Britain yesterday described as “unacceptable” the smuggling of weapons from Iran into Iraq after revealing that a consignment was intercepted at the border between the two countries.
While complaints have been made in the past, it is relatively rare to have concrete evidence of such smuggling.
Here’s the evidence, from the Guardian:
Iran has repeatedly denied any involvement in the insurgency or party politics in Iraq.
A senior British official disclosed yesterday details of the incident two weeks ago when a group crossing from Iran was intercepted near Maysan, which is in the British controlled sector of Iraq. Iraqi security forces opened fire and the smugglers fled back to Iran leaving their cache of timers, detonators and other bomb-making equipment.
The British official said he did not know the identity of the group or those behind it but said it had the “fingerprints” of either Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, controlled by the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or the Lebanese based Hizbullah which Tehran backs. The incident came against a backdrop of tension between Iran and the west over allegations that Tehran is intent on securing a nuclear-weapons capability.
Well, then…
Iran needs a wakeup call. Now.
This is the kind of thing that leads me to conclude that the Iraq war is now a failure.
For me at least, the primary objective of taking out Saddam was to restore the deterrent effect of American military power. Saddam’s regime was irrefutable proof that nation-states could use terrorism with impugnity aagainst America. Not only did terror-sponsoring states suffer no consequences, they achieved their objectives.
The deterrent was restored temporarily after the invasion when all the thugs were wondering who would be next. Syria? Iran? Libya? It was during this time that Libya capitulated on its WMD program.
But the anti-war movement has killed the deterrent effect. The mullah’s know that America doesn’t have the national will to overthrow them. And our troops are paying the price.
Invariably this will lead to another war because at some point, we will have to re-establish the deterrent effect. And the cost will be tremendously higher.
Way to go, pacificists. You’re anti-war movement will lead to even more war.
“but the anti-war movement has killed the deterent effect.” That is just freakin laughable. How about the fact that The Pentagon and Bush Co. totally dropped the ball? OK, for example, that battalion that was guarding the oil field instead of the Iranian border- did the anti-wat crowd make that decission? What a joke.
“OK, for example, that battalion that was guarding the oil field instead of the Iranian border- did the anti-wat crowd make that decission? ”
And if the oil field burned up poisoning Iraq and crippling its future economy, why do I get the feeling the same critics would be railing against Bush for that?
Im infinitely more concerned with the lack of progress in reconstruction on our civilian end, and the lack of sealing the borders that everyone is responsible for. If i felt like the US was straining any resource aside from our military I might be less angry. But aside from working our soldiers to the bone, Iraq has been treated like a West Virginia pothole filling project.
I take that back, I guarantee Robert Byrd puts more foots to rears getting his highways paved than Paul Bremer ever did getting the electricity turned on in Baghdad. Pathetic.
Looks like the operations in Anbar are having some effect on the flow from Syria… Now Iran has to do the dirty work itself, rather than put it off on Bashir.
There are several valid points made above by opposing players.
Has the anti-war crowd contributed to the difficulties in Iraq? Clearly. Those fighting us in Iraq constantly reference in their propaganda the talking points of those hoping for an American defeat. Hezbollah learned in southern Lebanon that they could not defeat the Israeli army in anything but small scale actions, but that they could attack Israeli public will by a propaganda campaign and military attrition. Other armed Islamic groups have learned the same, and are applying those tactics in Iraq. The well-publicized cries of the anti-war crowd are metrics used by them to measure their success.
Has the way the Administration approached the war committed to our difficulties? Again, clearly. There was an excellent plan to defeat the Iraqi army, and it worked well. There was an expectation that the Iraqi populace would spontaneously form themselves into a western style civic society as soon as Saddam’s boot was removed from their neck. When that did not happen, we were left short of troops and without well-thought-out contingency plans. And, since we did not expect a long-term commitment, we did not start ramping up for an expansion of the personnel and equipment needed to seal the borders, patrol the nation and train the new Iraqi police and army. Our errors left a vacuum that invited the current problems.
Back on the main topic: right now, the Iraq borders with Syria and Iran are one-way regarding armed men looking to do violence. There is no real down-side to those governments for their actions. Until we decide to play offense again, overtly or covertly, we will continue to play defense. Given the expectations in Iraq, we need to play defense everywhere to not be seen as loosing. Anyone want to fill in the blanks on what he who defends everything actually defends ?
Mr. President, fully commit this nation to victory; victory by aggressively moving forward, on the offense, against our enemies. Name them. Put a face and a place to them. Go there and kill them. That is how you secure Iraq’s orders. And ours.
Iran and Syria are under significant internal pressure. Whether this pressure is self generated or has help from outside is hard to say.
If you look at the surface only, the coalition is struggling and Iran looks like the winner: after all, depite some good reconstruction work being conducted inside Iraq, the Iranians are backing a successful insurgency – with Syrian help. The Iranians are dominating the political debate, which will isher in sharia law under a Teheran friendly prime minister. The Iranians are well on the way to developing nuclear weapons in the safe knowledge that the Americans are tied down militarily, diplomatically (UN) and politically (no appetite inside the USA for more conflict). The Iranians are successfully backing – again, with Syria – a Hamas resurgence in Gaza, which will fill the vacuum created by Sharon’s removal of settlers in a few day’s time.
So, on the surface, a lot to be depressed about. But…there’s always a but and it is wrong to assume that the good guys have been inactive. Consider these actions over the last few years:
(a) Israel sets up a security fence and also moves its citizens into Israel proper, from the settlements.
(b) Sharon has been to see Bush at least 5 times in the last 18 months – correct me if I am wrong, but it could be more.
(c) The US has sold defensive weaponry (patriot anti-missile system) and offensive weaponry (bunker busters etc) to Israel at a far greater rate than normal. Presumably the anti-missile systems are now in place.
(d)The administration has cleared Lebanon of Syrian military units.
(e)The administration has set up powerful military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and in former soviet republics on the Iranian northern border. They have kept friendly the non-Persian arab states ot Iran’s south.
(f) The administration has wisely supported the EU-3 negotiations, knowing they will fail.
(g) The administration has been trying their best to keep Putin on side.
What have we got on this view of events? Iran surrounded and trying to keep Iraq unstable; Israel protected as best as it can be in case of Iranian, Syrian or palestinian attack; Iran diplomatically isolated in the event of a refusal to stop their nuclear programme.
End result: Bush is preparing the ground for a military strike against the mullahs. When this happens, the mullahs will have no international support. On top of that, Israel will be protected in case of Iranian retaliation.
Is this a realistic take on grand strategy or are my expectations way too high? Comments?
Ted,
I pretty much see things the way you do.
Troop numbers will be increased for the elections. Will the increased numbers be used to augment an attack? Will the attack come as troops are being withdrawn?
Will it be special forces all the way?
Here is a link from LGF that indicates it is going to be done by special forces.