aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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."
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
G-Man said: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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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?
ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis: Iraq's New Political AlignmentThe 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.
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 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.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.
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.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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.Anyway, I thought I was talking about "divide and rule" but I guess it went over your head.
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.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
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.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.
A personal attack is no substitute for evidence of your assertion about the weapons-grade uranium.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.
This thread was about Iranian plans in Iraq. To show possible plans of other countries in Iraq can be relevant in this topic.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.
There is nothing written there about what Sri Lanka or India do in Kurdistan.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.
She provided a source about what she said and you did not.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.
Why don't you find a source that rebuts my source? Or is that too retarded for you too?
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.
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.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.
As soon as you answer my questions I asked you.Why don't you find a source that rebuts my source? Or is that too retarded for you too?
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]
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.
Look here.Really? Did you even bother to read them? No where in them did it say Israel wanted to divide Iraq.
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.”
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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?