Return of the ... the One True King (pt 7)
For background see this.
Over dinner conversation with Marwen Radwan, responsible for the Palestinian ccTLD registry, I remarked off-hand that the US should involve Iran in the management of Iraq, as the Iranian government would show more restraint, and greater understanding of the nuances, than the US.
Yesterday I wrote about Mark Kimmit and John Abazid and Ricardo Sanchez, who appear to believe that career military officers must speak like hicks. I didn't include this gem from General John Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central Command (its bold so you'll know he's not just some uniformed moron):
Q: Generals, Bret Baier again at Fox News Channel. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said last week that Iran is meddling in the situation inside Iraq. General Abizaid, can you tell us how Iran is playing a factor in the current situation on the ground? And have you taken any action along the border that may have involved Iranians?Abizaid: Well, we haven't taken any action recently on the border that had to do with any specific Iranian activity. But clearly, there are indications from intelligence folks that there are some Iranian activities going on that are unhelpful, as the secretary put it. He's absolutely right. And there's also unhelpful actions coming from Syria.
But on the other hand, with regard to the Iranians, there are elements within Iran that are urging patience and calm and trying to limit the influence of Sadr. So it's a complicated situation. But what we need is all of the nations around Iraq to participate in calming the situation and assisting with a sovereign and stable government emerging.
Sanchez: If I may add, Bret, as part of our ongoing operations, we had increased the capacity of the border police out in the Iranian sector, and we had also increased some of our patrolling along the southeast and up in the central part of the country to prevent some of the illegal movement that had been occurring from Iran. So, as part of our current operations over the course of the last 30 to 45 days, we had increased some of our ops in that area.
Abizaid: I would like to go back to a previous point on a different question, and just to clarify the situation somewhat. There is not a purely U.S. military solution to any of the particular problems that we're facing here in Iraq today. There may be combinations of Iraqi and American solutions to the Sadr problem, to the Fallujah problem. There may be purely Iraqi solutions that are arrived at. So it's a combination of military and political action, both on the Iraqi and the American side, and on the coalition side, that will ultimately work towards a more secure environment here.
and
Sanchez: The mission of the U.S. forces is to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr.
This special briefing took place on Monday, April 12th via teleconference between Baghdad, Iraq and the Pentagon. Also participating Bryan Whitman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)). Iran is unhelpful, and the US is increassing ops to seal the boarder, which would cut off any flight by al Sadr and others...
Wednesday, April 14th, a diplo team headed by Hossain Sadeqi, the DG of the Iranian Foreign Ministry (Gulf Affairs), entered Iraq. Here is what they accomplished. They guaranteed the personal jurisdiction over Moqtada al-Sadr would be exercised by post-occupation court(s), religious and secular, on the three pending criminal charges. That made every day of what passes for a cease-fire between the opposing forces in Falluja possible. That made the talk about negociations, about pre-conditions, then the lack of pre-conditions, the talk about a stand-down of his militia, and finally the talk about exile, possible.
Bremmer, Abizad, Sanchez and Kimmit wasted 89 US KIA and another 100+ wounded on a farce and had the Iranians not acted, this week would be a repeat, or worse, of last week. There are 80+ troops alive today that would be dead, and another 100+ that would be limbless-in-Ramstein, had Kamal Kharazi blown off the covert channel (via the Swiss).
Which part of the absurdly disfunctional criminal enterprise we call our government had the sense to call the Swiss sometime before April 7th?
Khalil Naimi, the first secretary of the Iranian Embassy, was shot dead this morning. There is a price to peacemaking. The next time some worthless neocon CF rants that Persia is the Great Evil, remember, 80+ toe tags and 100+ stump kits and colostomy bags were not issued this week.
Comments
Rumor has it that the Brits contacted the Iranians for assistance. Sistani would have to be involved in some way, at least giving permission to the Iranians to enter the fray.
Sadr probably has contacts among the Revolutionary Guards, but is not beholding to Iran. Iran would act as a third party guarantor of any agreement.
Sistani has the ability to issue a Fatwa approving of violence against the US, so the US and Governing Council have to listen to him.
Posted by: Bryan | April 15, 2004 09:26 PM
True, Voice of America (source for Payvand) has the UK as the initiator, but IHT, IRNA, AFP, and LM have the US via Swiss initiator stories.
Iran entered "the fray" almost a year ago, when it set up intel nets, but here I think your point is the diplomatic status of the current mission and the status of a cleric. It is difficult for me to see how a government stuck with Wilayat al-Faqih can mock a senior cleric and fail to notice or seek advice and consent from Sistani.
Whether Sadr has meaningful contacts among the Pasdaran-e Inqilab, or is dependent upon Iran (I don't think so), Iran has acted to potentially frustrate Sanchez's attempts to get his man.
I don't think the CPA has to listen to Sistani because he has some ability to incite. I do think that Sistani has the ability to determin in part the legitimacy, the extent of tolerance towards, even cooperation with, CPA acts. Had the CPA beseiged Najaf, I think events would have swept away Sistani's Fatwa capability, and it (a Fatwa against the CPA) would have been post hoc.
Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Eric | April 16, 2004 12:03 AM