From AP, :
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Islamic extremists have been moving supplies and new recruits from Iran into Iraq, say Iraqi Kurdish and Western officials, though it's unclear whether Tehran is covertly backing them or whether militants are simply taking advantage of the porous border.Iranian involvement with extremist groups in the Iraqi insurgency would be potentially explosive, especially given the history of U.S.-Iranian animosity. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said recently Iran was engaged in "a lot of meddling" in Iraq but gave no details.
Iran, which shares a mountainous 800-mile border with Iraq, has confirmed that loyalists of the al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Islam group illegally entered Iran from Afghanistan after the start of the U.S.-led 2001 war to oust the Taliban and destroy Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps. But Iran's government has repeatedly denied it is backing the radicals.
A handful of senior al-Qaida operatives who were among those fleeing to Iran after the Afghanistan war may have developed a working relationship with the Revolutionary Guards, a special military unit in Iran linked to Tehran's hard-liners, U.S. counterterrorism officials have said.
The U.S. government report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks also pointed to contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaida figures and found evidence that eight to 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers passed through Iranian territory. There was, however, no evidence the Iranians knew that the hijackers were planning to attack the World Trade Center.Iraqi officials have suggested privately that Iran, which is overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim, is backing its Shiite brethren, who form a slight majority in Iraq. One Iraqi official said more than 100 volunteer fighters have entered this year from Iran into southern Iraq, where Iran may be trying to use its influence within the dominant Shiite community there.
Iran might also support extremists from the rival Sunni branch of Islam - such as al-Qaida or the group loyal to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - to gain influence in the Sunni community, which is powerful in central Iraq, and to destabilize U.S. efforts to control the country, some analysts say.
The U.S. government report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks also pointed to contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaida figures and found evidence that eight to 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers passed through Iranian territory.
Oooops. Looks like "we" got the wrong country. Iran, Iraq, what's the difference?
KJ,
I agree with you on this.
I really do think attacking Iran would have been a much smarter move. They can't be trusted , as this article shows (hey Naseem, what was that in the Iran/Nukes thread? "It's about trust", did you say??? The only thing iranians can be trusted to do is lie, deceive and betray...).
Maybe the conflict should be spread to just over the iranian border, and maybe a few nuclear facilities could be "accidentally" bombed in the process.
I agree.
Iran is next, for all practical purposes. No, not for an Iraq-style occupation (event the US couldn't afford it w/o an outright declaration of war against ALL militant islam) but precision bombing of suspect sites. The Iranians have learnt from the 1983 israeli success against Iraq's lone nuke facility and have spread their facilities, built them fortified underground and often tied in with civilian facilities.
What boosts my cartainity that an attack is iminent is that Israel is almost certainly under a nuke threat (thanks to Iran's proxy Hezbollah in lebanon) if Iran succeeds in its madcap scheme. And Israel, faced with an existential crises will take all the risks a cornered animal does.... doesn't sound good for anybody in the region, is all I can say. Depends on things pan out when the US-israeli strikes do happen.
kj- should we not also have gone into Syria then? Since that is where a great deal of Saddam's WMD materials went?
Don't tell me, after everything you have read here, you still don't believe he had them. I mean, let's start with the 400,000 tons of explosives the UN inspectors were supposed to have destroyed in the mid-90s.
People can say we should have started with Iran, and perhaps we should have. They are sneaking into Iraq. Would not Iraqis be sneaking into Iran at this point, had it gone the other way? Bringing who knows what weapons which they had hidden or removed to other locations, long before our troops even entered Iraq.
The smartest move is always picking the fight you are likeliest to win.
If winning the peace in Iraq has, so far, been illusive, what do you think the chances are of doing the same in a larger, more populous country with a larger war chest?
Today Iraq.
Tommorow Iran.
Then Syria.
Then Saudi Arabia
Then Pakistan.
Then Lebanon
Then the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Then Chechneya.
Then Indoesia
Then Thiland
Then Anywhere Islamic terrorism rears its ugly head.
Let's face it. We are in for another 30 years war, unless we want to use atomics. But the alternative is the destruction of our civilization.
Oooops. Looks like "we" got the wrong country. Iran, Iraq, what's the difference?
It is pretty simple, actually.
Invade Iraq, and you effectively take out what was the most powerful convential unfriendly military in the region while surrounding both Syria and Iran with countries unfriendly to them. Geographically, you have taken out one enemy while isolating two others. It also has the net benefit of making the the trap more accessible to the men we want to kill if a honeypot doctrine is indeed being used as many of us suspect.
In addition, internal unrest within Iran makes it possible for the mullahcracy to collapse without direct U.S. involvement. A collapse or revolution of this nature would cause fear within other regional dictatorships, making them less like to engage in or support external actions that they feel might result in coup attempts.
If we had invaded Iran instead, we would have gained very little for our efforts, while having a powerful regional force at our backs (Iraq) and leaving the other "Axis of Evil" member (Syria) with an entire country as a buffer should we need to stage operations there.
Politically, logistically, and geographically, Iraq was the only country that made sense even if WMDs were not the primary reason for the invasion.
"Today Iraq.
Tommorow Iran.
Then Syria.
Then Saudi Arabia
Then Pakistan.
Then Lebanon
Then the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Then Chechneya.
Then Indoesia
Then Thiland"
Battleofthepyramids - that sounds like a long long haul! Why not cut to the chase and go straight for SA ? SA is the paymaster for the spread of Islam throughout the west and for much of the terrorism too.
The oil would be secured for as long as we need it (not long - kicking the oil habit has to be a priority for the west.)
The safety of holy shrines in Mecca and Medina would, of course, be dependent on 'good behaviour' throughout the islamic world.
Sounds a lot cheaper than fighting a dozen wars!
Bob Owens~ Thank you. That is exactly right.
Bob Owens,
Your right on the mark. But I do think Iran was just as dangerous as Saddams Iraq,and the point I was trying to get across is that maybe the Iraq war should have been extended, to Iran. Not an occupation, but a sucession of precision strikes on nuke facilities, taking Iran's must dangerous element out of the equation.
Other than that I agree with you entirely.
Bob says...Politically, logistically, and geographically, Iraq was the only country that made sense even if WMDs were not the primary reason for the invasion.
After Afghanistan, going to Iraq was a military no brainer.
Saddam Hussein made it all so easy. He was the world's biggest dumbass.
Anyone else remember the short-lived student uprising against the mullahs in Iran about a month after the invasion of Iraq? I don't think this was mere coincidence.
I think there may have been some hopes on the part of the strategists that the threat of similtaneous invasion and insurrection would put the fear of God into the mullahs and nudge them toward democratic reform. With Bush in for another four years, if a stable democratic government takes root in Iraq (and I know that looks like a big "if", this may happen yet.