In photos: 'Iraq Diwaniya Unrest'

Iran behind latest Iraqi unrest:Mar 28th, 2008 - 23:48:53

This is Iran trying to influence the US elections by stoking violence in the shiite south:



(AP)U.S. military officials said Thursday that among the weapons used in recent attacks on the Green Zone were 107mm rockets made in Iran. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said they have included rockets stamped with 2007 Iranian manufacture dates.

Washington has accused Iran of funneling weapons to Shiite militia. Iran denies it.



The Pentagon has repeated allegations of Iranian support for Shiite militias despite Iraqi and Iranian denials (Press TV). Aside from a trickle of alleged links -- including labels on explosives and interrogations with captured operatives -- much of the Defense Department's evidence remains classified. Equally unclear is how involved the Iranian leadership might be in sanctioning strikes within Iraq. Nonetheless, independent media reports have corroborated some of the assertions. Iraqi fighters tell TIME that recruits from militant groups have traveled to Iran to attend forty-five-day training camps. The programs allegedly focused on the use of armor-piercing roadside bombs, sniper skills, and kidnapping tactics.

What might motivate Iran to destabilize Iraq militarily is harder to pin down; U.S. intelligence on Iranian thinking is lacking, as this Backgrounder explains. An American Enterprise Institute report says that while Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, 'have been actively involved' in supporting Shiite militias, 'the precise purpose of this support is unclear and may have changed over time' (PDF). Some experts speculate Iran wants to ensure a Sunni-led government never returns to power in Iraq. Others suggest Iran favors a kind of managed chaos in Iraq, to keep the U.S. military busy. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution tells The Nation, 'Iran is putting money on every number of the roulette wheel.'

Those pointing to Iranian meddling say Tehran's activities undermine U.S. and Iraqi interests. Katzman argues Iran's aid to Shiite militias has 'accelerated competition among Shiite factions in southern Iraq,' as evidenced by recent violence in Basra. Iranian support has even prompted an anti-Iran backlash (WashPost) from disenfranchised Iraqi Shiite civilians. Iran's alleged support to militant groups also bodes poorly for U.S. prospects of victory, some experts say. As Department of Homeland Security analyst Ryan Carr notes in Strategic Insights, successful insurgencies 'often depend on some measure of external support.'

www.washingtonpost.com

Report this comment

Iran regime remains dangerousMar 28th, 2008 - 23:52:23

Todd Mendel

A significant segment of the international community is worried about Iran's continuing quest for nuclear capability and is eager to address the issue now. France, Britain, and Germany have been seriously involved in promoting a new U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stricter sanctions on the Iranian regime for its continuation of uranium enrichment activities. Even Russia and China, which had been skeptical of sanctions, have been supporting these efforts at present.

There is also much support in the Middle East itself. Many Arab countries came together during the President Bush-convened Annapolis Peace Conference in November united by their fears of the possibility of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. These developments show that the international community is increasingly taking the Iranian nuclear threat seriously and wants to pursue a coordinated plan of action.

Ironically, in the aftermath of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (NIE), the climate of urgency on this issue in the United States seems to be diminishing. The public has been distracted by the election campaign, the economy and other important matters. While the presidential candidates from both parties have addressed the Iran issue on the campaign trail, the discussion should not remain limited to the elections. The reality is that, NIE notwithstanding, the danger of Iran obtaining the capability to build nuclear weapons remains in place. Serious policy discussion and implementation are needed today.

Part of the problem is the public misperception that has ensued in the aftermath of the release of the NIE, a misperception that has hampered all international players working on this issue. The report is far from being a call for the international community to desist in its efforts. The recent complacency that appears to have taken hold of the U.S. public is at odds with the report itself.

The report concluded that, because of stronger diplomatic efforts, Iran seemed to have been shifting course. It did not say the regime had stopped all nuclear-related activities. Therefore, the NIE should serve as a vote of confidence to continue the international community's efforts that, in the end, should guarantee that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapons capability. It should not serve as a rationale to lower our guard and put off meaningful action.

In an optimistic read of the NIE -- and it is important to remember that intelligence assessments are an inexact science and should thus be taken with caution -- one could claim that Iran suspended its covert nuclear military program in 2003 as a result of international pressure and sanctions. But this represents only one third of what is required to produce deliverable nuclear weapons. The other two parts are the production of enough enriched uranium and the development of missiles or other delivery systems, and on these two fields evidence of progress is abundant.

National Intelligence Director John McConnell has told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran 'would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon' by the end of 2009 or soon after. Moreover, Iran's continuing development of delivery systems is causing even Russia to reconsider its position. In reaction to a recent launching test of an Iranian research rocket, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov commented that 'long-range missiles are one of the components of nuclear weapons and that causes concern.'

Hence, it would be incredibly naïve to claim that Iran is no longer a threat. It continues to defy the international community by enriching uranium, is testing delivery systems, and could restart the weaponization track of its nuclear program at any time. Moreover, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad constantly makes threatening comments about the United States and Israel, and the regime maintains its support of terrorist organizations. For these reasons, the international community must remain vigilant.

Diplomatic pressure has clearly played a role in pushing Iran to modify its tactics and possibly rethink its strategic position. Divestment efforts and other types of sanctions should continue, and intensify, because they are proving to be successful. With the international community apparently moving in the right direction, this is the time for the United States to show leadership. There is a better opportunity now than in the past to galvanize an effective coalition.

Therefore, the Bush administration and Congress, who have a strong record on developing responses to Iran, should now make this issue an even higher priority -- helping Americans understand the need for continuous action and generating a serious international response.

Report this comment

Iran, Not al-Sadr, Leading Shi'a Attacks In IraqMar 28th, 2008 - 23:55:55

Iran, Not al-Sadr, Leading Shi'a Attacks In Iraq

As Shi’a militias and armed groups strike out at US and Iraqi targets from Baghdad to Basra, it is curious to note how many news reports attribute the attacks to Muqtada al-Sadr, either directly or indirectly.

Rocket attacks on the U.S.-protected Green Zone may carry a message with implications across Iraq: rising anger within the Mahdi Army militia.

The Shiite fighters led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are reorganizing their ranks, taking delivery of new weapons from Iran and ramping up complaints about crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces that could unravel the Mahdi Army’s self-declared cease-fire, according to militia commanders.

But Muqtada al-Sadr was sidelined from any command by Iran weeks ago. There are no attributions of direct quotes, commands or comment from Muqtada since the Shi’a militia uprising began in earnest. And there is a very simple explanation for this: The puppet has had his strings cut. Iran is calling the shots.

The fact that his note exists is far more important than its specific wording.

“So far I did not succeed either to liberate Iraq or make it an Islamic society — whether because of my own inability or the inability of society, only God knows,” Sadr wrote.

“The continued presence of the occupiers, on the one hand, and the disobedience of many on the other, pushed me to isolate myself in protest. I gave society a big proportion of my life. Even my body became weaker, I got more sicknesses.”

In reality, the continued presence of his Iranian masters pushed him to isolate himself. Iran has changed other leadership positions and oriented other terrorist groups toward field operational leadership and away from political leadership. The IRGC commander was changed. Hizballah’s military command was stripped from Nasrallah and handed to sheikh Naim Qasim in the Bekaa Valley. And Hamas is effectively run by al-Qassam Brigades military commander Ahmed Jabari in Gaza, not Khalid Meshaal in Damascus nor Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City.

As such, the militarily incompetent Muqtada al-Sadr has been yanked from control of the Mahdi Army. We are seeing the natural and intended progression of this change in Iraq today.

The shelling of the ‘Green Zone’ (or International Zone) in Baghdad in coordination with attacks throughout southern Iraq from Basra to Baghdad are not a reaction to an al-Sadr decision any more than they are the effects of his military leadership and command. They are the fruits of Iranian labor.

The rockets used in the Green Zone attacks “were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets,” General Petraeus said.

Can we dismiss this from the most successful US commander in Iraq since the conflict began? Further, is it wise to also dismiss the trend of Iranian command changes across the board to operational ground commanders? And, is it wise to forget that Muqtada al-Sadr announced his seclusion and withdrawal from command (at the behest of his Iranian masters)?

In order to minimize or dismiss Iran’s guiding hand in the fighting in Iraq, one must do all of these things. And this is completely illogical. Completely.

Yet, so desperate some seem to avoid any conflict with Iran, they ignore that fact that Iran has already chosen the conflict, whether we like it or not.

It is an ‘Inconvenient Truth.’

threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/03/iran-not-alsadr-leading-shia-a/

Report this comment