The truth about the Iranian threat is that the Bush Administration is not telling the real truth. Like any effective propagandist President Bush is using a kernel of truth and, with the help of many in the media, laying the foundation for another war. Only this time it will likely be a war of retaliation rather than one of pre-emption.
The kernel of truth is that Iranian intelligence agents are active in Iraq and are working with a variety of Shia militia and groups. What Bush cleverly omits in his litany is the fact that Iran has been present in Iraq since the early days of the U.S. invasion in March of 2003. Bush and his generals also are ignoring the fact that Sunni insurgents, not Iranian backed Shia militia, have been those responsible for the vast majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq.
You do not have to accept my word or my numbers. Go to icasualties.org (and while you are there leave a donation for these deserving folks) and count for yourselves. According to the U.S. officials who briefed reporters in Baghdad last Sunday, Iranian explosives figured in the deaths of 170 U.S. soldiers and the wounding of 620 since June of 2004. However, total coalition casualties during that same period are 2,265 dead and 17,788 wounded. For the math challenged among you that means Iran is linked to less than 8% of the fatalities and less than 4% of the wounded.
The conclusion is very simple. Iran is not responsible for most U.S. casualties, whether from explosives, small arms fire, or thrown rocks. Now it gets interesting.
Who is our main enemy and who is responsible for the vast majority of U.S. casualties? Sunni insurgent groups–ranging from Al Qaeda jihadist to angry Baathists.
Iran for its part has shied away from encouraging or supporting widespread attacks against U.S. forces because the United States is perceived as helping the Shia consolidate power in Iraq and acknowledged for concentrating its firepower on the Sunnis. Remember Fallujah? Tall Afar? How about Al Anbar? What about Zarqawi?
With Zarqawi dead and buried the Bush Administration has christened Moqtada al Sadr as its latest villain. But this is another lie. Moqtada al Sadr is the least Iran friendly of the various Shia clerics. Moqtada is no friend of the United States but he is first and foremost an Iraqi nationalist. He is not an Iranian toady. That distinction goes to Mr. Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim. Remember him? He’s the guy who was sitting with George Bush for a photo op in the Oval Office in December.
So let me see if I have this straight. The Iraqi Shia cleric closest to the Iranians, who are responsible for killing some of our soldiers, gets an invite to the White House for a grip and grin. Meanwhile the Iraqi Shia cleric least favorably disposed to Iran becomes our new public enemy and now has sought refuge in Iran. Great! Rather than drive a big wedge between Iran and al Sadr we give him a reason to reach out to Tehran.
In the coming weeks the friction points with Iran are likely to increase. If U.S. forces escalate operations against Iranian interests and Iranian personnel they will retaliate. They may not accept the Old Testament as their basis of faith but they certainly believe in an “eye for an eye”. The Iranians take blood feuds seriously and will retaliate against us. Even events not directly tied to us will be viewed by Tehran thru the lens of the looming U.S. threat and we are likely to be blamed. Today, for example, a group of Iranian Revolutionary Guard were killed in a terrorist bombing near the border of Afghanistan. The Iranians, using Bush-style analysis, will probably conclude that this was a U.S. backed action. I anticipate they will become more bold in their retaliation.
As the U.S. versus Iran tit-for-tat intensifies new U.S. casualties will fuel the war fever among the American people and support for “decisive” action against Iran will grow. Most members of Congress, fearful of being labled as going soft on the Iranian mullahs, more likely than not will fall into line and will back President Bush as he starts a new crusade against the Iranian regime. Unfortunately for America these events will probably produce a deeper, more deadly quagmire that will compound the horror already underway in Iraq. Instead of battling primarily Sunni insurgents we will get to add Shia and Iranians to the mix. And how does that serve our national interest?
Because this is what I see:
BBC:
WaPo:
His pop studied under a famous Imam in Iran. If anything, from what I read, it’s Iran that blows hot and cold about Muqtada.
well,
SCIRI and Dawa leaders in Iraq, many were actually living in exile in Iran during Saddam’s reign. Sadr (and his father) gained popularity by being the shiite leaders who stayed in Iraq, instead of running to Iran.
by your points. Don’t really see how they support diarist’s claim. Do see how Sadr and father’s actions may have made them more popular with Iraqis, but that’s not the issue.
Thank you for this diary. A very good analysis.
A quibble though.
My understanding is that Muslims accept both the Old and the New Testaments as divine revelation.
As you point out, Muslims do not the repudiate the Old Testament dogma of “an eye for an eye”. Christians however do: one need only recall Christ’s teaching to love thy neighbor as thyself and to turn the other cheek.
So, among the three religions of the book, if there is one that does not accept the Old Testament as their basis of faith it is Christians, not Muslims.
The foundational stories of the Torah are part of the Quran, as are other stories from the Old Testament, but not all of the law is the same. Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet (also John the Baptist) but not as a divine figure.
As for Christians and whether or not they are ruled by the Old Testament, that really depends on the ‘type’ of Christian. Some are pretty strict on at least certain rules in the Old Testament, particularly those of Dominionist leanings.
Muslims don’t recognize ANY of the prophets as a “divine figure” – not Jesus, not Abraham, not Mohammad. Even some Christian sects don’t consider Jesus to be “divine” anything above a human. It took about 600 years of warfare to resolve that in the West.
Gee, I didn’t know it was resolved. =}
It’s important to try, at least once in awhile, to see the world as Iranians see it. For a generation, they’ve been threatened by their immediate neighbor. They represent a minority in the Arab world, and their fellow Shi’a have been persecuted.
If Iraq goes bad–turns into total chaos–we send in the troop carriers and bring our kids home. If Iraq goes to total chaos, the Iranians are left holding the bag. Why wouldn’t they be concerned, and try to influence the outcome?
NPR had a thoughtful commentary this morning (Thursday). They discussed the fact that Baghdad would represent the first Shi’a-controlled government in the Arab world–as distinct from the Persian Shi’a. So Baghdad is much more threatening, to the Saudis (who have a significant Shi’a minority living near and working on their oil fields) than Iran has been.
Not only don’t we understand their religious divisions, but their cultural divisions.
Among Saddam’s final words were condemnations of “Persians.” So if we stayed out of the region, it’s reasonable to suppose that the Iraqi Shi’a dominated government would be quite different than that in Iran.
I concur with your assessment that Iran is of course involved in supporting Shiite militants on the Iraqi side, to claim the contrary would, in my opinion, be naive. But they are not responsible for the majority of US casualties, at least not in a direct way. And it would indeed be counterproductive for the Iranians to be directly and heavily involved in these activities, because:
Libby blogging? I have wondered what you thought of all the comments that Hannah made during his testimony. How much of it was crap?