U.S.: Evidence shows Iran subversion in Iraq

[aquapub]

Like I said, this campaign of terrorism being waged inside Iraq by foreign powers is only a "civil war" in the minds of those who are fixated on forcing another humiliating defeat on the U.S.

Liberals can blame Iraqis for the violence being sent into their country from Iran and Syria and demand that we retreat from the central battlefield of the war on terror all they want.

But handing Iraq over to the kind of terrorists it use to sponsor in a post-9/11 world would be like handing a defeated Germany to Nazis in a post-Pearl Harbor world.

Bush is turning the heat up on Iran and increasing the troop count in Iraq, which is exactly what needs to be done.

:bravo:

U.S.: Evidence of Iran subversion in Iraq - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com

 

[oldreliable67]

More food for thought on this topic from Eli Lake:

Several lists containing names of suspected moles have been circulating in the intelligence community since December, according to one American diplomat and two American intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the names of the suspected Iranian agents themselves are the focus of a heated dispute.

This debate, among others concerning Iran's influence and control of Iraqi government institutions, is one key factor holding up the publication of a consensus intelligence finding on Iraq known as a National Intelligence Estimate. The dispute over Iranian power in Iraq's Interior Ministry, national military, customs office, Health Ministry, and Defense Ministry will determine how President Bush's troop surge is implemented, one intelligence official said. "This could lead to disbanding whole units of the Iraqi military and affect how we embed our guys in their units," the official said. "If it's true, if some of this is true, it's very bad. But we don't know yet."
[...]
Iran's intentions in Iraq were explored in a paper released this month by a former Army translator and current analyst for the Fort Leavenworth, Kan.-based Foreign Military Studies Office, a U.S. Army branch that works largely with open source material for analysis of foreign militaries. In the paper, "Iran's Contribution to the Civil War in Iraq," Mounir Elkhamri says Iran's Quds Force has worked to create a rump Shiite state in southern Iraq since shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that the Shiite militias killing Sunni civilians in Iraq are working at the behest of Iranian intelligence and Revolutionary Guard.

Documents captured from Saddam Hussein's intelligence service show "Iran's deep penetration in Iraqi society and institutions. Iran clandestinely supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq and took measures to turn it to her advantage," Mr. Elkhamri writes in the paper, published by a Washington-based national security think tank that includes both Democrats and Republicans on its board, the Jamestown Foundation.

While the Iranians were helpful in the invasion period, Mr. Elkhamri writes, by as early as 2004 the Iranian Quds Force and Ministry of Intelligence and Security began establishing influence to advance Tehran's interests. On March 11, 2004, Quds Force, the arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in charge of terrorism against America and Israel, opened the "Office to Help Poor Iraqi Shia."

By offering an upfront gift of $2,000 and a monthly stipend of $1,000, the office was able to recruit 70,000 young Shiite men in 2004 to join one of the numerous militias allied with Iran, Mr. Elkhamri writes.

Mr. Elkhamri's conclusions are stark. "Today in Iraq, Shia militias — death squads loyal to Iran — have successfully infiltrated the new Iraqi security forces at all levels. They have also expanded their area of operations throughout Iraq. They are responsible for more civilian deaths than the Sunni and foreign insurgents who are the United States' number one enemies in Iraq. These militias — the Mahdi Army, the Badr Brigade, and others — are carrying out attacks under the authority of and in the uniforms of the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense."

The NY Sun article points out that not all analysts agree with Mr. Elkhamri's conclusions. Even so, Elhamri's evidence is considerable further proof that Iraq is one front in a regional war that cannot be won in a single theater.

 

[G-Man]

Like I said, this campaign of terrorism being waged inside Iraq by foreign powers is only a "civil war" in the minds of those who are fixated on forcing another humiliating defeat on the U.S.

Liberals can blame Iraqis for the violence being sent into their country from Iran and Syria and demand that we retreat from the central battlefield of the war on terror all they want.

But handing Iraq over to the kind of terrorists it use to sponsor in a post-9/11 world would be like handing a defeated Germany to Nazis in a post-Pearl Harbor world.

Bush is turning the heat up on Iran and increasing the troop count in Iraq, which is exactly what needs to be done.

:bravo:

U.S.: Evidence of Iran subversion in Iraq - Focus on Iran - MSNBC.com

According to your article the detained Iranian officials were all in Iraq with the full knowledge and co-operation , indeed at the invite, of the democratically elected Iraq govt. Should we be surprised that the mainly Shia govt is liasing, discussing and co-operating with its fellow Shia brothers in Iran?
You fail to recognise that Iraq is free to chose who its friends and partners are - just cause we kicked out Saddam you shouldn't ignore the reality that the Shia majority will side with Iran as opposed to the US.
There is a civil war in Iraq - the Shia want to win - its clear where they would turn.

Scenarios like this were at the fore when Bush Sen decided it would be unwise to topple Saddam. Just another lack of understanding regarding foreign policy from Bush jnr.

 

[oldreliable67]

According to your article the detained Iranian officials were all in Iraq with the full knowledge and co-operation , indeed at the invite, of the democratically elected Iraq govt.

I think you're missing a couple of key words in there. From what I've read, that sentence would be more accurate if it read as follows: "indeed at the invite, of certain Shiia elements of the democratically elected Iraq govt". Yes, there certainly are Shia elements within the Iraqi government that are aligned with Iran, but there are also significant numbers of Shiia in the government who want nothing to do with Iran - which has led to numerous assinations and murders.

 

[G-Man]

I think you're missing a couple of key words in there. From what I've read, that sentence would be more accurate if it read as follows: "indeed at the invite, of certain Shiia elements of the democratically elected Iraq govt". Yes, there certainly are Shia elements within the Iraqi government that are aligned with Iran, but there are also significant numbers of Shiia in the government who want nothing to do with Iran - which has led to numerous assinations and murders.

I'd accept that but the thread is trying to provide evidence of interference in Iraq (or should I say unwanted interference) by Iran - this is quite clearly not the case with this article. From the article itself :-

"But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs."

We have an official Iraqi minister (who is a Kurd!) stating that the Iranians were in that building with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Iraqi govt. Hardly seems like unwaranted intervention from Iran.

The US has to accept that both Iraq & Iran will want full interaction with one another. The two Shia groups have a lot more in common than i.e the US will ever have with Iraq. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it was widely predicted by the Bush Snr administration and should hardly come as unexpected to the Bush jnr administration.

We may have 'liberated' them from Iraq but we should never presume they will side with us regarding conflicts/disagreements with their fellow Shia brothers.

Indeed I have long predicted that Iraq will now split and the Shia areas will merge into Iran. This is not the same as Iran taking over..the Shia in Iraq want this close relationship with their neighbours - the borders in the region are becoming less and less important - nationalism is disappearing and religion is taking over.

 

[aquapub]

1) According to your article the detained Iranian officials were all in Iraq with the full knowledge and co-operation , indeed at the invite, of the democratically elected Iraq govt. Should we be surprised that the mainly Shia govt is liasing, discussing and co-operating with its fellow Shia brothers in Iran?

2) Scenarios like this were at the fore when Bush Sen decided it would be unwise to topple Saddam. Just another lack of understanding regarding foreign policy from Bush jnr.

1) This is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. As the article explains, Iranian clerics and "diplomats" have been instigating terrorism against our troops in Iraq since the beginning. It is sleazy to misrepresent their further material and strategic support of terrorism against our troops as some legitimate exercise of sovereign diplomatic discretion to be accepted as routine.

When we raid terror cells in Iraq, we keep finding Iranians in them working to mass murder our troops. That's nothing like what you are portraying here.

2) No responsible leader could've left a genocidal terror-sponsor in power after more than a decade of failed diplomacy in a post 9/11 world. Iran has been knee-deep in this instigating the fighting (as has Syria) since the beginning. Bush openly talked about the power struggle that would ensue when Saddam was toppled before we even went in. It wasn't a matter of lacking consideration, it was about doing something about a foreign threat, even if that meant re-arranging the power struggle in Iraq.


And no, foreign powers conducting a campaign of terrorism inside Iraq does not constitute a civil war. Without the terrorism campaigns of Syria and Iran, Iraq's power-sharing could've been settled diplomatically.

 

[Moot]

I think you're missing a couple of key words in there. From what I've read, that sentence would be more accurate if it read as follows: "indeed at the invite, of certain Shiia elements of the democratically elected Iraq govt". Yes, there certainly are Shia elements within the Iraqi government that are aligned with Iran, but there are also significant numbers of Shiia in the government who want nothing to do with Iran - which has led to numerous assinations and murders.

Yes, I think you are right. There are pro-Iranian Shia elements within the Iraqi government who are directly linked with Iran. His name is Al-Hakim, the leader and founder of SCIRI and the Badr brigade who are directly affliated and trained by the Iranian guard. Al Hakims party holds 30 seats in the Iraqi parliment and they want to divide up Iraq by sect. A divided Iraq? But Lincoln said, 'a house divided can not stand".

Then there is Al Sadr and his Madhi army who also hold 30 seats in parliment. Iraq prime minister, Al Maliki's Dawa party is aligned with Al Sadr and his Madhi army. Together, both SCIRI and Dawa are the majority in Iraq parliment. But Al Sadr and his militia who fought against Iran less than 20 years ago are not aligned with Al Hakim who hid out in Iran during the last 20 or years or so. Al Sadr and his people are poor and uneducated while Al Hakim is fully backed by the Iranian government. While its true, Al Sadr has resisted US occupation in Iraq just as any patriot of his own country would, just as equally true is that he has also resisted Al Hakim and the Badr brigade from dividing Iraq up into sectarian provinces for Iran.

My point is that it could well be the Iranians betrayed Al Sadr and may have done the exact same thing to him that the US did to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Remember the Iran-Contra affair? When Saddam found out the US was selling weapons to his enemy Iran, he immediately broke off relations with the US. Now here is Iran betraying Al Sadr the same way the US did by supplying their enemy, the Sunnis with weapons for use against them. It may also turn out that the Badr Brigade is solely responsible for the death squads and for blowing up the golden mosque in Samara in order to spur the Al Sadr Shiites into a full out civil war against the Sunnis. Creating sectarian divide and letting the two sides annilate each other is a good ploy for Iran. Divide and conquer by proxy. Ironically, I think the Israelis may have wanted Iraq divided up into smaller provinces as well. Both Iran and Israel would benefit from a divided Iraq. The ones who would suffer would be the Iraqis themselves when the Turks invade from the north and Iran along with the Badr Brigade from the east and Hezbollah from the west, with the Sunnis caught in the middle. It will be a genocidal blood bath for all ...except for Iran and Israel of course.

IMO, Al Sadr and his militia are not the cause of the sectarian violence, but simply reacting to it. Evidence is mounting that Iran via Al Hakim and his Badr Brigade are solely responsible for fueling most of the sectarian violence in Iraq and it would be a huge mistake for Bush to side with Al Hakim over Al Sadr. To do so, would be like Chamberlain appeasing Czechoslovakia to Hitler. But if Bush's claim that he wants to keep Iraq united and out of Iranian hands while avoiding a civil war and genocide then he would be wise to stay with and support Al Maliki, stop demonizing the Sunnis and Al Sadr and start demonizing the two faced Al Hakim and his Iranian backed militia, the Badr brigade.

 

[Shayah]

Ironically, I think the Israelis may have wanted Iraq divided up into smaller provinces as well. Both Iran and Israel would benefit from a divided Iraq. The ones who would suffer would be the Iraqis themselves when the Turks invade from the north and Iran along with the Badr Brigade from the east and Hezbollah from the west, with the Sunnis caught in the middle. It will be a genocidal blood bath for all ...except for Iran and Israel of course.

Lol. Are you serious? Why did you drag Israel into this discussion of Iraq and Iran? Many nations would seemingly benefit from a trifurcated Iraq. Israel has nothing at all to do with the current mess in Iraq or its future status.

Shame on you for such trolling :naughty

 

[G-Man]

1) This is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. As the article explains, Iranian clerics and "diplomats" have been instigating terrorism against our troops in Iraq since the beginning. It is sleazy to misrepresent their further material and strategic support of terrorism against our troops as some legitimate exercise of sovereign diplomatic discretion to be accepted as routine.
When we raid terror cells in Iraq, we keep finding Iranians in them working to mass murder our troops. That's nothing like what you are portraying here.

Post something which proves this assertion then. Your link referred to an incident where Iranian officials were arrested by US forces only for Iraqi govt officials to tell us they were in Iraq, indeed in that specific building, with the Iraqi govt's full knowledge and co-operation. These men have since been released...hardly lends credibility to your assertion they were conducting attacks against US forces.
If you have further evidence then post it but so far you have nothing but your wild accusations (as above) with no evidence to back it up.

2) No responsible leader could've left a genocidal terror-sponsor in power after more than a decade of failed diplomacy in a post 9/11 world. Iran has been knee-deep in this instigating the fighting (as has Syria) since the beginning. Bush openly talked about the power struggle that would ensue when Saddam was toppled before we even went in. It wasn't a matter of lacking consideration, it was about doing something about a foreign threat, even if that meant re-arranging the power struggle in Iraq.

Lol...Bush talked about a power struggle ensueing? Was this before of after Rummy said the whole thing would take weeks or months?

Anyways, your going off topic there. Your 'evidence' as the thread title states is evidence of nothing at all. A miscommunication between Iraq (who believes it should be free to have a dialogue and relationship with Iran) and the US (who thinks all Iranians in Iraq are there unlawfully).

And no, foreign powers conducting a campaign of terrorism inside Iraq does not constitute a civil war. Without the terrorism campaigns of Syria and Iran, Iraq's power-sharing could've been settled diplomatically.

Most of the civil war fighting done by Shia groups is upon the orders of Muqtada al-Sadr and carried out by his followers (the Mahdi Army). This group of terrorists is Iraqi led, Iraqi financed and comprised of Iraqi persons. Incidentally, al-sadr himself is against a unification with Iran and promotes Iraqi nationalism in that he doesn't want it split into 3.

Instead of blaming Iran & Syria for the problems in Iraq you should examine the decisions of the administration after Saddam was defeated. The military gained a comprehensive victory but they have been let down by the incredible incompetence of the administration.

 

[Gardener]

Lol. Are you serious? Why did you drag Israel into this discussion of Iraq and Iran? Many nations would seemingly benefit from a trifurcated Iraq. Israel has nothing at all to do with the current mess in Iraq or its future status.

Shame on you for such trolling :naughty

This certainly isn't the first time with this one.


Its modus operandi is "When in doubt blame the Jews".

 

[Moot]

Lol. Are you serious? Why did you drag Israel into this discussion of Iraq and Iran? Many nations would seemingly benefit from a trifurcated Iraq. Israel has nothing at all to do with the current mess in Iraq or its future status.

Shame on you for such trolling :naughty

Surely you aren't denying that Israel considered Iraq an enemy? Or that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power for the same reason they didn't want Iraq to have nuclear power?

Anyway, I thought I was talking about "divide and rule" but I guess it went over your head. In a nutshell, in order to gain control of Iraq it may be neccessary to divide it up into many smaller provinces under some sort of a Federalized system. So when I look up "divide and rule" an ancient control tactic ...what do you think it said?

Middle East

*Israel has provoked Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli foreign-intelligence agency, Mossad, has conducted covert operations in Kurdish areas as a means of destabalizing rival Middle Eastern countries. [2] [3]

*During Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon Israel installed the South Lebanon Army, a Christian-led proxy militia to manage a 12-mile wide occupied zone along the border. Israel supplied the SLA with arms and resources to fight Lebanese resistance forces led by Hizbullah. Israel also used the Phalange as a proxy militia to fight Shia Lebanese and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really didn't think it was a secret that Israel has wanted to divide up Iraq into smaller more controlable provinces. But it does appear to be news to you, so I guess the shame belongs to you, Ms Troll.

 

[cherokee]

Surely you aren't denying that Israel considered Iraq an enemy? Or that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power for the same reason they didn't want Iraq to have nuclear power?

Anyway, I thought I was talking about "divide and rule" but I guess it went over your head. In a nutshell, in order to gain control of Iraq it may be neccessary to divide it up into many smaller provinces under some sort of a Federalized system. So when I look up "divide and rule" an ancient control tactic ...what do you think it said?

Middle East

*Israel has provoked Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli foreign-intelligence agency, Mossad, has conducted covert operations in Kurdish areas as a means of destabalizing rival Middle Eastern countries. [2] [3]

*During Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon Israel installed the South Lebanon Army, a Christian-led proxy militia to manage a 12-mile wide occupied zone along the border. Israel supplied the SLA with arms and resources to fight Lebanese resistance forces led by Hizbullah. Israel also used the Phalange as a proxy militia to fight Shia Lebanese and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really didn't think it was a secret that Israel has wanted to divide up Iraq into smaller more controlable provinces. But it does appear to be news to you, so I guess the shame belongs to you, Ms Troll.

That’s just plain retarded. Can you show any source that’s not a whacked out Islamic site that backs up your claim?


Hell lets play....:flames:
Maybe you already know this. Just what covert operations did they preformed? When were they there? How many? How did they even get there?

 

[Moot]

That’s just plain retarded. Can you show any source that’s not a whacked out Islamic site that backs up your claim?


Hell lets play....:flames:
Maybe you already know this. Just what covert operations did they preformed? When were they there? How many? How did they even get there?

Why don't you find a source that rebuts my source? Or is that too retarded for you too?

 

[Volker]

So wikipedia, The New Yorker and the Guardian are whacked out Islamic sites meanwhile and I never noticed :roll:

What I consider problematic is the assertion, that SCIRI or Iran are interested in a partition of Iraq. What SCIRI wants, is a federal organized Iraq, for the Iran a Kurdish country could be rather annoying, especially when Kurds start taking money for having American air bases there, it's sad enough, urkey does such things.

The federalism debate is a major factor bearing on the internal Shi’a power struggle. While SCIRI’s provincial autonomy plan is usually presented in the Western media as a plan to partition Iraq, that is mainly the Sunni Arab angle. For the Shi’a factions, it is a power struggle (for a detailed look at this issue, see our report, “Federalism Delayed Amid Sunni, Sadrist Opposition”). Local elections have shown that SCIRI dominates in the Shi’a heartland of southern Iraq except Basra, where the Sadrists and Fadhila are stronger. So whereas Hakim’s autonomy plan would engulf Basra in a larger south Iraq governate, knowing that this would favor SCIRI, Sadr opposes the plan entirely and Fadhila advocates an autonomy plan with a much larger number of provinces -16 - which would allow them to govern where they are strongest. Meanwhile, Dawa is divided on the issue, but Maliki himself was a lead negotiator in the constitutional negotiations which produced the federalism clause, so he can be counted as an ally of SCIRI on this issue.

ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis: Iraq's New Political Alignment

 

[Moot]

So wikipedia, The New Yorker and the Guardian are whacked out Islamic sites meanwhile and I never noticed :roll:

What I consider problematic is the assertion, that SCIRI or Iran are interested in a partition of Iraq. What SCIRI wants, is a federal organized Iraq, for the Iran a Kurdish country could be rather annoying, especially when Kurds start taking money for having American air bases there, it's sad enough, urkey does such things.

ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis: Iraq's New Political Alignment

I didn't know Wikipedia was a whacko Islamic site either. LOL

I had assumed Maliki was aligned with Al Sadrs postition on autonomy until I read the link you provided. Al Sadr is adamantly opposed to dividing up Iraq and since Maliki's Dawa party is aligned with Al Sadr and his militia i assume he is too. So for now, I don't quite share the articles opinion that Maliki is 100% aligned with Hakim on federalizing Iraq.

Coincidentlally or not, the Sunni don't want a divided Iraq either. So isn't it odd that the Sunni and Al Sadr Shiites both want Iraq unity and yet they are the two sects trying to genocide each other? They lived peacefully in the same neighborhoods for decades and even intermarried and yet now they hate each other? Odd, indeed. In lieu of that, don't you think it possible that an outside force is instigating a civil war between Sunni and Al Sadrs shiite in order to prevent them from uniting to vote as block on Iraq unification? Who would be in a better postion to carry out such a dastardly scheme except the pro-Iranian Shia?

Hakim's SCIRI are nothing short of Iran's representation in the Iraq parliament and the Badr Brigade is an arm of Iran's intelligence and special operative force in Iraq. To ignore that fact for five years is what makes US threats and sanctions against Iran so absurd. The US has basically handed southern Iraq to Iran on a silver platter via those hasty provincial elections. All Iran has to do now is get rid of their Shia opposition, Al Sadr and Southern Iraq is theirs. Killing two birds with one stone by letting their enemy, the Sunnis fight Al Sadr for them appears to be working.

I don't think the Kurds and the Iranians are in too much of a conflict just judging by the fact that the two Iranian operatives recently captured in northern Kurdish area were invited to be there by the Kurdish leader.

 

[Volker]

I didn't know Wikipedia was a whacko Islamic site either. LOL

I had assumed Maliki was aligned with Al Sadrs postition on autonomy until I read the link you provided. Al Sadr is adamantly opposed to dividing up Iraq and since Maliki's Dawa party is aligned with Al Sadr and his militia i assume he is too. So for now, I don't quite share the articles opinion that Maliki is 100% aligned with Hakim on federalizing Iraq.

I don't think so either, the constitution was about giving the provinces more power, not abou autonomy of bigger areas, it's more what SCIRI wants and maybe the Kurds.

Coincidentlally or not, the Sunni don't want a divided Iraq either. So isn't it odd that the Sunni and Al Sadr Shiites both want Iraq unity and yet they are the two sects trying to genocide each other?

These areas will control the proceeds of the resources according the SCIRI proposal, so the Sunni's can't have much interest in this solution from an economical point of view. Sure, they have Mosul, but the Kurds will be interested in getting it, when it comes to these areas.

They lived peacefully in the same neighborhoods for decades and even intermarried and yet now they hate each other? Odd, indeed. In lieu of that, don't you think it possible that an outside force is instigating a civil war between Sunni and Al Sadrs shiite in order to prevent them from uniting to vote as block on Iraq unification? Who would be in a better postion to carry out such a dastardly scheme except the pro-Iranian Shia?

We have seen somethig like this in the Balkans in the ninetees, it doesn't necessarly need someone from outside. Who would be in a better position to carry out such a dastardly scheme except the pro-Iranian Shia? This would be the coalition troops. Divide and rule, you know.

Hakim's SCIRI are nothing short of Iran's representation in the Iraq parliament and the Badr Brigade is an arm of Iran's intelligence and special operative force in Iraq. To ignore that fact for five years is what makes US threats and sanctions against Iran so absurd. The US has basically handed southern Iraq to Iran on a silver platter via those hasty provincial elections. All Iran has to do now is get rid of their Shia opposition, Al Sadr and Southern Iraq is theirs. Killing two birds with one stone by letting their enemy, the Sunnis fight Al Sadr for them appears to be working.

Don't forget, an instable Iraq is a risk for Iran, too. They have some Arabian population in Iran at the places where the oil is, for instance.

 

[Shayah]

Surely you aren't denying that Israel considered Iraq an enemy? Or that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power for the same reason they didn't want Iraq to have nuclear power?

Israel, the US, the EU, the UN, and almost every other nation in the world has no qualms about Iranian nuclear generative power. Perhaps you live in a cave and have no idea yet that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons-grade. Clearly, you are being obtuse and disingenuous concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Anyway, I thought I was talking about "divide and rule" but I guess it went over your head.

If you wish to philosophize on 'divide and conquer', start a thread on that subject. This thread is about the Iraqi/Iranian relationship. Perhaps you're a bit out of your depth vis-a-vis the thread topic and feel the necessity to troll.

In a nutshell, in order to gain control of Iraq it may be neccessary to divide it up into many smaller provinces under some sort of a Federalized system. So when I look up "divide and rule" an ancient control tactic ...what do you think it said?

Middle East

*Israel has provoked Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli foreign-intelligence agency, Mossad, has conducted covert operations in Kurdish areas as a means of destabalizing rival Middle Eastern countries. [2] [3]

*During Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon Israel installed the South Lebanon Army, a Christian-led proxy militia to manage a 12-mile wide occupied zone along the border. Israel supplied the SLA with arms and resources to fight Lebanese resistance forces led by Hizbullah. Israel also used the Phalange as a proxy militia to fight Shia Lebanese and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firstly, Israel is not germane to this thread topic. Secondly, Iraq requires no outside inertia to fragment. Thirdly, the Wikipedia article listed numerous countries. Why didn't you mention Sri Lanka? India? Cyprus? Any of the European colonial powers? History has a vast reservoir of divide and conquer exemplars. Yet you only specified Israel. TROLLING your agenda.

I really didn't think it was a secret that Israel has wanted to divide up Iraq into smaller more controlable provinces. But it does appear to be news to you, so I guess the shame belongs to you, Ms Troll.

Iran, Kuwait, KSA, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey to name a few would all love a piece of Iraq. Iraqi Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds would also prefer independent regions. You're not very versed on this topic Moot, and your need to troll is unavoidable yet inexcusable. Too bad so sad.

 

[Volker]

Israel, the US, the EU, the UN, and almost every other nation in the world has no qualms about Iranian nuclear generative power. Perhaps you live in a cave and have no idea yet that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons-grade. Clearly, you are being obtuse and disingenuous concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.

A personal attack is no substitute for evidence of your assertion about the weapons-grade uranium.

If you wish to philosophize on 'divide and conquer', start a thread on that subject. This thread is about the Iraqi/Iranian relationship. Perhaps you're a bit out of your depth vis-a-vis the thread topic and feel the necessity to troll.

This thread was about Iranian plans in Iraq. To show possible plans of other countries in Iraq can be relevant in this topic.

Firstly, Israel is not germane to this thread topic. Secondly, Iraq requires no outside inertia to fragment. Thirdly, the Wikipedia article listed numerous countries. Why didn't you mention Sri Lanka? India? Cyprus? Any of the European colonial powers? History has a vast reservoir of divide and conquer exemplars. Yet you only specified Israel. TROLLING your agenda.

There is nothing written there about what Sri Lanka or India do in Kurdistan.

Iran, Kuwait, KSA, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey to name a few would all love a piece of Iraq. Iraqi Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds would also prefer independent regions. You're not very versed on this topic Moot, and your need to troll is unavoidable yet inexcusable. Too bad so sad.

She provided a source about what she said and you did not.

 

[cherokee]

Why don't you find a source that rebuts my source? Or is that too retarded for you too?

Oh this is gonna hurt. You ready for it? Are you sure? You dont look ready.
To EDIT Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia click the link below

Editing Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you need some ice for your face? Its looks like its starting to swell from being smacked.

Now I have from time to time used them when I knew they posted the truth and needed a quick link.

 

[ashurbanipal]

IIRC, it was found that Wikipedia articles are generally correct.

In any case, the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia more or less ensures that it's likely to carry a consensus view in its articles.

 

[Moot]

Israel, the US, the EU, the UN, and almost every other nation in the world has no qualms about Iranian nuclear generative power. Perhaps you live in a cave and have no idea yet that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons-grade. Clearly, you are being obtuse and disingenuous concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.


If you wish to philosophize on 'divide and conquer', start a thread on that subject. This thread is about the Iraqi/Iranian relationship. Perhaps you're a bit out of your depth vis-a-vis the thread topic and feel the necessity to troll.

Firstly, Israel is not germane to this thread topic. Secondly, Iraq requires no outside inertia to fragment. Thirdly, the Wikipedia article listed numerous countries. Why didn't you mention Sri Lanka? India? Cyprus? Any of the European colonial powers? History has a vast reservoir of divide and conquer exemplars. Yet you only specified Israel. TROLLING your agenda.


Iran, Kuwait, KSA, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey to name a few would all love a piece of Iraq. Iraqi Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds would also prefer independent regions. You're not very versed on this topic Moot, and your need to troll is unavoidable yet inexcusable. Too bad so sad.

Your post is riddled with baseless personal attacks and assumptions (see bolded above) not to mention bad forum manners and convinces no one that your opinion on the topic has any validity. For the future, may I suggest you try supporting your opinion on the topic with some factual evidence and a lot less lip service? Thanks.

 

[Volker]

Oh this is gonna hurt. You ready for it? Are you sure? You dont look ready.
To EDIT Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia click the link below

Editing Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you need some ice for your face? Its looks like its starting to swell from being smacked.

Now I have from time to time used them when I knew they posted the truth and needed a quick link.

There are two links included in this Wikipedia article, the [2] and the [3], which back up what is written there through articles from New Yorker Magazine and the Guardian.

 

[cherokee]

Why don't you find a source that rebuts my source? Or is that too retarded for you too?

As soon as you answer my questions I asked you.
I can’t find any reports that back up your post.

posted by moot
*Israel has provoked Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The Israeli foreign-intelligence agency, Mossad, has conducted covert operations in Kurdish areas as a means of destabalizing rival Middle Eastern countries. [2] [3]

The closet thing I have found is a report in 2004, which states Israel, was training Kurds but no evidence was given in the story.

Show me where the New Yorker Magazine and the Guardian say a damn thing about dividing Iraq.

 

[cherokee]

There are two links included in this Wikipedia article, the [2] and the [3], which back up what is written there through articles from New Yorker Magazine and the Guardian.

Really? Did you even bother to read them? No where in them did it say Israel wanted to divide Iraq..

 

[Volker]

Really? Did you even bother to read them? No where in them did it say Israel wanted to divide Iraq.

Look here.

Turkey’s increasingly emphatic and public complaints about Israel’s missile attacks on the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip is another factor in the growing tensions between the allies. On May 26th, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, announced at a news conference in Ankara that the Turkish government was bringing its Ambassador in Israel home for consultations on how to revive the Middle East peace process. He also told the Turkish parliament that the government was planning to strengthen its ties to the Palestinian Authority, and, in conversations with Middle Eastern diplomats in the past month, he expressed grave concern about Israel. In one such talk, one diplomat told me, Gul described Israeli activities, and the possibility of an independent Kurdistan, as “presenting us with a choice that is not a real choice—between survival and alliance.”

The New Yorker : fact : content

Intel Brief, an intelligence newsletter produced by former CIA chiefs, noted early this month that the Israeli actions are placing increasing stress on their relationship with Turkey, which was already strained over the war. "The Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state."

Israelis 'using Kurds to build power base' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited