Khatami's Charges Provoke Row in Iran;
how Important is Iranian and Hizbullah Training
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has caused a firestorm of criticism in Iran. AFP writes:
' In his speech, Khatami referred to the ambition of Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to export the 1979 Islamic revolution around the world, but expressed fear this wish was being distorted. "What did the imam (Khomeini) mean by exporting the revolution?" he asked in the speech Friday to university students in the northern province of Gilan, according to the Kargozaran newspaper. "Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries? The imam was vehemently against this and was confronting it," he added. His speech has been seen by some observers as accusing the Iranian authorities of encouraging militants to destabilize the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Lebanon. '
Some hard liners want to try Khatami for treason.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Sunni tribes have offered to mediate between the al-Maliki government and the Sadr Movement.
It also refers to Monday's Pentagon-provoked story saying that Hizbullah of Lebanon is training Shiite radicals at camps in Iran.
I am suspicious of this story not because it is necessarily untrue (how would I know?) but because it shares with typical Bush administration propaganda the 'gotcha' technique in which questions of proportionality, significance and causality do not arise.
Thus, Dick Cheney repeatedly claimed that he had evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom he simplistically linked with al-Qaeda, got hospital treatment in Baghdad. Cheney said that would have been impossible unless Saddam was actively hosting him. And if Saddam was giving hospital treatment to al-Zarqawi, then ipso facto the Baath regime was allied with and supporting al-Qaeda.
But Cheney's entire argument is false from beginning to end. First of all, the Iraqi secret police put out an APB on al-Zarqawi when they thought he had entered their country, and were clearly afraid of him. There is no evidence that the regime afforded al-Zarqawi hospital care. Even if he had gotten treated, it was not proof of Saddam's complicity with him or with al-Qaeda. These little tiny details were built up into a narrative that was intended to carry the audience along without their being able to ask any questions about it. How good was the proof for what Cheney alleged? Was al-Zarqawi really al-Qaeda back then? How important was he? How big an impact did his presence in Iraq have?
There were also repeated allegations from Cheney and others that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak. Wrong.
Under torture, Ibn al-Sheikh Libi told the US that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of poison gas. It was a lie. That is the problem with putting people in so much pain that they will tell you anything. Cheney and Rice parroted this falsehood over and over again.
After the war and occupation began, Pentagon spokesmen actually alleged that 90% of the violence in Iraq was committed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his group. But what, was he an Arab version of the Flash, able to run from Mosul to Baghdad in a few minutes? And when he was killed, nothing changed, so he wasn't all that important.
Since Cheney and Rice wanted to go to war with Iraq so as to open its petroleum resources to exploitation by American firms, it really was immaterial to them if the things they were saying were true or not. They have never evinced any shame or regret. They are happy. They accomplished their goal.
We should not allow this sort of thing to happen again. The Pentagon story about Iran is fishy for these reasons:
The main pro-Iran militia in Iraq is the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Iran is happy with Badr's vast influence. Badr has conflicts with the Mahdi Army. Why should Iran undermine its own client by favoring the latter? And note that the US never condemns Badr, which until recently was actually part of the Iranian military.
The information on the supposed Hizbullah training in Iran seems to have come from two or three captured Lebanese Shiites. That is a very small number. The US has 24,000 accused insurgents in captivity. If it only has a handful of Lebanese Shiites, then they just aren't very important. The Principle of Proportionality holds.
Moreover, the allegations may have been produced by US torture of the captives and so may not be reliable.
Then even if it were true, how important is it? The Mahdi Army is tens of thousands of slum kids. Sadrism goes back to the 1990s in Iraq and is a mass movement. Iran had nothing to do with them historically. Moreover, how important is all this? Have, like, 4 Lebanese guys really trained all that many Mahdi Army militiamen? How many exactly? How much more effective would they be as a result? Wouldn't the political support of millions of Iraqi Shiites in the South really be the source of Muqtada al-Sadr's power and authority?
What is being alleged is too small to produce a really big, nation-wide effect in Iraq. The Mahdi Army fought the US military for two long hard months in spring of 2004, and for another month in August. Iran was not around.
Occam's Razor dictates that we do not need Iran as a hypothesis for explaining the Sadr Movement or its activities in Iraq. Behind the scenes opinion polling suggests that the Sadr Movement has become more and more popular with the electorate. This, despite Iran's having helped buy the election for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in 2005. Having gotten their clients in power, why would Iran now try to blow up Badr commanders who have become provincial governors or deputy governors.
The Sadrists are not even very strong in Basra city, which is one reason al-Maliki attacked them there. Iran was backing Badr in Basra.
If training is so important, then why does the Mahdi Army still defeat the highly trained and equipped Iraqi Army, which has had lots more training, often from high powered American and European and Jordanian trainers. Are you saying Iranian trainers are better? How would you fix that?
So, have a few hundred militiamen maybe gotten some basic guerrilla training from fellow Shiites somewhere? That isn't the right question. The question is, how significant would that be if true. Remember, they are getting real time battle experience against US Marines, which is much more valuable than mere rudimentary boot camp. But, how could you rule it out? And, could such a thing really steer the fortunes of Iraq as a country? I think not.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday:
' Baghdad
Two policemen were wounded when gunmen opened fire targeting a police patrol in Bab al Sheikh neighborhood in downtown Baghdad on Sunday evening.
At least six civilians were killed and 31 others wounded in the American strikes on Sadr City in northeast Baghdad on Monday morning, medical sources in the hospitals of Sadr city said.
Five people were killed including three members of one family (parents and their child) and eight others were wounded when the American forces bombed Amil neighborhood in west Baghdad. The US military said in an e-mailed statement that the American soldiers responded to an attack from one of the buildings, killing three insurgents.
Two civilians were wounded in a bomb explosion near the oil marketing office in Zayuna neighborhood in east Baghdad around 8:30 p.m.
Police found four unidentified bodies throughout Baghdad in the following neighborhood (1 body in Husseiniyah, 1 body in Palestine Street, 1 body in Bayaa and 1 body in Amil)
Diyala
Gunmen kidnapped three truck drivers while they were coming from Khanaqin town towards Qara Tabba area, 93 miles northeast of Baquba city on Monday morning.
Seven Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a roadside bomb that targeted their patrol in Qara Tabba area around 12:00 p.m.
Three policemen were wounded in a roadside bomb explosion that targeted their patrol in Baladroz town 28 miles east of Baquba around 11:15 a.m.
Three members of the Kurdish security forces known as Bashmarga were wounded in a roadside bomb explosion that targeted their patrol on the road between Qara Tabba village and Hibhib village north of Baquba, lieutenant General Hameed Hussein fro n the Neshmarga brigade said, Clashes took place after the explosion but no casualties reported.
Gunmen attacked a check point of the Iraqi army in al Maiyah area in Mandili city, 40 miles east of Baquba city around 7:30 p.m. the gunmen killed ten soldiers then beheaded them. One civilian was wounded in the incident.
Kirkuk
A policeman from Kirkuk Emergency Police was killed and seven others were wounded in a roadside bomb that targeted their patrol near the street leading to the airport on Monday morning.
Nineveh
A roadside bomb exploded in al Masarif neighborhood in downtown Mosul city on Monday afternoon. No casualties reported.
Police found an unidentified body in al Ma’arif neighborhood in downtown Mosul city on Monday afternoon.
Gunmen opened fire randomly in al Mamoun neighborhood in downtown on Monday afternoon injuring one civilian. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/05/2008 08:04:00 PM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
Thanks for covering all the permutations possible on the Neocons'/military's latest on Iran.
But speaking of Occam's razor, it needs to be applied on just what is worth chasing down these days as well.
If someone over a period of years has made observations which have panned out, which have helped you to profit in one way or another, and to avoid losses as well, do you not pay special attention when that person speaks over an otherwise noisy channel? As you would to Juan Cole, Jeremiah Wright, or to EF Hutton?
Conversely, if someone over a period of years has made observations which have not only not panned out, but have caused you serious loss when acted upon, do you not fail to attend to that person when that person speaks over an otherwise noisy channel? As you would fail to attend to say, George W Bush?
If your loss due to the bad information provided by the source of the second sort was in contradistinction to the second sort of source's simultaneous and conspicuous gain, and if that gain was contingent upon your loss, do you not then not only fail to attend to the import of that person's "advice" but also never let that person circle behind your back or get too far out of your sight for too long?
This second sort of source is like the Neocon/military source of information.
Listening to them has killed more than 4000 of us outright, has maimed as many as 50,000 of us, has cost us what looks like $3,000,000,000,000 and counting, has destroyed Iraq in just 5 years and in retrospect Palestine over the course of 40, has made millions of Iraqis homeless, run millions completely out their country, killed outright a million more, and in general caused the level of viciousness and violence in the world to increase in a straight line since first it was profered and put targets on the backs of all of us Americans as the enablers of the vast suffering we have allowed them to visit upon this planet.
Conversely it has made them in their War and Oil businesses rich beyond imagination at our expense and has laid low anyone with the potential to raise themselves up off their knees anywhere near to their locus of power.
And they are now delivering the same "hot news" that accomplished all that in exactly the same fashion with another poor victim's name swapped in to their template?
Thank you for faithfully chasing down their lies, teasing out their lies' consequence, and refuting their lies. It's good to have all that on record for the future when curious people ask how all this unbelievable state of affairs could have come to pass. I realize it says history on your shingle Juan Cole, I know that is your calling, and I am appreciative of your daily demonstrations of the tasks of the historian. And full of admiration for you as well.
But we must look to Moms Mabley for advice in the case of day to day survival.
I once heard Moms ask rhetorically, "At what age should you 'hip' your child?" and then answer her own question:
"I say the minute he is born is the time to hip your child! You got to tell him, baby, it ain't the lights... it's the cars gonna kill ya!".
New offer threatens Iran's 'red line'
The sheer number of nuclear warheads may be shrinking in the post-Cold War era, but a new generation of warheads and nuclear-armed submarines are being built for example, by the US, France and Britain, and, worse, the latter have dispensed with any hesitation about their declared willingness to use their nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear weapon states.
But, as a representative of the Non-Aligned Movement, Gusti Agung Wesaka Puja, articulated the views of developing nations, the failure of NWS toward their NPT obligations, ranging from failure to implement the "13 steps" on disarmament reached at the 2000 NPT review conference, to reaching an effective fissile material cut-off treaty, or their willingness to use their weapons to threaten NNWS, operate against an aggressive counter-proliferation target.
In light of recent verbal threats against Iran, for example by Israeli cabinet ministers and US presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton, to "obliterate Iran", President George W Bush's warning to Iran that Israel's recent attack on suspicious Syrian targets is a "lesson for Iran", and related Pentagon statements regarding the US's war plans against Iran, a growing number of experts have questioned the wisdom of Western policies. These seek Iran's "de-nuclearization" by pursuing hawkish and warmongering policies and postures that only enhance Iran's sense of national security vulnerabilities and strengthen the hands of those who argue in favor of Iran's need for a "nuclear shield"
This does not make sense at all, except in the broader context of failure of disarmament and the indirect utility of an "Iran threat" for such NWS as France, the US and Israel to rationalize their own nuclear proliferation.
Prof. Cole:
I have often wondered whether Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted oil prices to go down, or because he wanted them to go up. The answer to that question would reveal a lot more about subsequent events. Bush's treatment of Iran during the same period provides a clue.
Bush's naming of Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" while Khatami was President of Iran, and reaching out for dialog with the U.S., pretty well demonstrates that he has never wanted relations with Iran to improve. He deliberately kicked Khatami to the curb, and strengthened the Iranian hardliners.
I doubt Bush will attack Iran this late in his term; there is little time left for the buildup in the mainstream media, Congress would be reluctant to authorize it, and the necessary troops are unavailable. But still Bush continues his threats and sabre rattling, and every time he does, oil goes up a bit more.
This all leads to the conclusion that Bush's intent in the Middle East, has been to drive oil prices up, not down.
The same could be said of his policy toward Venezuela. Chavez is no particular threat to his neighbors, and the Colombians or the Brazilians could probably clean his clock. Yet still Bush makes bellicose noises, and, of course, Chavez can't resist playing along with a few hollow threats himself. Seemingly, both men have the same motive: higher oil prices.
So it is hard to escape the conclusion that the purpose of the war with Iraq was to get where we are today: $120/bbl. oil. Who says Bush is inept? He has succeeded.
And one more thought:
Higher prices for oil, or for any commodity or share of stock, for that matter, are neither good, nor bad, per se. It all depends upon whether you are a buyer or a seller at the time. If you are a consumer, high oil is bad, but if you are Exxon Corporation, the higher oil is, the better. The question is which team you are rooting for.
Bush probably picked up this little tidbit of knowledge, when he wasn't cutting class in graduate school, or maybe Cheney told it to him.
But it comes down to the statement Bush made himself, about the haves, and the have mores. Some call them the elite, but Bush calls them his base. That's what the past seven years have been about. With oil above $120 today, we see the culmination of a spectacularly successful energy policy.
Amidst all the accusations from American government and military spokesmen the Big Establishment Media, in this case Time, has decided to report some facts that have been available but not widely publicized since early in the war.
Doubting the Evidence against Iran
Monday, 05 May 2008
....Indeed, the U.S. allegations appear to be based on speculation, spurred by the appearance about a year ago of a new breed of roadside bomb in Iraq. Explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, proved effective at piercing American armor by firing a concave copper disc from a makeshift cannon, which transformed the slug midair into a molten jet of super-heated metal. Accusations that Iran was shipping the things into Iraq grew louder as U.S. casualties from the weapon rose. But no concrete evidence has emerged in public that Iran was behind the weapons. U.S. officials have revealed no captured shipments of such devices and offered no other proof.
Full story Here.
* * *
EFP In Iraq: Deadly Numbers
22 August 2007
Intelligence officials have long blamed Iran for supplying EFP parts, but this remains in doubt. In any case, as Janes reports, even if the original technology came from Iran,
... the knowledge required to manufacture and use EFPs may have become so widespread that Iranian assistance is no longer required.
* * *
Iraqi, U.S. forces sweep through volatile Iraqi city
06 April 2007
A U.S. military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl....said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches [in or near the city of Diwaniya, Diwaniya Province, Iraq] .
* * *
In other words, the Iraqis are perfectly capable of manufacturing IEDs and EFPs themselves and several workshops have been discovered inside Iraq that are in that business.
.
I remember in 2005 the Pentagon policy was to "villianize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobic response"
Their evil ways make me sick.
Khatami's statement could just as easily be interpretted as a denial of the NeoCon allegations that Iran is hellbent on exporting its revolution through armed means.
ref : “Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Sunni tribes have offered to mediate between the al-Maliki government and the Sadr Movement.”
it is interesting, imho that the Americans, either in the guise of General Petraeus, or Secretary of State Rice, etc. ~ have made no offer "to mediate between al-Maliki <=> al-Sadr", nor has there been any effort apparent by the U.S. to negotiate some form of détente.
From this fact one would likely conclude that the American agenda is foremost: to inflict collective punishment on the residents of Sadr City in response to occupation resistance fighters' mortar/rocket attacks on the American forces' Green Zone ~ not unlike the now familiar Israeli ‘armour & air power’ response whenever they receive indirect rocket fire from the Gaza ghetto...
...and secondarily, the Americans must believe that the Sadr City conflict serves some useful purpose ~ for example, combat training of the Iraqi Army = mostly Shi'ite / Iranian-supported BADR Corps militiamen, themselves ~ to serve quite literally as ‘cannon fodder’ for (i daresay, the common purpose of both) the Americans' and the Iranians' Zones d'Occupation: “an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire. The term is generally used in situations where soldiers are forced to deliberately fight against hopeless odds (with the foreknowledge that they will suffer extremely high casualties) in an effort to achieve a strategic goal.” That the Iraqi Army is fighting in front of the Americans (in their heavy armour), or quite literally underneath the Americans (in their attack helicopters), visually reinforces this grotesque conclusion.
Which is, after all ~ the conceit implicit of Mr. Bush's statement: As the Iraqis Stand Up, the U.S. Will Stand Down.
At one time, it sounded so damn reasonable, didn't it? The conflict in Sadr City has so far claimed nearly 1,000 lives. So many of us did then, and so many still do today buy into this, their hideous human sacrifice, that, in fact "it is OK to sacrifice them" for us, indeed ~ not even to count their dead and wounded... But perhaps our greatest insult to their injury is that they do die for us en masse as so many unknown soldiers; We render them as our replicants, thus ~ not even recognizing them as being "real" Coalition Casualties:
Blade Runner : “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time, to die.”
I believe the attack on Sadr City is a prelude to an attack on Iran. It's intended to psychologically prepare Americans for an intensification of the war. Remember, the anti-Iran media campaign was rolled out in September, so they've had plenty of time to build up a perception in the American Public that Iran is an enemy.
The pretext, that Iran is training Sadr's men, is pure racism, in my opinion. It's predicated on the assumption that while US forces can learn from their experiences, and do, Iraqi fighters cannot.
As for EFPs, EFPs have been around and in use as long as armor has been used on vehicles in warfare - ie. for about 100 years. EFPs are the only portable way to attack armor. The basic concept is simple and not complicated, though no doubt the specifics are exacting. An EFP is basically a gun, except the cartridge is hollow, not solid, and the barrel is conical. The result is the same as what you get with your garden hose when you squeeze the handle and narrow the opening - the metal is forced to move faster through the conical barrel by the narrowing of the opening. This creates not superheated metal, but superfast metal.
Again, this technique for attacking armor has been around ever since vehicle armor. The only other way to attack such armor is by using artillary or bombs or other non-portable devices.
What's more, EFPs are used in the petroleum industry, so it's hard to believe that Iran is the only place in the middle east where expertise relating to them exists.
I read the other day that even now more US soldiers are killed by Sunnis than by Shiites, and yet you do not see the US threatening war against Saudi Arabia.
As Wes Clark has testified, attacking Iran has simply been on the agenda since the beginning. It will happen and soon and it has nothing to do with anything but the tremendous profits to be made from oil and war and the hoped for domestic political dividend.
Workshop,
EFPs are relatively simple in design but do require nominal skill with a lathe, some basic electrical knowledge and professional explosives handling experience, all skills that are widely available in Iraq. Any competent auto shop machinist can do the machining and other technicians can complete the work. The Iraqis have been in the oil drilling business for fifty years or more and their experience with maintainance and repair of oil field equipment has provided them a significant talent pool of machinists, electrical technicians and explosives handlers.
I sent a few links to Editor James Warren at the Chicago Tribune and columnists Eugene Robinson and Thomas Ricks at The Washington Post few years ago when the meme about "sophisticated Iranian IEDs and EFPs" was getting cranked up in the American Establishment media. Those gentlemen all ignored several eMails from me. I shouldn't have been surprised. I think you'll find these pages, from an American website, interesting:
Link 1 (published 15 Oct 1996)
Link 2 (filed 25 March 2002)
Link 3 (published 28 Jan 2003)
Link 4 (published 10 Jan 2006)
Link 5 (published 05 Dec 1989)
....etc.
Use "Search" window at upper RH of pages to further explore related subjects.
.
Post a Comment
<< Home