Rice Says Bush Authorized Iranians’ Arrest in Iraq - New York Times:
If you fight a war, then it's appropriate to interdict and destroy, if necessary, the arms and intelligence suppliers to you enemy. Iran is no friend of the U.S. and its actions in Iraq show it to be just such an enemy. The policy to interdict and stop Iranian support within Iraq is appropriate, just as it would be if any other country were doing this.
I think Bush's thrust toward Iran is meant to send the lod and clear message to the Shia majority in Iraq, that they shoud not rely on Iranian support to oppress the Sunnis. We have to remember that Saddam and his Sunni henchmen fought a war with Iran before the first Gulf war. This in essence was a Sunni-Shia conflict.
The Democrats are on very thin ice if they attempt to change Bush's policy in this regard.
Thinking ahead to 2008, I wonder what policy Democrat hopefuls for President will espouse. Hillary has been careful generally support the war and not be a high profile vocal opponent in league with the fringe left. Kerry opposes, so he's made himself known. The others have a position, like Biden, that chooses to ignore the long term consequences of withdrawal.
Update in this piece from the NY Times January 14, 2006.
"In the view of American officials, Iran is engaged in a policy of “managed chaos” in Iraq. Its presumed goal, both policymakers and intelligence officials say, is to raise the cost to the United States for its intervention in Iraq, in hopes of teaching Washington a painful lesson about the perils of engaging in regime change.
Toward this end, American officials charge, Iran has provided components, including explosives and infrared triggering devices, for sophisticated roadside bombs that are designed to penetrate armor. They have also provided training for several thousand Shiite militia fighters, mostly in Iran. Officials say the training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security."
No comments:
Post a Comment