 |
January 31, 2007Revenge?Might Karbala have been a response to Irbil? UPDATE: Well yes, we'd need to hear much more than 'the Iraqis aren't sophisticated enough' to persuasively evidence any direct Iranian involvement in the operation itself (for the time being it appears likeliest "rogue JAM" were behind the actual attack--and while Mahdi Militia and varied off-shoots get some support from Iran--that is different than a bunch of Iranian operatives killing U.S. troops and than making a bee-line towards Iran or such). On a related note, don't miss Zbigniew Brzezinski: If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. (Hat Tip: Steve C) Posted by Gregory at January 31, 2007 05:11 AMComments
Numerology rules these days, I guess. Would the connection still be valid if it had been 4 dead and 4 wounded as opposed to 5/3? Evidently the guy who threw the grenade must have had phenomenal judgement to guarantee that the correct association would be made. It's entirely possible that the Iranians did this; it's also entirely possible that they didn't. Iraq's not exactly a fun place, and there are numerous groups with diverse agendas who could have done something like this. Given the polluted "information" environment, in which self-reinforcing propaganda loops drive policy and bolster ideology, the Karbala raid is perfect projection material. 
I would be so reluctant, in this climate, to believe anything that puts the blame on the Iranians. Not because it is inherently unlikely that they would do such a thing (but would they _need_ to) but because our chains are being yanked again. WMD. Bush is so obviously both trying to provoke the Iranians and to put the blame for everything on them. Already CNN is using the words "escalation of military activities in Iraq by Iran" - just as they've been fed by the Wurlitzer. Like I said, who knows whether they did it or not. It seems not in their interests - but one thing we can be certain of is that these SOBs on our side are trying to start another war. Posted by: douglass truth at January 31, 2007 12:45 PM | Permalink to this comment
Bush is certainly going to push it as casus belli; he and the Likudniks are running out of time. It's being floated in the NYT today. The article includes this: "The officials said the sophistication of the attack astonished investigators, who doubt that Iraqis could have carried it out on their own." Arabs being too stoopid for such things, naturally; has to be those wily Eyerainians. Posted by: Odradek at January 31, 2007 01:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
BD, a little more skepticism, please. Prior posts have highlighted the information environment we're dealing with. TPM has a good post on how the Neocons might seek to justify a strike against Iran. What caught my eye in the Baer piece was his statement that the President has already promised not to take the war into Iran. Given the "Kill or Capture" order and the Naval forces moving into the Gulf, is that even *remotely* credible? Baer may be sincere, but the spreading of this rumor is clearly on someone's agenda. Posted by: ASA at January 31, 2007 01:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think it's possible that Bush has a dual strategy in Iraq: first, to keep escalating in the hope that the Democrats will reel him in, and thereby take the fall for our defeat. Secondly, I think he is also out to provoke the Iranians so he can bomb their nuclear sites. Given the way this administration looks at things they may actually consider either scenario as an improvement. Posted by: gregdn at January 31, 2007 02:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
I'm not sure Robert Baer, who once said there the evidence pointed to 9/11 being an "inside job" by the U.S. government, should be taken as authoritative on anything at this point, whether George Clooney plays him in movies or not. Posted by: BruceR at January 31, 2007 03:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Odradek: "Bush ... and the Likudniks are running out of time". Odradek: Leave your bigotry at home. Do not bring it to this website. PS: I do agree that Bush/Cheney & Co. are doing their best/worst to get us into war with Iran, however crazy that would be. Scary thing is that the Iranian hardliners including their President are willing to obilige since a war with US would rally the country behind them just as Saddam's attack did back in 1980. We are governed by fools who are leading us to disaster. Only removing Bush/Cheney from office through Impeachment & Conviction will stop them
David All I didn't use the word Jew, you did. I said Likdunik: hard-line, war-mongering asshole, just like Bush, Cheney et al. I'm more of a David Grossman type myself, peace first, that sort of thing.
If you dont swallow the neo-con/likud line you are an anti semite!
Dear al-David. Please please seek proffesional help immediately. "hard-line, war-mongering asshole". yep. Impeachment will do nothing to stop the carnage. The beast must needs its eats...mmm delicate tasty morsels. Poor david. If only ye knew the master ye serve. But your insight into US aggression rallying the Iranian peoples behind their own "likudnik" is spot on. The conclusion though is predictably predictible. It rather should read... "We are fools being led to governed disaster..." or some other such drivel. Remember, keep shopping. Posted by: pox americanus at January 31, 2007 05:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
HITLER!!! HITLER!!! HITLER!!! Posted by: SomeOtherDude at January 31, 2007 07:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
I can't help but laugh when we speak with scorn of those who would "meddle in the internal affairs of another country" or those "who like nothing better than to fight a war by proxy". Are they so irony challanged as they seem? I can't tell if it's pathological or incompetent: either option is painful. Posted by: Paul Curtin at January 31, 2007 07:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Or perhaps clandestine border operations in or near Iran. Posted by: Chris at January 31, 2007 09:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
It does appear a hit a nerve with some the Respectable Establishment types. Will have to remember that. As for AIPAC. The folks I am working for are the Elders themsevles. You should ask your Moslem friends for their Protocals! Posted by: David All at January 31, 2007 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ok, I'll admit it; I'm stupefied. Assuming that Iran is actually exercising revenge (sayeth Baer) or its own not-so-serendipitous surge (sayeth me), why would they (qua the IIRGC) take out Sistani rather than, say, Muqtada? Isn't Sadr the more likely of the two to tell the Persian hardliners at day's end to take a friggin' hike? I know Sistani doesn't exactly see eye to eye with Khamenei, either, but he's half in the bag and acting like Gandhi as Baghdad burns while Muqtada runs around gleefully playing Torquemada and hoping to become like Daddy. Iran extending its suzerainty is unlikely in Baghdad unless they remove Sadr, even with common enemies named US, Sunni and Baathists serving as clay pigeons and forestalling the inevitable clash. Far as I can tell, Sistani died a long time ago, politically. There's bigger to fish to fry. -resh
The Iraqis were making nukes, anthrax, sarin gas (in mobile labs!), and building drone aircraft, but there's no way they could figure out how to get US equipment and trucks. There's just NO WAY. It had to be the Iranians. Posted by: Jon H at February 1, 2007 03:01 AM | Permalink to this comment
Now, an unlikely "Jewish conspiracy" would require that they do something *hard*, like push Bush and Cheney into raising taxes, endorsing gay marriage, and instituting single-payer healthcare for everyone. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph couldn't pressure them to do *that*. But bombing Iran is the Bush/Cheney foreign policy equivalent of being alone with a naked and willing Scarlett Johanssen on a bed of stacked $100 bills.
David all,
Likudnik is a smear. Likud is name of an Israeli political party, currently in opposition. Likudnik persumerably is a member of this party. Calling American supporters of the war in Iraq, Likudniks implies that their loyalities are to Israel. (BTW, does it not seem rather ridiculus to imply the opposition party in another country is influencing political decisions in the USA. I mean Likud cannot even run Israel, why do you believe it is controling things here.) Likud is nice little acceptable gentlemanly code for imlpying Jewish control, just as talking about "welfare mothers" is code for lazy Blacks. Paul Curtin: It is pathological of this Administration not to realize their attacks on Iran for meddling in Iraqi affairs really are ridiculus. In this, though, they are following traditional American foreign policy, like back in 1980s when the Reagan Administration Posted by: David All at February 1, 2007 10:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
David, you're being too literal here. Suppose for the moment that the israeli government wanted to influence the US government. There's certainly nothing immoral about that -- the US government emphatically wants to influence the israeli government, and for that matter every government we care about. Would the israeli government send money to the USA to aid in that influence? Maybe, but it sounds silly. The flow of money is from the USA to israel, both from private contributions and from the US government. It would make more sense to ask big donors to contribute money instead to US needs. While it isn't immoral for foreign governments to pay cash to US legislators (as one example of influence) it is scandalous. In our hypothetical situation, US citizens would do essentially all the work and contribute essentially all the money. The main job of the israeli government would be to say what they want. Just like with football fans, the zionists who're the most active would tend to be the most extreme. A person who believed there was a reasonable chance for peace and prosperity for everyone and that things would naturally head that way, wouldn't feel the need to do a tremendous amount of lobbying to get the US government to make it happen. The most effort would come from those who were convinced that israel is surrounded by implacable enemies who will definitely kill everybody in israel if ever vigilance is relaxed. That no peace is possible and the major point of peace negotiation is as a propaganda exercise to make israel look good and whoever the current enemy is look bad. American likudniks would then be americans who agree with Likud. They would not be controlled by the israeli government. (Except perhaps a few who were blackmailed by Mossad for one reason or another, you've always got to expect a little blackmail in politics.) Their stand wouldn't change with a change in the knesset, any more than football fans change their opinions with a change in their team's management. And they wouldn't have "control" over the US government. Though they'd try, as does every other large group of paranoids. They'd get a large degree of influence about actions that concern them. That's after all how the US political system is designed to work. There's nothing wrong with that either. The only concern comes from people who disagree with them, who think that their influence on the US government is bad for the USA and -- in the long run -- for israel. This is just another political opinion. There's nothing wrong with that either. The opponents of US Likudniks would of course tend to be weaker than the Likudniks. They don't hold their opinions as strongly, and they aren't willing to put as much time or money into supporting them. Likudniks would tend to think that unless they do everything in their power to prevent it, israel will be exterminated. But their opponents wouldn't think it's absolutely certain that unconditional US support for israel will get the USA exterminated. The people who're most fanatical will tend to win even when the numbers are against them. Look at the sugar lobby. Nobody who isn't in the sugar lobby believes that we should spend billions of dollars a year to keep the price of sugar high. But it continues. No matter who's in office, no matter which party is ahead in Congress, no matter what anybody thinks. Chances are it will be the same with israel, even if they keep generating bad press.
Nice post, J Thomas. You did a good job turning a lemon into lemonaide. Hope you realize that everything you said about the Israeli Lobby also applies to the Saudi Lobby several times over. Particualry since the Saudis have the money to purchase a lot of Americans to be their front men, including the Statesman of the Hour, Big Jimmy Baker. Baker, before he was appointed head of the Mid-East Commission, had been cheifly involved in defending "our friends, the Saudis" from damage suits filed by the families of 9/11 victims. Posted by: David All at February 5, 2007 09:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
David, it isn't true that the israeli situation is parallel to the saudi one. Some years ago we had a scandal -- I thought they called it SaudiGate but a quick google search didn't find it -- which as near as I could tell went like this: There was a rumor among US legislators that some saudi sheikhs were in DC and had no idea how the US lobbying system worked. They were giving thousands of US dollars to any congressman who showed up to take it, no questions asked, no favors discussed. A lot of congressmen showed up to get their free money. Then the FBI revealed it was a sting, the guys in the arab robes weren't saudis but FBI agents and they'd videotaped the bribery to show to everybody. It was a giant scandal. A lot of voters thought it was wrong for their legislators to accept free money if it came from saudis. Similarly, there was a scandal about taiwanese lobbyists and one about korean lobbyists. Americans tend to think it's wrong for foreign countries to lobby our legislators, especially when it's foreign countries that our legislature votes to give lots of money to. Israel doesn't have that problem. Not only do they not have to give back any of the money we send them, their campaign contributions can be mailed as small checks by many thousands of US citizens. No scandal whatsoever. But that's a weapon that cuts both ways. Sure, the israeli government has a lot of US citizens who'll lobby for it. But they have to convince those US citizens to do the right thing. If the citizens disagree, then israel can't do much about it. Imagine for example that the israeli government wanted to make peace with theiri neighbors, and wanted US citizens to lobby for US permission to do that. They'd face their strongest supporters disagreeing with them. "You can't do that! All the arabs are determined to kill you! They'd never honor a peace treaty, they'd just wait their chance to do a surprise attack and push you into the sea. No, the only way we can be safe is win every war, forever. Force is the only thing arabs understand. You have to beat them over and over and over again. We'll get the US government to give you everything you need to beat iran. So when do you think the war with iran will come? I have a bet placed you'll win in 3 weeks, but my bookie says it will take 6 weeks. You guys aren't going to let me down, are you? Do you need any special US military technology to win in 3 weeks?" A far different situation from the saudis, who have money and oil influence but few real friends and very very few saudi-american US voters.
David All, The real voting muscle for the Likudnik/neo-con agenda comes from religious fanantics....fanatic born again christians....you know the ones who share the "one israel policy" with likud. The one problem is that the fundies want this policy so "Jesus can come again" and force the jews to convert, end the world, and take christians to heaven. Wurmser, Feith, Perle Wolfowitz....maybe you have heard of these Bush2 adminstration stalwarts? They also have taken positions for Bebe Nentenyahou and Likud. So you are being silly to think that there is no connection between Likud and neo-con...there is plenty of overlap. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860941/posts It is obvious that AIPAC represents Likud and is the most effective intl. lobby, more powerful on their issue than even the cuban-american community and the envy/model for the Indian-american community. Posted by: centrist at February 8, 2007 01:56 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
