John Craddock, his eye on the wider picture
or his head stuck up his Khyber Pass?
Okay now before people condemn this idea as being entirely devoid of common sense and the mutterings of a blimp like retard lets evaluate. Firstly the guy saying it is General John Craddock, a senior NATO general and thus hopefully at least no fool at all. Secondly there may be some merit in engaging Iran diplomatically over the resurgent Taleban insurgency. After all it is most likely that Tehran does not wish to see the Taleban back in Kabul. However that is about it, the Iranian theocracy will most certainly not want to see a NATO victory or democracy taking root now on two countries that border it (the other being Iraq).
Other problems are the fact that credible reports have been made that Iran is actually supplying Taleban elements with munitions. That is definitely a problem just as it proved and to an extent still does in Iraq. Most importantly this would hand Iran in effect full power to influence the outcome of NATO operations, operations to which they will almost certainly be opposed to. In other words NATO would go from being currently severely hampered to actually defeated in Afghanistan when the mullahs call off the supplies. Perhaps I'm missing something and the Iranians actually do want to help and not just swallow a load of dollars whilst being duplicitous (like Pakistan). Personally with my limited knowledge I would favour a supply route through the Caucasus, although again that would be with a political price. Anyway here is the article from AP.
3 comments:
Good question YA, the motivation however is simple the aim of the IRGC and other radical elements of the Iranian regime is anti-western Jihad. Of course such a policy is short sighted in Afghanistan but what the Mullahocrcy will fear is the US (and NATO) triumphing again on a country that borders them. But then again consider the fact that a war or 'Jihad' has been declared against the USA and the west since 1979 anyhow. Khomeini said so and to this day 'death to the USA' is the regular refrain on a Friday afternoon in Tehran's mosques.
Of course the Iranian regime is Shia; however they have equipped radical Sunni elements for terror before examples including Hamas. They have also supplied weapons and training to Shia extremists in Iraq and Hezbollah in the Lebanon. I would be more surprised if they were not arming Taleban elements.
YA, your comments are wrong of course. That said they start well and get gradually more unbalanced until the final paragraph which borders on hilarious. You clearly are an apologist for the Iranian regime I know, but to claim that 'death to the USA' in Iran is akin to a UK person saying 'damn those kids is nothing short of fantastic. It is not even an exercise in cultural relativity to say so just plain daft! But if as you are saying that all that comes out of Iran is rhetoric, how do you explain the storming of Embassies, the taking of hostages, the supply of EFPs to Shia militants in Iraq, supplying weapons to Hamas, threatening genocide repeatedly? You understand my drift? There is an undercurrent of very real terroristic acts that underpins what the Iranian radical clergy say.
Back on topic I understand what you say with regards to Afghanistan and the supply of weaponry. My opinion is like yours supposition; I strongly suspect that Tehran does not wish to see NATO succeed in Afghanistan. Their motives would be instead to transplant the Karzai regime with an anti-western one complaint to their demands. I may be wrong of course but I very much doubt that the Iranians would support any policy that was to see western power remain in Afghanistan. Besides my real concern in this post, is that running supplies through Iran will place the entire outcome of the mission upon Iranian goodwill, a serious gamble.
It's true that some radical Islamists are opposed to the spread of the Iranian regime. However they definitely do not hate them more than the west, they view the conflict as an inter-Islamic thing and no business of the west. As to suggesting that the US is supporting Al Qaeda aligned movements in Iran do you have a credible source? I feel that again is absurd, not least as the US and Iraqi governments defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq. Presumably Iraq is from where such non-existent missions would be launched.
'I do not claim that what comes out of Iran is all rhetoric'. Actually YA you did earlier with your point about 'death to America' being equivalent to a western 'damn these kids'. You have simply withdrawn from that position. As to the allegations that the US is supplying Al Qaeda organisations in Iran. That is all they are allegations. However let’s look at your sources. Firstly in mentioning Jundallah you cite the example of Khaled Sheikh Mohammad. A strange choice that for you to use as a basis for arguing US collusion as KSM is due to stand trial for 9/11! He has been indicted in Guantanamo bay; however the new administration may likely try him in America. It will be interesting to see if he mentions at his trail any relationship with US intelligence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4292569/Sept-11-suspects-defend-actions-as-Guantanamo-war-court-reconvenes.html
However there as you provided other 'sources' that make claims of US collusion with Jundallah. Some of these have been discredited most notably the ABC story run by Ross and Debat. Debat admitted himself it seems that he was in the habit of fabricating stories. Thus his journalistic credentials are questionable at least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202333.html?sub=AR
As to the MEK they appear to be on a cease-fire and are in any fact confined to bases in Iraq. Previously they served as a front organisation for Saddam's Intelligence services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen-e_Khalq
Of course YA, none of this actually proves that these elements are NOT receiving covert help for the US. However the sources you provided do not seem to stand up to well to critical scrutiny. As such neither of us can make a definitive case. I would suggest that on balance it is not the case as the US have their hands full with Al Qaeda in any case. Certainly however it would be sensible to forge links with groups opposed to the Iranian theocracy though just not Salafist groupings. Incidentally MEK was not and is not a Salafist group.
Oh and as to:
'You betray your ignorance about Islam and the Middle East in general when you claim "It's true that some radical Islamists are opposed to the spread of the Iranian regime. However they definitely do not hate them more than the west, they view the conflict as an inter-Islamic thing and no business of the west." Extremists do not consider it an "inter-Isalmic thing". the Koran forbids the killing of fellow Muslims, Sunni extremists do not view Shia as Muslims, they consider them infidels. But they are worse than the west.'
This is not true either; just go on any Islamist website for the answer. Certainly there is not fondness for the Shia, however by about 100 to 1; you will see criticisms of the west outweigh paranoia about Iran by a huge margin. I do not agree with you that Iran cold be a potent enemy of Al Qaeda, the theocracy is as dangerous and aspires to obtain nuclear weapons. What is urgently required is a dialogue with those Iranians that want democracy. In 1979 the US was sick of the Shah and refused to back him. The revolution was initially regarded as being favorable by the Carter regime. Sadly the lunatics took over and ruined the country. For further information read Bowden, 'Guests of the Ayatollah'.
Post a Comment