tins ::: Rick Klau's blog

Iran fighting the U.S. in Iraq

This must be why the “we’ve turned the corner” language is no longer in the stump speech. From This is Rumor Control:

“The rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration has convinced Iran that military conflict is inevitable and rather than await an attack at a time and place of America’s choosing, the Iranians will try to inflict significant damage to U.S. forces on Iraqi soil by means of the Mahdi Army and other Shi’a groups,” an informed intelligence source told This Is Rumor Control. Senior officials of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency would not comment on these reports, but a former senior intelligence officer said that the conclusion was “a no brainer.” As he noted: “If you had U.S. troops on your doorstep and George Bush calling you a part of the axis of evil you would take steps to protect yourself. And it would be better to protect yourself on Iraqi soil than to have to do so on Iranian soil. That is what they are doing. Are we surprised? We shouldn’t be.” (emphasis mine)

Read the whole report. Really an incredible read.

Sidenote: do you think this is evidence of what Howell Raines meant when he said blogs are unsourced rantings? Get a clue, Raines.

10 responses to “Iran fighting the U.S. in Iraq”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I don't see why this would be changing Bush's speech now. The article, itself, indicates that Iran is sending fighters because1. the U.S. has troops at its doorstep; and2. Bush called them part of the axis of evilWell, neither of those are new. #1 has been a fact for well over a year and #2 occured over 2 years ago.I think it's a great strategy by the Bush admin. Look at the first line: “rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration has convinced Iran that military conflict is inevitable and rather than await an attack at a time and place of America's choosing, the Iranians will try to inflict significant damage to U.S. forces on Iraqi soil…”Who says THIS isn't America's time and place of choosing? Wouldn't you agree it would be better for us to take out Iranian forces in Iraq than to invade a nuclear country? I would say this is what Bush referred to when he said Iraq wasn't just about Iraq, but was an effort to reshape the whole mideast landscape. The rhetoric and action pushed Libya to surrender itself up and it appears to be a factor behind Syria helping thwart some terror acts. If the rhetoric combined with the understand that we'll back it up, rather than play word games, sucks Iran's troops into Iraq, then I say that's a good thing. Maybe we should call it the Honeypot War.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Howell Raines is not in a position to talk about unsourced rantings. The mainstream media has been misreporting the news on Iraq from day one. Their hedges, their lack of skepticism, has cost American lives. Howell Raines consistently printed the bad news on Iraq on page 17 — when it should have been page one. In a way this story has been a long time coming. Yesterday's Jim Hoagland commentary in The Washington Post gave a foretaste of the very thing that our sources are tell us — but with more detail. Some blogs do print unsourced rantings and they are labeled as such. Hicks

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hicks, I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I am still waiting for the mainstream media to report any good coming from Iraq. I don't hear about infrastructure being rebuilt, schools open, women enjoying freedom, democracy being enjoyed for the first time in 30 years, oil money from Iraq actually going TO Iraq, real questions about the oil-for-food scandal involving our “allies”, more people enjoying fresh water than anytime in the last 3 decades… all I keep hearing is abu ghraib, death, quagmire, no exit strategy, cost, etc, etc, etc.

    Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hicks – should have noted a snarky tag on my post: Raines drives me up a wall; that he'd have the audacity to make that quote about blogs is just further evidence of how out of touch he (not to mention many others at the Grey Lady) is. To be clear: I think TiRC is exactly the kind of site that puts the blogging medium into a separate category alongside the traditional press. Over time I see more and more news breaking this way, from people who are in a better position to break it.

    Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Rick: Thanks for the illumination, your snarky comment is understood and agreed too — and I do feel confident that TiRC can meet your challenge. As for Jason's comment on the “bad news” — the most recent commentary on the press criticizes it for being too optimistic about the American program in Iraq (see Michael Massings piece in The New York Review and the WP front page story yesterday). I take your point: no one wants America to fail. That is what we are trying to prevent. As for the press coverage: it's hard to ignor an insurrection.

    Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Rick, when I explain “blog' to my uninformed friends, I use the comparison to HAM radios in the 70s (the dates are just my reflection to childhood)…a series of individuals seeing things as they happen and reporting that back to the others to spread the news.We're just an e-barking chain. 🙂

    Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    But Hicks, isn't this commentary coming from the media itself? My point is that at this stage “Iraq war coverage” is a totally subjective feeling depending on your view of the war in general. I don't think we can truly and objectively comment on the coverage until it's over. At that point, we can look back at all events, without being tainted by still being involved and having agendas, and compare the facts with the coverage.

    Reply
  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jason: I think your comment sounds reasonable — I would emphasize sounds. And I would agree, it appears that we are making purely subjective judgments. But the media is also making judgments of their own — and how they did. And even they admit they are coming up short. And why? Because, at least in part, the Blog world has called them on it. I would reference the piece in the Post yesterday on their own coverage, and the long piece in the New York Times on their coverage.Hicks

    Reply
  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I would also (as one with a journalism degree) remind you that the media is profit-driven. What drives media profits? Controversy. Even if self-inflicted. I amm skeptical about the media telling me it's worried about it's own coverage….what I see is them saying, “hey we have a new story, come read, watch and listen to us tell it”.I agree bloggers have called them on their coverage, but again, depending on which blogs you read, you're likely to get a completely different perspective on just what the media failings are.

    Reply
  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jason – back to your original post – 1) “If the rhetoric combined with the understand that we'll back it up….sucks Iran's troops into Iraq, then I say that's a good thing.” If you read carefully, it's not Iranian troops that are in Iraq, but their funding and weapons. Maybe we're still obliquely hurting them — IF we win — but as they say, it's only money. it costs us not only money, but American lives. and the longer and fiercer the battle, the greater the anti-American sentiment. then who wins? 2) “Wouldn't you agree it would be better for us to take out Iranian forces in Iraq than to invade a nuclear country? ” maybe. but you imply that those are the only two options. I think it's a bad idea to engage in ANY kind of unilateral military confrontation with Iran, in Iraq or elsewhere: if Iran does have nuclear weapons, we're inviting them to use them; and if they don't, we're providing motivation to get them. On top of which, our military is stretched enough as it is — i don't think we need more battles to fight.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.