Famous Last Words

"Just because we're not finding them doesn't mean they're not there," says Major Alayne Conway of the dread Iranian infiltrators. By the same token, of course, maybe the insurgency is being fueled by Martians or Venezuelan space terrorists -- after all, just because we're not finding them doesn't mean they're not there. This is all from Chris Collins' report for McClatchy which makes the evidence sound pretty thin:

Conway said that U.S.-led forces have not caught any of the Iranians, but she said military intelligence and recently discovered caches of weapons with Iranian markings on them indicate that the Iranians are there.

Lynch's assertion is the latest in a series of accusations leveled by military officials against Iran. They have warned that Iraq's neighbor is actively supplying Shiite insurgents - specifically, the Mahdi Army - with deadly weapons that have killed dozens of U.S. soldiers.

So there you have it. Given the vagaries of the small arms market and the fact that Iran is conveniently located next to Iraq, it's hard to say what this is supposed to mean. The core point, however, remains that even if the full bill of particulars against Iran is true and they're the primary source for EFPs and Mahdi Army weapons more generally (this last is plausible -- their guns come from somewhere) it's not at all clear why you'd think escalating the conflict with Iran would be the preferred solution. The US has already thrown way, way, way more of our assets into Iraq than has Iran -- any escalation we undertake can be responded to and not necessarily to our advantage.

Rationally, the Iranian government can no more be indifferent to events in Iraq than we could be to a massive Iranian invasion force in the middle of a civil war in Mexico. We can either escalate to full-scale war with Iran, or we can reach some kind of agreement that takes care of both sides' core interests.

Comments

http://www.crescatsententia.com/

This link on your blogroll doesn't seem to be working.

Posted by Tom | August 20, 2007 9:53 AM

The Mahdi militia is sitting out the current strife. The Iraqi army is making the roadside bombs. The Iranian allies, the Shia, in Iraq outnumber the Sunni insurgents and have the backing of the Iraqi government and the US army. Why exactly would Iran risk its own destruction by killing American soldiers? We're fighting their war for them.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 20, 2007 9:59 AM

Look at the MNF-Iraq press releases. They're always busting big numbers of AQI or "Special Groups" both of which are allegedly furrin-dominated entities. Yet they can never produce a single furrin suspect.

Posted by P O'Neill | August 20, 2007 10:09 AM

The U.S. complains of the deadly and destabilizing effect Iranian arms smuggling allegedly has inside Iraq. Yet the U.S. military has not denied reports of "losing" 190,000 small arms. These weapons surely kill and maim American and allied soldiers in far greater numbers than anything Iran is responsible for. Beyond the small arms issue what of all the unsecured explosives, missiles, mines and other weapons the U.S. allowed to fall into enemy hands during and after the invasion? Tales of entire warehouses of armaments gone missing are also undisputed by the military. Per past life performances Bush initiates a situation that quickly disintegrates to FUBAR then shifts blame elsewhere. Except now "elsewhere" gets bombed because he's the President and he can do what he damn well pleases. To hell with frogs and firecrackers, he has jets and tanks and aircraft carriers now.

Posted by steve duncan | August 20, 2007 10:17 AM

Iranians: The New WMDs

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | August 20, 2007 10:20 AM

"Just because we're not finding them doesn't mean they're not there,"

I was just going to say, I've heard that before, somewhere... and then Sam beat me to it. Of course, since UNSCOM wasn't allowed to close out its investigations, they can still say that about the Iraqi WMD program.

Posted by J. | August 20, 2007 10:37 AM

We can either escalate to full-scale war with Iran, or we can reach some kind of agreement...

You're speaking theoretically, of course...

Posted by snarky | August 20, 2007 10:48 AM

"Rationally, the Iranian government can no more be indifferent to events in Iraq than we could be to a massive Iranian invasion force in the middle of a civil war in Mexico"

Substitute "Iranian" with any openly hostile country that actually has nuclear weapons and whose leaders pointedly refuse to take first strikes "off the table". Oh wait, there aren't any others.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 20, 2007 10:51 AM

The Mahdi Army's guns came through us, via the Iraqi Army upon which all our hopes rest.

As for why it makes sense to escalate tensions with Iraq, I recently talked to some loyal Bushie dead enders who think the Iraq War was a great idea and brilliantly executed, and that any problems not invented by the media are the result of al-Qaeda supplied by Iran. Here's the kicker - they insisted that there was no way anyone could have anticipated either al-Qaeda or Iran taking a hand in Iraq after our invasion (liberation)! Judging by Bush's popularity rating and Fox News' prominence, I'd estimate about 25% of Americans see Iran as the snake in the garden ruining what would otherwise have been a perfect little war. Since these idiots are all Bush has left, it makes perfect sense to pander to them by playing up Iran's involvement with rhetoric as extreme and irresponsible as possible.

Posted by aleks | August 20, 2007 11:02 AM

"Substitute "Iranian" with any openly hostile country that actually has nuclear weapons and whose leaders pointedly refuse to take first strikes "off the table". Oh wait, there aren't any others.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 20, 2007 10:51 AM "

I don't understand your meaning, but I'm going to mention North Korea anyway.

Posted by aleks | August 20, 2007 11:04 AM

Invading Iraq was insane; invading Iran would be suicidal. There should be a vote, and if you vote for war with Iran you should be forced to enlist in a special "Citizen's Volunteer Corps." If you are too old or otherwise infirm (I'm looking @ YOU, Krauthammer), your children or other loved ones should be forced to enlist. I think we would immediately see support for this war drastically diminish.

Posted by Gregorio | August 20, 2007 1:37 PM

I don't understand the angst. I thought we had already arrested at least five Iranian "diplomats" and accused them of supporting insurgents.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 20, 2007 3:36 PM

Colonel Pat Lang says with authority but no actual proof that there are "hundreds of thousands" of Iranian agents in Iraq. I don't doubt "scores of thousands" but hundreds is not likely, if not impossible. At least if you don't count every Iranian pilgrim entering the country for one reason or another.

Nonetheless, there's no evidence that Iranians are either directly engaged in combat with US forces, or are doing anything more than coordinating with and encouraging the Shia militias to deal with the Sunni insurgents.

If the US bombs Iran, however, that WILL change to actively supporting the Shia militias with arms, intelligence, and direct combat support by the IRGC.

Anything coming out the mouth of a military officer in Iraq concerning Iran is undoubtedly a lie they were ordered to make in order to increase the likelihood of a war with Iran. It's a pathetic example of how US officers are little more than propaganda mouthpieces for Dick Cheney.

Of course, it is true that Iran has an interest in seeing the US bogged down in Iraq in order to (hopefully) prevent the US from invading Iran. This however is not likely to work, as Bush and Cheney don't care what kind of problem attacking Iran is going to cause for the US troops in Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 10:12 PM