Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq


Guardian: Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.


"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."


The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.


"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.


"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."


Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.
US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.


Tehran's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Shia south, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Iran was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.
"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Iran is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.


Any US decision to retaliate against Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.


Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Iranian proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Tehran, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.
"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler.


They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."
The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq.


"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said.
Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Iranian activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.


"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.
In trying to force an American retreat, Iran's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Tehran's own.


But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said.


Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Iran's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."


But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran pause, he said.


Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.


A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."


Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

BBC: Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

Does Iran hate the U.S. so much it is willing to deal with Sunnis and al-Qaida, a violent anti-Shiite organization? o_O Pardon my skepticism, but this reporting sounds as accurate as the media's portrayal about al-Qaida in Lebanon:

The 24/7 news networks were hard at work today trying to make Syria responsible for the Sunni zealots in the camps. The statement was being made today that these groups were connected to AQ. No evidence was offered, but the assertion was repeatedly made based on the "possibility" that had supposedly been voiced by some nameless person in the Lebanese government. Various Lebanese were asked that question - "Is this Al-Qa'ida?" Nobody could be found who was willing to say that there was an organizational link to Al-Qa'ida, but the question was asked over and over again. This question was paired with another - "Is Syria controlling and "behind" this group?" Nobody could be found who would say that either, but the question was asked over and over again.

Now, think about it, folks Al-Qa'ida is a virulently anti-Shia Sunni group. Everyone "knows" that Syria supports Hizbullah, a main target of AQ displeasure. So, which is it? Which side does the Syrian government support? Does the Syrian government support both at the same time? If you believe that, then you really are a sucker for propaganda.

SERENDIP said...

Lesly: It's not about being Sunni or Shia...It's all about lust for power and greed. The mullahs in Iran couldn't care less about Islam so do the Ben-Landanites.

There are many al-quaeda memebers in Iran who roam freely and are supported financially by the IRI...I can't really provide you a link to this assertion because this piece of news was given to me about a year ago by a relative who lives in the town where most of them are located and it's not a secret. It's public knowledge.

Anonymous said...

It's not about being Sunni or Shia... It's all about lust for power and greed. The mullahs in Iran couldn't care less about Islam so do the Ben-Landanites.

I'm sure they don't care about religion. Religion is a tool, like a gun. But various interests vying for power compete with each other, and religious identification is as good a way as any to differentiate between Us and Them, between Friends and Enemies. It just seems really irresponsible, not to mention lazy, for the media to sum up with the situation by asking: is it al-Qaida?

I also question how much Iranian meddling in Iraq is an Iranian initiative and how much of it is at the invitation of Shiites in the Iraqi parliament. Those five Iranian diplomats the U.S. military captured—our real target was the IRG's intelligence chief—were invited to Iraq, angering Kurdish leadership who were not informed of the operation:

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

Serendip, if the IRI's "meddling" into Iraq's affairs is part of a secret plan to take over Iraq, why hasn't the U.S. overthrown the Iraqi government by now?

There are many al-Quaeda members in Iran who roam freely and are supported financially by the IRI.

Do you know whom within the IRI? If Khamenei supports them this points to a serious ideological shift. If it's not Khamenei it reinforces the dysfunctional (and unsettled) distribution of power within the IRI.

SERENDIP said...

Iran's ambition to take over Iraq didn't start 4 years ago. It goes back to when Ayatollah Khomeini wanted to (25) years ago did not accept Sadaam's offer of peace after 2 years of war with Iraq. He wanted to go to return Jerusalem to its rightful owners, the "muslims" via Karbala. I have to go through my archive to find all the related articles and I don't have time.

The IRI cooperates even with the Great Satan as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when interests overlap and tactical needs require them.

Kohmeini was a student of "Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood", a Sunni group. Khomeini's book, "Islamic Government"(not just for Iran but the whole world) explains it much better than I ever could. Khomeini's long-term vision and his main design to establish the Islamic Republic was precisely to unify both Sunni and Muslims and create and Islamic dominated world...Sorry, if cannot be more clear.

Anonymous said...

Kohmeini is dead, though. In my opinion, revolutions based on ideological extremes, meaning ethnic- instead of civic-style revolutions, warp over time. Authoritarian regimes are just as ideologically susceptible to ideas as an open society; they just can't filter these ideas like an open society. Saddam, a secularist, kicking him out of Iraq and attacking and giving Kohmeini the perfect opportunity to consolidate power could may have something to do with his refusal to a peace treaty, too.

All this aside, though, I still have to ask myself this if you're right about the IRI's greater plans for the region: why is the Iraqi government assisting their "plans", and why doesn't the U.S. do anything about Iraq? Why does the U.S. turn a blind eye to Iraq's unphased treatment of Iraqi officials and focuses on Iranian transgressions instead? Isn't this addressing half the problem? And whose interests are being served by the BBC quoting anonymous U.S. officials?

SERENDIP said...

Lesly: Khomeini is dead but Khomeinism is alive and well all across the Middle East and even in Chechnya(sp?). Khomeini was not just an aytatollah. He was elevated to the position of "prophet" and a "saint" of some sort... and he continues to gain many followers exactly because of his theortical ground work for establishing the Islamic Ummah because it is so appealing to all muslims.

why is the Iraqi government assisting their "plans", and why doesn't the U.S. do anything about Iraq? Why does the U.S. turn a blind eye to Iraq's unphased treatment of Iraqi officials and focuses on Iranian transgressions instead?

The Iraqi government is assisting their plan because they are all shia and they believe in Khomeini's ideological design...in fact, to be a true shi'ite, believing in the doctrine of Mahdi, you are obligated according to Quron "as soon as you're militarily and financially" capable to establish the ummah. That is the ultimate obligation of a true Shia...For true believers, Nationalism is paganism. The only thing that matters is "Islamic Ummah"...True muslims believe in borderless communities. Borders are not recognized according to Islamic Doctrine...If I had stayed a muslim and bought into that stuff, I would be wanting to the same thing. In fact, I remember when I was 12 years old in my religious studies class when upon hearing that 'good muslims's duty is to make everyone convert to Islam', that's when the alarm bell went off in my head and I started to doubt the whole thing. As a twelve year old, I knew there was something drastically wrong with that picture. The God I believed could not possibly create Christians, jews, zoroastrian by mistakes...At any rate, I'm digressing here.

I think, I hope, the incompetent and lazy Bush adminstration has finally figured out that they were duped...and they should have never trusted the shia...there are talks of coup by Alwai in the green zone (Arabic article in angryarab.com)...that was thawrted by the true believers in the green zone couple a weeks ago. The Shia government, Maliki and Sistani et al are also on to what the U.S. is planning to do....it's a huge mess. Right now, both sides are at a stand still. Neither one trust each other...