The Iranian Problem Revisited

[gilliam]

By Bill Roggio Evidence of Iran’s involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. Iran is the main sponsor of Hezbollah, which has been referred to as the “A-Team” of terrorist groups because of their organization, technical abilities, fundraising, connections and sponsorships. The 9-11 Commission has explicitly linked Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda; “Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda. As we mentioned in chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan. (Page 240)”

Iran has sheltered al Qaeda senior leadership, by the admission of none other than al Qaeda’s number two in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in his letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda’s military commander, confirms this. He openly admits he planned al Qaeda’s Iraqi venture with Zarqawi while in Iran, with the assistance and support of Iranian intelligence (see the full post for the full extent of Iranian involvement with al Qaeda). Saif al-Adel, Said bin Laden, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, and a host of al Qaeda senior operatives are directing the global jihad with the aid of the Iranian government.

Dan Darling points us to further evidence of Iran’s complicity with al Qaeda: an article in the German magazine Cicero, which states Iran has actively supported Zarqawi’s jihad and “used Iran as an important logistical base.” Cicero obviously struck a nerve, as the magazine was raided shortly afterward by Germany’s Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA), the source of the information. Read Mr. Darling’s full post for the evidence.

Read the rest

 

[Guar_Fan]

Iran is a worrisome country. It has moderates who would love to work with the U.S. and other western nations. But it also has hard-liners who would use any means available to stymy or bring injury to western nations, particularly the U.S.

The current Iranian president is of the hard line camp. I don’t expect Iran, in the coming years, will cooperate much with the West on matters of international concern. This is evident by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent comment that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. And also by Iranian intransigence over their nuclear program.

 

[gilliam]

Let’s see, the Iranian government:

• Advocates the wiping of Isarel off the map
• Wants nukes (to do this?)
• Financiallly supports terrorists in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Israel
• Has called for a world without America
• Harbor’s and helps finance al-Qaeda

Yea, I would call it a problem and I don’t know why we are not doing more about them. If this were 1944, under the Democratic Roosevelt administration, the marines would be in country already.

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Let’s see, the Iranian government:

• Advocates the wiping of Isarel off the map
• Wants nukes (to do this?)
• Financiallly supports terrorists in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Israel
• Has called for a world without America
• Harbor’s and helps finance al-Qaeda

Yea, I would call it a problem and I don’t know why we are not doing more about them. If this were 1944, under the Democratic Roosevelt administration, the marines would be in country already.

Sounds like you want another war. Can you tell us exactly how we fight it? What units do we deploy? From where do we get them? Shall we institute a draft? Use mercenaries? Or maybe tell those scheduled for a 3rd deployment to Iraq that we’re sending them to Iran instead?

What scares the dickens out of me is that the Bush administration might be thinking exactly along these lines.

 

[Guar_Fan]

gilliam:

Yea, I would call it a problem and I don’t know why we are not doing more about them.

I am not sure either. Possibly because we have already overextended ourselves (militarily, diplomatically, and politically) with the Iraq campaign?

If this were 1944, under the Democratic Roosevelt administration, the marines would be in country already.

I am not sure agree with that. Its true Roosevelt wanted to get into World War II long before Pearl Harbor. But it took a sneak attack on our military bases to actually propel our rather isolationist country into war.

Certainly back in the 1940’s we would not have invaded another nation, on the other side of the world, unless it had directly threatend or attacked us. But Bush isn’t Roosevelt, and the world is a very different place than in the 1940s.

 

[Al_Masetti]

So, there seems to be some unanimity that Iran may be one of the prime movers in what we are choosing to call “terrorism”.

And, how to we “deal” with “this”?

What is called for is something we refer to as “strategy”.

What should be our “strategy”?

Some of our alleged “allies” don’t seem to be of much help… indeed, some of our “allies” and traditional “friends” and some of our “previous adversaries” even seem to have been “on the take” in the “oil for food” scandal… to the tune of billions of dollars. Tens of billions.

Hmmmm.

Well, one approach is to make a list of the countries (soverign states) that are or have been contributing to the “problem of terrorism” (which may be being conducted by organizations that are NOT actually soverign states, but seem to take refuge in or hide within soverign states or get some kind of “logistical support” from soverign states).

And then rank those countries.

Afghanistan
Libya
Iraq
Syria
Iran
North Korea

Maybe others.

And we formulate tactics for removing the “terrorist organizations” from each of them.

Afghanistan: Into this small, landlocked country, parachute in 50 Special Forces guys with laptops and suitcases full of money, satellite phones, GPS equipment. And add a few B-52’s with precision guided munitions and in a few weeks, the Taliban is chased out of power and into the Hundu Kush mountains.

Libya: Approach this very small Mediterranean country with desert up to the coast line, very small population, using secret diplomacy. The dictator of Libya voluntarily turns over plane loads of poison gas, nuclear weapons development projects and plays nice.

Iraq: This is a very large and wealthy country with a large population. Use secret diplomacy and a massive invasion. The dictator of Iraq is run out of town and eventually captured. Support for terrorism dwindles. Terrorists by the thousands flock to the region and are killed in combat. Extensive use of public works projects (government and private) to develop telecommunications, workable water and sewage treatment, equitable oil development and marketing.

Syria, Iran and North Korea: secret diplomacy, use of other countries as intermediaries. Possible use of secret military teams. Possible extensive use of surveillance from space and other overhead resources. Public diplomacy.

OTHER ENTITIES. Lots of “free lancers”. “Terrorists” with no affiliation to a soverign state. Police action to hunt them down and arrest them; extradite them to their home countries. Interpol.

Strategy… If this was one of those computer games, how woudl you approach these issues???

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

Sounds like you want another war. Can you tell us exactly how we fight it? What units do we deploy? From where do we get them? Shall we institute a draft? Use mercenaries? Or maybe tell those scheduled for a 3rd deployment to Iraq that we’re sending them to Iran instead?

What scares the dickens out of me is that the Bush administration might be thinking exactly along these lines.

Don’t be scared. We are at war with Islamofacism, and Iran’s current government is part of the enemy force. Just today, we read of more reports of Iran directly aiding those who are killing us.

Yielding to fear is what they want. Don’t let yourself do it. We have dealt with fascism before and won, but not by becoming afraid to fight.

I have no short term strategy for you. If I did know it, I wouldn’t post it here. But rest assured, they must be delt with. We cannot let Islamofascists have nuclear bombs.

If you want to read a long term strategy, read:Blueprint for Action : A Future Worth Creating by Thomas P.M. Barnett

 

[MikeWM]

gilliam:

Yielding to fear is what they want.

An all-out devastating war between the west and Islam is what they want. Putting marines into Iran would be another step towards just that. The thing I do fear is how many more such steps we can take before it is too late to find another route than that all-out devastating war. I fear it isn’t many.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

MikeWM:

An all-out devastating war between the west and Islam is what they want. Putting marines into Iran would be another step towards just that. The thing I do fear is how many more such steps we can take before it is too late to find another route than that all-out devastating war. I fear it isn’t many.

Mike

You might be right there. Again, I don’t know the tactics to use. I was putting faith in an internal revolt before the June elections. Now, I don’t know what should be done. All I know is we can’t let them have nukes, not now. And we have to prevent them continuing to cause problems in Iraq as well as harboring al-Qaeda.

I also know our army, navy and marines can walk over them quite quickly. Not sure about the ‘peace keeping’ afterwards though.

 

[geezerbob]

There probably would have been a bloodless internal revolt at the ballot box had the mullahs allowed more legitimate opposition candidates and held honest elections. The makings were there but were locked out by those in power. Now that there is a loose cannon running the country, what’s the next step? If Israel feels threatened, and they understandably would feel that way, it will launch a preemptive strike. Then what? I really don’t think the hotheads in Iran realize the potential consequences of what they are saying and doing. I fear that the direction in which they are dragging the world is going to result in an outcome that ain’t gonna be pretty.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

geezerbob:

I really don’t think the hotheads in Iran realize the potential consequences of what they are saying and doing. I fear that the direction in which they are dragging the world is going to result in an outcome that ain’t gonna be pretty.

I believe that they do know what they are doing. They remind me of the bullies in the schoolyard who would taunt and tease until they got what they wanted which was a brawl. Al Queda is up against the wall so I think Iran is hoping to inflame the Islamic Street and bring down bad press on the West.