Al-Quds in Basra?

[Heinz Guderian]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3690010.ece

IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.


Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.
Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.


Dr Daniel Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said: “There is no question that Petraeus will be tough on Iran. It is one thing to withdraw troops when there is purely sectarian fighting but it is another thing if it leaves the Iranians to move in.”

Cant find anymore sources on this at the moment. But it is The Times. IF its true:


Is Iran like that sherriff in Rambo: First Blood? Are they pushing it?

Is Iran that confident that it has the minerals to directly challenge US hegemony in the region?

Can Iran be coerced into helping the US in Iraq?

[s.rwitt]

Is Iran like that sherriff in Rambo: First Blood? Are they pushing it?

They have been for awhile.

Is Iran that confident that it has the minerals to directly challenge US hegemony in the region?

They know that the US won't do anything serious without solid evidence. And if we did, 2 weeks into any kind of conflict the entire world would forget what started it and public oppinion would blame the US.

Can Iran be coerced into helping the US in Iraq?

Sure. Until we leave and they get to turn it into a colony.


I belive we need to start sending their RG douches to Guantanamo Bay and force them to publicly admit that they were sent by the Government before handing them back.

[Heinz Guderian]

They know that the US won't do anything serious without solid evidence. And if he did, 2 weeks into any kind of conflict the entire world would forget what started it and public oppinion would blame the US.

i'm actually quite suprised the US did not attack in 2005. Looking at ThiudareiksGunthigg's insight into the run up of the war, i would think the US would have more evidence on Iran than they had on Iraq, especially with Iran's activities in Iraq.

Sure. Until we leave and they get to turn it into a colony.

i agree. any vaccum left will be filled by the Iraqi Shia backers, and maybe a belated powergrab by the Saudis in the west.

I belive we need to start sending their RG douches to Guantanamo Bay and force them to publicly admit that they were sent by the Government before handing them back.

i think the US would face fierce political resistance from the current Iraqi government. The way Ahmadinejad met Maliki in Terhran recently was like they were long lost buddies.

[danzig]

i'm actually quite suprised the US did not attack in 2005. Looking at ThiudareiksGunthigg's insight into the run up of the war, i would think the US would have more evidence on Iran than they had on Iraq, especially with Iran's activities in Iraq.

Even if they did they have zero political capital, support or credibility to do anything about it. Anything short of Iran going we have nuclear missile and its going off in 5, 4, 3, 2....pretty much assures all the US can do is play the back channel diplomatic stuff. Besides given current Iranian's presidents own erroding support better to watch him sink and die from his piss poor economic plan and see what comes after. Good news my fellow iranians we have nuclear power bad news you have no job!

[Heinz Guderian]

That is total and complete garbage. If you’re going to try to comment on what’s going on in Iraq, at least do some basic homework on who is who first.

harsh. the performance of the Mahdi Army in Najaf and more recently Basra would indicate these guys are pretty well trained and can do business on a higher operational level

It’s Maliki who is far closer to Iran than Muqtada al-Sadr: Maliki’s weak government is backed by the Shi’ite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and its Badr Brigades militia. Guess which country set them up and still works hand-in-glove with them? Iran.

i agree. And Al-Sadr was the only one not to have left Iran in the days of Saddam whilst Maliki, Al-Amiri and Al-Hakim stayed in Tehran at the Iranian's pleasure. The former is almost more nationalistic about an independent Iran.

This also makes the idea that Iranian troops were fighting against Maliki’s forces (and US forces) in Basra even less likely. As Middle East expert Gregory Gause commented a couple of days ago, "I'm open to evidence, but it would be a real departure if Iran had organized units fighting …. It wouldn't make sense to make their own guys [Maliki and ISCI] look bad …. The status quo is in their interest"

i read that too. Something smells fishy with the whole Basra operation especially if a ceasefire was arranged in Qom, Iran.

Iran backs all the Shi’ite factions and Shi’ite militias to some extent, since that suits their overall desire for influence in the region. So naturally that includes the Mahdi Army. But to paint Sadr as an Iranian stooge and to pretend that al Quds troops were supporting him against Maliki defies logic.

I gotta admit, the Iranians have played this post war government formation extremely well. Iranian influence across parties has risen exponentially.

Petraeus had better produce some evidence to back this claim. Otherwise it looks like the old trick of painting Iran as the reason troops should stay in Iraq; something the Bushies do whenever things start getting worse in Iraq.

the fact that i'm finding only one source on the OP may indicate the lack of evidence. But Petreus seemed to have changed tactics recently when it comes to openly accusing the Iranians (e.g. dismissing EFP's were from Tehran last year)

If the Bush Administration had half a clue and wasn’t in thrall to some hidebound thinking regarding Iran they would realise that both they and Iran have an interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq (including crushing Al Qeada). The smart move would be to negotiate with Iran and co-operate with Tehran on Iraq. But try getting the neo-con rump in Washington to contemplate that sensible option.

No, painting Iran as the bad guys (despite how counter-productive this is) is more their style. Hey, they’ve bungled everything else in Iraq since day one, so why expect them to change tack now?

i wrote similar sentiments in the conclusion part of my dissertation on Iran (yet to hand in ). I can think much more could be achieved by the US recognising the change in the balalnce of power and treating it less like a zero sum game. Engage Iran, as recently suggested in Greece by Allbright, Kissinger, Baker et al.

Even if they did they have zero political capital, support or credibility to do anything about it. Anything short of Iran going we have nuclear missile and its going off in 5, 4, 3, 2....pretty much assures all the US can do is play the back channel diplomatic stuff. Besides given current Iranian's presidents own erroding support better to watch him sink and die from his piss poor economic plan and see what comes after. Good news my fellow iranians we have nuclear power bad news you have no job!

Thomas Friedman (Foreign Policy magazine) called the recent spike in Iranian confidence the "oil shield" and mentioned "petropolitics". The high price of oil giving leverage to Iran to follow foreing policty goals (bit like Chavez). It doesnt last for long though. Iran needs to make sure it doesnt waste this opportunity like Nigeria did in the 1970s.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

harsh. the performance of the Mahdi Army in Najaf and more recently Basra would indicate these guys are pretty well trained and can do business on a higher operational level

There's no doubt about that. But I can't see how that undermines my point about the blatant oversimplificaitons we see about who Iran is working with and how that we see this both in the dumber bits of the media and reflected here.

i read that too. Something smells fishy with the whole Basra operation especially if a ceasefire was arranged in Qom, Iran.

Maliki needed someone to save his bacon and US troops and bombers turning Basra into another Fallujah wasn't going to do it. So he turned to his good buddies in Iran - who are mates with both sides - to broker a face-saving deal. Iran was happy to do so, because having one of their proxies in Iraq tangling with another isn't in their interests.

I gotta admit, the Iranians have played this post war government formation extremely well. Iranian influence across parties has risen exponentially.

Yep. Not bad for a pack of irrational, crazed lunatics.

the fact that i'm finding only one source on the OP may indicate the lack of evidence. But Petreus seemed to have changed tactics recently when it comes to openly accusing the Iranians (e.g. dismissing EFP's were from Tehran last year)

I just read a transscript of his testimony yesterday and he made no explicit claims about direct intervention of Iranian troops. There were repeated references to disasterous consequences of Iranian influence if the US withdrew though, including hints that Iran would take over. Which is crazed fantasy.

i wrote similar sentiments in the conclusion part of my dissertation on Iran (yet to hand in ). I can think much more could be achieved by the US recognising the change in the balalnce of power and treating it less like a zero sum game. Engage Iran, as recently suggested in Greece by Allbright, Kissinger, Baker et al.

Gregory Gause said it again in Congressional hearings last week. But Bush and the surviving neo-cons are hunkered down in their fantasy bunker and don't want to listen.

[Serious Spamurai]

Of course there were Iranian troops in Basra, the Mahdi army is essentially an Iranian paramilitary group as opposed to a local militia.

[Heinz Guderian]

Of course there were Iranian troops in Basra, the Mahdi army is essentially an Iranian paramilitary group as opposed to a local militia.

:hmmm:. I read an article recently about Iran's training of Hezbollah:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fi...el-805763.html

Do you reckon its the same thing with the Mahdi Amry (or perhaps more so)?

It seems Iran has fingers in alot of pies. Is this over-confidence? People who have pissed off the US in the recent past have not lived to regret it.

[mrmouth]

One day I'm going to sit down and write up a list of things Iran has had their hand in. Its amazing how many of the downright crappy things that have happened in the world they played a significant part in.

The Iranians have been training people within their borders, then sending them to train locally within Iraq. Al Quds has most certainly crossed the border, but they can just as easily make our lives miserable on their own turf.

Id be skeptical as to whether they were in Basra.

No, painting Iran as the bad guys (despite how counter-productive this is) is more their style. Hey, they’ve bungled everything else in Iraq since day one, so why expect them to change tack now?

For awhile I thought along these lines. Unfortunately if Iran were a person, the word mentally unstable would best fit its actions going back 40 years.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

For awhile I thought along these lines. Unfortunately if Iran were a person, the word mentally unstable would best fit its actions going back 40 years.

Their "mentally unstable" actions have (i) kept them in power for almost 30 years, (ii) allowed them to fight off and then defeat an invader in the longest war of the 20th Century and (iii) more lately, allowed them to outsmart, outplay and out-manoeveur the US in Iraq for the last five years. Not bad for "mentally unstable" guys.

These supposedly "mentally unstable" guys have been playing a smart game in Iraq and winning it hands down. But sure - go ahead and totally underestimate them. That worked so well with the Iraqi insurgency (remember Rumsfeld's "dead enders" and Bush's "Bring it on!" idiocy?)

Some left wing bloggers have been going into predicable fantasies about how this accusation about al-Quds troops in Iraq means the beginning of a sneaky proxy war against Iran. This is also nonsense. This scaremongering and oversimplification about Iran's influence in Iraq is just using the good ol' Iranian boogeyman to frighten the US public into keeping troops in Iraq by pretending that if the US left the Iranians would move in. That's nonsense as well. Iran invaded southern Iraq several times during the Iran-Iraq War and Iraqi Shi'ites fought tooth and nail to keep them out. And that was on behalf of Saddam's hated Sunni regime.

The idea that the sons of those men would simply let Tehran take away their new-found freedom and domination if the US left is more fantasy.

[mrmouth]

Their "mentally unstable" actions have (i) kept them in power for almost 30 years, (ii) allowed them to fight off and then defeat an invader in the longest war of the 20th Century and (iii) more lately, allowed them to outsmart, outplay and out-manoeveur the US in Iraq for the last five years. Not bad for "mentally unstable" guys.

(i)Its a defacto dictatorship, thats how they have remained in power, by keeping their people down. (ii) religious fervor allowed them to hold off Iraq. Iran was in a bad way, then they marched their white robed countrymen into the desert and straight into a meat grinder. They threw men at the problem. It was Iraq that packed up and went home, they were hardly thrown out of Iran.(iii) They back an insurgency, not exactly an act of military genius, the outline is there for you, all you have to do is play a small part. They play the easy role, the US plays a much more difficult role.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Of course there were Iranian troops in Basra, the Mahdi army is essentially an Iranian paramilitary group as opposed to a local militia.

That is total and complete garbage. If you’re going to try to comment on what’s going on in Iraq, at least do some basic homework on who is who first.

It’s Maliki who is far closer to Iran than Muqtada al-Sadr: Maliki’s weak government is backed by the Shi’ite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and its Badr Brigades militia. Guess which country set them up and still works hand-in-glove with them? Iran.

This also makes the idea that Iranian troops were fighting against Maliki’s forces (and US forces) in Basra even less likely. As Middle East expert Gregory Gause commented a couple of days ago, "I'm open to evidence, but it would be a real departure if Iran had organized units fighting …. It wouldn't make sense to make their own guys [Maliki and ISCI] look bad …. The status quo is in their interest"

Iran backs all the Shi’ite factions and Shi’ite militias to some extent, since that suits their overall desire for influence in the region. So naturally that includes the Mahdi Army. But to paint Sadr as an Iranian stooge and to pretend that al Quds troops were supporting him against Maliki defies logic.

Petraeus had better produce some evidence to back this claim. Otherwise it looks like the old trick of painting Iran as the reason troops should stay in Iraq; something the Bushies do whenever things start getting worse in Iraq.

If the Bush Administration had half a clue and wasn’t in thrall to some hidebound thinking regarding Iran they would realise that both they and Iran have an interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq (including crushing Al Qeada). The smart move would be to negotiate with Iran and co-operate with Tehran on Iraq. But try getting the neo-con rump in Washington to contemplate that sensible option.

No, painting Iran as the bad guys (despite how counter-productive this is) is more their style. Hey, they’ve bungled everything else in Iraq since day one, so why expect them to change tack now?

[s.rwitt]

i'm actually quite suprised the US did not attack in 2005. Looking at ThiudareiksGunthigg's insight into the run up of the war, i would think the US would have more evidence on Iran than they had on Iraq, especially with Iran's activities in Iraq.

I was suprised about that as well. I suppose it was, as you said, due to the Iraqi Government.

i think the US would face fierce political resistance from the current Iraqi government. The way Ahmadinejad met Maliki in Terhran recently was like they were long lost buddies.

Good point :hmmm:

[Каие]

Whatever just invade.