate, what's the point of being there?

[ShortnFiery]

16. "If violence is certain to escalate, what's the point of being there?"

Millions upon millions of dollars are being made by the corporations comprising our BLESSED Military Industrial Complex.

Never forget that our smarmy and spineless politicians are working FOR Lockheed Martin, et. al. NOT vice versa. :grr:

You want THE ANSWER as to why we are still pouring resources and our beloved children to this military MEAT GRINDER? -----> FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

[OregonBlue]

18. I only got as far as "US officials say" and knew it was going to be total, absolute B.S.

Ignore the rest of the story and shame on The Guardian for aiding this bunch that got us into this mess and are keeping us there. This is just another excuse for the U.S. to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!

[Kagemusha]

20. Juan Cole was like, "Guess I've gotta link to this silly thing..."

And truly, I'd already had that reaction before going to sleep; reading his take (http://juancole.com/) certainly did nothing to change my mind. It's like some Unified Theory of Iran's Evil. Even goes on to say how the US and its Noble Allies have given Iran pause and that the US is willing to talk to Iran so that Iran can arrange how best to kiss the US' posterior. Noble indeed.

How did this get to print?...

[MetaTrope]

21. Wait a minute, isn't al-Qaeda Saudi Arabia's baby?

I don't recall the part about Osama bin Laden getting Iranian citizenship...

[dave_p]

22. Must've been a different al-Qaeda

Of course a nationally-minded, non-Arab Shia Muslim Iran would make common cause with a group that wants all Muslims under a Sunni Arab Caliphate. It's just so obvious, why didn't we think of it before? I feel such a fool in the face of BushCo's brilliant geopolitical insights.

[Strelnikov_]

23. Al Queda is aligned with Eastasia. They have always been aligned with Eastasia n/t

[Strelnikov_]

24. Setting up the backstory for why we can't leave when the surge fails

'If we leave, we are surrendering to the Iranians'

[HuffleClaw]

26. they've been hinting at this one for ages now

and they'll NEED a scapegoat once the iraqi resistance mounts its long-awaited 'tet'.

[TexasLawyer]

28. Iran and Saudi Arabia both in Iraq proxy war

It's inaccurate just to talk about Iran and not to mention Saudi Arabia too.

Saudi Arabia And The Proxy War In Iraq

Posted March 6th, 2007
by Davide Simonetti

Much has been made of Iran's alleged supplying of weapons and bombs to Shi'ite factions in Iraq. Far less has been made of Saudi Arabia's apparent role in supplying weapons and funding to Sunni insurgents. And yet, as Saudi Arabia threatened to do, and as has been stated by the Iraq Study Group as well as by journalist, Seymour Hersh, this appears to be the case.

<snip>

http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/1680

[Stockholm]

32. uhuh yeah right

Iranian Shias supporting Sunni killing Shiites as fast as they can in Iraq - yep, thats makes sense...

Personally, I am still waiting for the Iranian insurgents and stockpiles of Iranian weapons.

[cigsandcoffee]

34. Iran would be foolish to not make things miserable for us.

When the US leaves, Iraq is easy pickings for them. Bush handed them the country on a silver platter.

[19jet54]

35. Just because...

... I think they are out to get me, does not mean they are not?

[krkaufman]

36. All they'd have to do is follow through on plans for the Iraqi Parliament to take the summer off.

Even Republicans would be hard-pressed to defend such an action while US troops are dying on their behalf, and a US withdrawal would become more likely.

[krkaufman]

37. Wait! Iran, a Shiite country, is working with Sunni militias ...

... and al Qaeda (also Sunni)? This report reeks of misinformation from the first paragraph.

[conspirator]

38. BLOODY PROPAGANDA OF THE BUSH and BRITISH REGIMES nt