Iranians Caught In Iraq
Al-Reuters has the story that Captain Ed Morrissey took note of this morning:
Iraqi and U.S. troops battled Shi'ite militiamen in a village northeast of Baghdad on Thursday, and witnesses and police said U.S. helicopters bombed orchards to flush out gunmen hiding there.
Iraqi security officials said Iranian fighters had been captured in the fighting, in which a sniper shot dead the commander of an Iraqi quick reaction force and two of his men. They did not say how the Iranians had been identified.
A civilian was also killed and five people were wounded in the clashes, they said.
The U.S. military had no immediate comment. ...
... "We captured a number of militants and were surprised to see that some of them were Iranian fighters," the police intelligence captain said.
An Interior Ministry official, who did not want to be named, also said Iranian gunmen had been captured. Baquba lies 90 km (60 miles) from the Iranian border.
The United States and Britain have accused Shi'ite Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and providing military assistance to Iraq's pro-government Shi'ite militias. However, there have been few instances of Iranians actually being captured inside Iraq.
Some Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, are quick to label Shi'ite fighters as Iranian agents. And among the militants are Iraqis who grew up in refugee camps in Iran, speak Iranian-accented Arabic and, in some cases, carry Iranian identity papers.
Police have said Shi'ite fighters in the area belong to the Mehdi Army of radical, Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's movement, which staged two uprisings against occupying troops in 2004, denies being behind sectarian violence.
As Captain Ed notes, it will be easy for the Iraqis to identify these people as Iranians. The difference in dialects is enough to draw attention to them as Iranians speak Farsi, not Arabic, and the Persian dialects are apparent when these people are spoken to. For the longest time we have known that Iran was meddling in Iraq's affairs.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld brought this up at a news conference on March 7th of this year. Both General Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that Iranian Revolutionary Guard had slipped over the border into Iraq, and that they were sending munitions and IEDs into Iraq. Nothing definitive had happened to give us the proof that Iran was involving themselves in this fight until now.
With this information in hand, and these foreign terrorists in custody, this could be the situtation the Iraqis had been hoping for to end the native insurgency in Iraq. With the Shi'ites leading much of that insurgency (and with suspected ties to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shi'ite militant from Fallujah) the capture of these men might be enough to get the Sunnis to stand up to the insurgency, and hasten the Iraqis along just a tad quicker in their training and deployment, especially to the southern regions of Iraq to prevent any further incursions.
At the same time, this was not good for Iran. At a point where they are about to begin talking with the US over their nuclear program, this is one more ace in the hole for the Bush Administration going into those talks. Not only are we troubled by your nuclear program, but we are not too happy about finding your fighters, your weapons, and your supporters in Iraq. Your very presence in Iraq could be construed as an act of war.
I doubt it will go that far, but that should be the gist in these talks. Iran has to understand that a confrontation with the West is not in their best interests. At the same time, we need to be encouraging the dissident movement in Iran to move on ridding their country of the mullahs there. We cannot do it for them. The risks in an invasion alone, right now, are too great. And I doubt the president wants to start another fight with another country, with only two years left to go in his final term. The risk that a Democrat could make it into the White House, and call for withdrawal, is indeed a worry ont he president's mind. As the majority of the Democratic leadership is already calling for "redeployment" (read: Left-speak for cutting and running), it would only stand to reason that they will not maintain a presence in Iraq, or continue any sort of engagement with Iran.
This revelation needs to be exploited. Show the world that Iran is indeed meddling in Iraqi affairs. If the West is truly intent to deal with Iran, this gives them a perfect springboard with which to drop the hammer on them. They are involving themselves in the sovereign matters of another country. They are interfering with the efforts to make Iraq a stable democracy. And while in their minds it may not be prudent to allow such a country to exist so close to them, it is a decision of the Iraqi people to make life better for themselves. Iran has no say in it.
Marcie
Al-Reuters has the story that Captain Ed Morrissey took note of this morning:
Iraqi and U.S. troops battled Shi'ite militiamen in a village northeast of Baghdad on Thursday, and witnesses and police said U.S. helicopters bombed orchards to flush out gunmen hiding there.
Iraqi security officials said Iranian fighters had been captured in the fighting, in which a sniper shot dead the commander of an Iraqi quick reaction force and two of his men. They did not say how the Iranians had been identified.
A civilian was also killed and five people were wounded in the clashes, they said.
The U.S. military had no immediate comment. ...
... "We captured a number of militants and were surprised to see that some of them were Iranian fighters," the police intelligence captain said.
An Interior Ministry official, who did not want to be named, also said Iranian gunmen had been captured. Baquba lies 90 km (60 miles) from the Iranian border.
The United States and Britain have accused Shi'ite Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and providing military assistance to Iraq's pro-government Shi'ite militias. However, there have been few instances of Iranians actually being captured inside Iraq.
Some Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, are quick to label Shi'ite fighters as Iranian agents. And among the militants are Iraqis who grew up in refugee camps in Iran, speak Iranian-accented Arabic and, in some cases, carry Iranian identity papers.
Police have said Shi'ite fighters in the area belong to the Mehdi Army of radical, Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's movement, which staged two uprisings against occupying troops in 2004, denies being behind sectarian violence.
As Captain Ed notes, it will be easy for the Iraqis to identify these people as Iranians. The difference in dialects is enough to draw attention to them as Iranians speak Farsi, not Arabic, and the Persian dialects are apparent when these people are spoken to. For the longest time we have known that Iran was meddling in Iraq's affairs.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld brought this up at a news conference on March 7th of this year. Both General Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that Iranian Revolutionary Guard had slipped over the border into Iraq, and that they were sending munitions and IEDs into Iraq. Nothing definitive had happened to give us the proof that Iran was involving themselves in this fight until now.
With this information in hand, and these foreign terrorists in custody, this could be the situtation the Iraqis had been hoping for to end the native insurgency in Iraq. With the Shi'ites leading much of that insurgency (and with suspected ties to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shi'ite militant from Fallujah) the capture of these men might be enough to get the Sunnis to stand up to the insurgency, and hasten the Iraqis along just a tad quicker in their training and deployment, especially to the southern regions of Iraq to prevent any further incursions.
At the same time, this was not good for Iran. At a point where they are about to begin talking with the US over their nuclear program, this is one more ace in the hole for the Bush Administration going into those talks. Not only are we troubled by your nuclear program, but we are not too happy about finding your fighters, your weapons, and your supporters in Iraq. Your very presence in Iraq could be construed as an act of war.
I doubt it will go that far, but that should be the gist in these talks. Iran has to understand that a confrontation with the West is not in their best interests. At the same time, we need to be encouraging the dissident movement in Iran to move on ridding their country of the mullahs there. We cannot do it for them. The risks in an invasion alone, right now, are too great. And I doubt the president wants to start another fight with another country, with only two years left to go in his final term. The risk that a Democrat could make it into the White House, and call for withdrawal, is indeed a worry ont he president's mind. As the majority of the Democratic leadership is already calling for "redeployment" (read: Left-speak for cutting and running), it would only stand to reason that they will not maintain a presence in Iraq, or continue any sort of engagement with Iran.
This revelation needs to be exploited. Show the world that Iran is indeed meddling in Iraqi affairs. If the West is truly intent to deal with Iran, this gives them a perfect springboard with which to drop the hammer on them. They are involving themselves in the sovereign matters of another country. They are interfering with the efforts to make Iraq a stable democracy. And while in their minds it may not be prudent to allow such a country to exist so close to them, it is a decision of the Iraqi people to make life better for themselves. Iran has no say in it.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home