The New York Post‘s Ralph Peters scored an interview with Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of Multinational Force Iraq.
ASKED about Muqtada al-Sadr, Odierno responded: “He’s a figurehead . . . erratic in his behavior . . . unpredictable. . . but he’s the individual who reaches out to the Shia nobody else reaches out to. The problem is that he’s lost control of some parts of his movement, the Special Groups and others – many of whom are funded by Iran. “We need to separate those elements and kill or capture them – while working with those closer to the mainstream.”… So what about Iran? “It’s a difficult problem . . . it’s important to have regional and international awareness of what they’re doing.” But the general feels that, before we take any cross-border military action, we need to think through the second- and third-order effects. He’d much prefer a diplomatic solution – if possible.
A diplomatic solution would be ideal. But as Odierno says, the question is whether such a solution is possible. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch recently explained the extent of Iranian influence on the violence in his area of operations, which stretches from the Saudi border to Iran:
He said about 50 Iranian and Iraqi operatives, trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and working for Iran, are active in his area, and are part of the same group that killed five U.S. soldiers in Karbala province in January. Lynch said “a new wave of lethality” — including 48 attacks using explosively formed projectiles and 66 attacks using precision rockets — has killed 13 U.S. troops in his area since April. In one incident, he said, more than three dozen Iranian-made rockets were aimed at a U.S. base in the area, and when insurgents fired some of them and hit the base on July 11, one soldier was killed and 15 others were wounded.
Further, today we hear from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahamadinejad:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap. “The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”
Allahpundit responds:
I think this is what David Ignatius meant on Sunday about Iran overplaying its hand. What a silly thing to say ahead of the Bush-Congress showdown. If you want America out so you can move in – and he does – why give U.S. hawks any leverage by announcing that fact publicly?
But a few months ago Reuel Marc Gerecht offered an explanation of Iranian behavior in THE WEEKLY STANDARD that may better explain Ahmadinejad’s statement, and its timing:
An assumption of the Iraq Study Group was that the clerical regime wants stability next door in Iraq. Hence it might be willing to work with Americans. Yet Iran has benefited enormously from Iraqi instability. Traditional, moderate clerics like Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who have been willing to work with Americans, have been battered and bruised by the violence. The radical Moktada al-Sadr, a little-known and little-admired scion of a famous clerical family, skyrocketed to prominence because of the strife and thanks to critical Iranian aid to him. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its more radical military wing, the Badr Organization, has also benefited enormously from the violence. SCIRI is a key Iraqi player that has received substantial assistance from Tehran. What is particularly regrettable about SCIRI is that the bloodletting has made life more difficult for moderates within the organization. And the violence has made it harder for SCIRI to pull away from Iranian patronage. Does Iran want to stop this process? Iraq’s Arab Sunni community–detested by the Iranians–has been routed from much of Baghdad, badly bloodied, and put to flight by the hundreds of thousands. This is a bad thing in the eyes of Tehran? Where does Iran have the most influence in Iraq? In Basra, where Shiite-versus-Shiite violence is at its worst. This is not a coincidence. Tehran has benefited massively from Iraqi Shiite division and internecine strife. What the United States should expect from Iran is that it will continue to ship its deadly explosives to Iraq and, through violence, feed the radicalization of the Shiite community. Success through Hezbollah in civil-war-torn Lebanon is the model to remember. Until now, it’s been Iran’s only successful foray abroad. “Stability” in Iraq means only one thing to Tehran: an American success.
Would the Iranians would benefit from a diplomatic solution, or more to the point, would they benefit from an American withdrawal? It seems Iran’s best chance for avoiding a direct confrontation with the U.S. military is to keep the U.S. military tied down in Iraq–which means doing whatever they can to foment violence and prevent a U.S. withdrawal. From that perspective, if Iran overplays its hand, it will not have missed an opportunity to consolidate its regional position, as Ignatius posits. Instead, Iran will have missed an opportunity to avoid a direct military conflict with the United States. Given the success in dealing with the Sunni insurgency, American commanders are now turning their attention to Iran and its support of Shia militias and the “special groups.” As Odierno explained his priorities to Peters:
“First, I worry about Shia extremism and Iranian interference, which is increasing.”
