Are the Iranians Out for Revenge? Kerbala and the IRGC
31 January 2007Time has a good article by Robert Baer, who’s books I have read and enjoyed. He addresses Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is basically the Iranian military force that leads proxy wars with non-state actors in other nations like Lebanon, Palestine, and increasingly Iraq.
Are the Iranians Out for Revenge?
The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi’a Islam’s most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons’ favorite quietist Shi’a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq’s Shi’a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.
And that’s not the worst of it. American forces still hold five members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Arrested by American forces in Erbil on Jan. 11, the Administration has accused the five IRGC members of helping the Iraqi opposition kill Americans.
I’ve written here before that the IRGC has a long history of calculated violence against its enemies, particularly the United States. The Administration’s accusations are plausible. But at the same time the U.S. needs to remember what a serious spoiler the IRGC can be when provoked.
So the fact is that we’re already at war with Iran. It’s a war waged by the IRGC in Iraq against American forces. Addressing this effort directly is part of our new strategy in Iraq. That is one reason that the term “surge” is so innapprpriate for what is really happening. We are sending more troops, but it’s the new work of undermining and killing the IRGC that is important here.
And Democrats and Republicans who are “supporting the troops” by passing these non-binding resolutions, or worse yet, cutting funding, are not helping the situation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
8 Responses to “Are the Iranians Out for Revenge? Kerbala and the IRGC”
January 31st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Iran Hysteria” is now in vogue, just as “Iraq hysteria” was in vogue before the Bush Administration beat the drums for the disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Time Magazine seems to be happy to help stir the pot with articles such as the “Revenge” article which is helping to propel us towards the necessary level of “war fever” for yet another International Disaster for the United States.
Of course, invading Iran is already a foregone conclusion, because our President was born into an incredibly rich and powerful family, and he cannot take “no” for an answer, even if he drags the United States down with him.
The fact that Time Magazine is once again jumping on the Bush bandwagon is just another reason that large media outlets like Time are soon going to become irrelevant Dinosaurs.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I find your points to be highly illogical and based on many a false premise. We do not live in a dictatorship, unlike the Venezuelans, the Cubans and the North Koreans. We are not run by religious zealots, unlike Iran.
Your personal feelings aside, Bush cannot do as he pleases in this country, as we live in a constitutional republic with democratically elected representives. To paint the man as a Chavez-style dictator with law-by-decree powers is to minimize the real dangers dictators pose, and soley for propaganda purposes.
It pains me to see Americans let their personal hatred of George Bush cloud their judgement regarding national security threats.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Wow, you beat me to it, honey!
That comment from virginamayclark is completely illogical and the exact type of “Bushitler” hysteria that the media and left wing blog-o-shere is full of today. Let’s look at the completely irrational and ridiculous positions that are put forth.
1. Invading Iran is a foregone conclusion, even though President Bush has stated explicitly that it is not.
2. Time Magazine is a shill for the Bush Administration, even though any logical reading of their recent reporting shows that it is not.
3. Iran is really no threat to us, and we’re just being mean, even though we clearly have documented proof of their involvement in the direct killing of our troops in Iraq and have even captured many IRGC members in Iraq planning such attacks and delivering sophisticated weapons and training to our enemies.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:47 am
I wish I shared your optimism that the Bush Administration has not already decided to invade Iran. I hope I’m wrong.
And I hope that my prediction that the Administration might carry out a “surgical” strike against Iran is just as “irrational and ridiculous” as you say it is.
But – respectfully – I find it hard to believe that anyone can take Mr. Bush’s assurances at face value.
I would love to believe that the Bush Administration would try every alternate course to an attack on Iran, that he would aggressively seek every diplomatic alternative to another military blunder that could destabilize even farther the situation in the Mideast.
But I am one growing number of people in the United States who do not trust what this administration “explicitly” says, and who have watched the botched execution of our invasion of Iraq which was sold to the United States by a sustained campaign of misinformation that culminated in Colin Powel’s infamous address to the United Nations.
Of course Iran is a threat to us (did I say that it wasn’t?), but there are other countries that
are threats at least as great if not greater. And I believe that the notion that a military strike is going to make the problem better is the same “magical thinking” that got us into this mess in the first place.
In fact one of the abject lessons that the United States may take from Iraq is that – as former national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft warned – invading Iraq would lead to regional instability in the Mideast that could have disastrous results.
The idea that Iran is the only country in the Mideast that is doing serious meddling in Iraq is also wishful thinking because there are other countries including Syria who are already involved and will get even more involved if the situation continues to deteriorate.
It’s possible that the Administration is not already set on a strike against Iraq, but it’s hard to believe. The Scooter Libby trial is just the latest reminder of how the Bush Administration attempted to control information so that it could fashion a justification for invading Iraq.
And at this point there doesn’t seem to be much that Congress or the American people can do to influence this isolated administration until the next election, when the Bush Administration will be forced out of office by term limits.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:26 am
And you don’t address points 2 and 3 at all? Come on! You can do better than that!
So let me just get this straight, virginia.. Do you endorse the idea of abandoning the Iraqi people? Do you support a withdrawal of our troops in the region?
The fact of the matter is that Iran is already in a covert war with the United States. All I ask if for the public, like yourself, to get your head out of the sand and admit that basic fact. The evidence is overwhelming.
The truth is that we do not have the military power to invade Iran. Iran is so much larger than Iraq, in terms of territory on the one hand, but more importantly in terms of population, that the whole idea isn’t even militarily feasible.
As for trying an alternate course on Iran, what do you think is happening now? Are you not aware of the extremely intense diplomatic efforts underway in the UN now, that culminated in the most recent set of sanctions against Iran for their continued defiance of international demands related to their nuclear weapons program, or are you simply trying to pretend they aren’t happening in an effort to deceive the readers here?
It has to be one or the other, so please let us all know which it is.
As for other countries that are a threat, like Syria, I agree completely. The “idea that Iran is the only country in the Mideast that is doing serious meddling in Iraq” is not wishful thinking. It is a straw man that you created to shoot down. I never said anything like that.
There is no doubt in my mind that planners at the Pentagon have drawn up plans for all out war with Iran. That is what planners do. But from all indications I see, there is much mre focus on identifying and arresting or killing Iranian agents in Iraq who are trying to kill American service men and women. Surely we can agree that this is the proper response? Can we not?
February 1st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Virginia –
You need to read more carefully the points being made. You first stated that Iran is a done-deal. That’s what you meant by “forgone conclusion,” correct? The response you received was that it was not certain. That does not mean in any way that the administration has taken military strikes against Iran off the table. As for your “prediction”, it was not that the administration “might” carry out a strike against Iran. You claim it will definitely occur. And that it has something to do with his family wealth and political power. I find this reasoning to be completely disconnected from the reality that the President has only limited war powers. Congress must be, and has been, involved every step of the way.
You fail to recognize the diplomatic action this president has taken to get the world bodies to do their job in regards to Iran, and I’m only left to wonder why you choose to ignore them.
The world has many nations hostile to us. It would be cowardice to not deal with any of them because you can’t deal with all of them at once or in an order acceptable to virginiamay.
And as for your interpretation of the Scooter Libby ordeal, I think you demonstrate very well how the American public has been fooled by the mainstream media to side with the CIA in a bureaucratic war with the president. Joseph Wilson lied to the American people. His trip to Niger did not clear Iraq of attempting to acquire uranium. Quite to the contrary, his trip raised more questions about Iraq’s intentions than it answered. His politicizing of his trip in the New York Times was a horrible abuse of his responsibilities to this nation.
It’s laughable that you would say the Bush Administration attempted to control information since it was Wilson who lied and attempted to avoid an airing of what his trip actually discovered through throwing out the red herring of his wife’s not-so-secret identity.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
You wrote:
“Do you endorse the idea of abandoning the Iraqi people? Do you support a withdrawal of our troops in the region?”
Let me turn the question around and ask: “Do you believe that continuing our presence, or increasing our presence in Iraq is going to avoid the what some describe as a tragic cultural implosion?”
I will answer your question first.
I believe that we should begin a pull-out by the end of the year, yes.
You have framed it as “abandoning” the Iraqi people – I agree with you.
Can you articulate a better course of action? Maybe you can, I’d love to hear it.
My guess is that we are in a lose/lose situation, we have dug ourselves into a hole.
Does it surprise me that the result of our attempt at “nation building” has unraveled into this unmitigated disaster – no.
The attempt at “nation building” has run amuck. Both of you seem to be intelligent people, I’m sure you are well-read. Don’t you see many historic parallels, especially in the Middle East which is an incredibly complex culture which we as a nation have little or no understanding of?
One of our most obvious liabilities in Iraq is that we don’t even speak their language, not to mention understand square one about this very old culture. Certainly, somewhere in the backs of our minds was the idea that our culture could spread, and would be embraced. This is an incredibly naive belief, yet we have made this mistake before.
Crowning all of this is the fact that it’s not even clear why we are there in the first place. First it was weapons of mass destruction, then it was to make our country safer, then it was to bring democracy to the Iraqi’s, and finally we are there because if we leave the cultural mayhem that we initiated will explode into not only a human disaster in Iraq, but a much wider disaster in the region.
So, how about it. Do you think that staying the course in Iraq is going to stop this train wreck, or make it much worse?
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 am
The short answer, Virginia, is that I believe that we have a very good chance of improving things in Iraq by staying longer, if needed, and no I don’t think that our being there makes it worse. I think that our rules of engagement, up to about three weeks ago, stopped us from doing what we have needed to be doing for 3 years now; namely, killing the people who want to destroy the new Iraq. A new Iraq based on an elected government.
I agree with you that there are many parts of our culture that will never be “adopted” by the average Iraqi, and having them adopt our culture is never anything I would try to force on any culture, but I also believe that the basic idea of self-government by the people is an inherent desire of all peoples. I think the enthusiastic turn-out at the elections held thus far shows that clearly.
I don’t have time right now for an in depth analysis, that you obviously desire, of all of the various forces working to tear the new Iraq to shreds. Of all of the local strongmen trying to destroy the idea of self government. But I do believe that killing the bad guys is what is needed and that if we leave before we do that, things will be much worse.