Iran’s secret plans for Iraq

posted at 1:04 pm on January 3, 2007 by Bryan

Eeeenteresting:

WASHINGTON — Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

Let’s pause here for a second to note that among our political elites, it has lately become received wisdom that Iran has no interest in seeing or sowing chaos in Iraq. The sentence above makes hash of the conventional wisdom. Iran has no interest in seeing a strong, democratic Iraq. It has every interest in creating chaos, to weaken us and its old enemy at the same time. Any fool outside the beltway can see this.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms “that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups.” The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran’s revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another bit of Washington holy writ, detonated: They can work across sectarian lines in that part of the world. They can, they will, and they do.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a “smoking gun.” “We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to,” the official said.

In other words, the captured documents detailed future acts of war the Iranians are taking against the Iraqis and against us. That sound you hear is the sound of silence, as the vaunted international community shrugs collectively.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of ” Iran’s Iraq Study Group,” a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq’s Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

Well, give the Iranians credit–their version of the Iraq Study Group stuck to likely scenarios and didn’t base its recommendations on fantasies. The Iranian ISG actually wants to win the war. Imagine that.

Read the rest of the story. It’s fascinating. Its ending should have been taken into account a long time ago by the Baker group and any liberal who ever opines on the war.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It seems the only ones not in the loop of what Iran is doing, is our left side of Intelligence.
But have no fear, with Pelosi,Rockefeller, Conyers, and the like in power TOMORROW, we’ll be just fine./huge sarc
Hope W has some good news for us on his new plan for Iraq, he should do so by throwing away the Iraq defeatist report, the ISG.
Maybe the ISG was a ruse, just a trick play to deceive the Iranians??? sure.

shooter on January 3, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Maybe the ISG was a ruse, just a trick play to deceive the Iranians??? sure.

shooter on January 3, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Maybe James Baker is Iranian!

THeDRiFTeR on January 3, 2007 at 1:22 PM

In 2003, coalition forces captured a playbook outlining Iranian intentions to support insurgents of both stripes, but its authenticity was disputed.

Yea I wonder who would dispute this…

Gwillie on January 3, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Its ending should have been taken into account a long time ago by the Baker group and any liberal who ever opines on the war.

Except that liberals never read anything through to the end that they know contradicts what they WANT to believe.

Liberals will read the headline, shrug their shoulders, and yell “right-wing propaganda” as they toss it in the trash.

Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Every time I read one of these stories about what Iran has done, is doing, and intends to do in Iraq in particular and the Middle East in general, that ole feelin’ of Impending Doom goes up another notch. This must have been what it was like for the French and English in 1937-38…

Janos Hunyadi on January 3, 2007 at 1:43 PM

This proves that Iran has no real ideological goal in Iraq, but rather that they’re working to maintain and control the chaos…

I have an idea…lets engage them more since they seem to be so interested in stability.

Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Interesting that the New York Sun is now using the nomenclature “Iraqi civil war”. Of course when NBC did this, there was hell to pay. Like I said, interesting.

Not with a bang but a whimper….

honora on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM

As usual some focus on little grammatical details, and gloss over the fact that the international community, like most liberals, would like us to fail in Iraq. Iran needs to be put in their place, maybe a little spanking is in order.
Democrats, hoping the nation fails, so they can win a few seats in congress. What a grand party to belong to.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM

As usual some focus on little grammatical details,

Iraq in a civil war. A matter of grammar. Tish tosh.

I can’t imagine why you guys lost the election with that kind of profound insight.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Be careful what you wish for….If this is what the Iranians want, why not let them have it? When they stoke the fires of civil war, let them deal with the Saudis and others who seem prepared to support the Sunni population in Iraq. Bring it on.

As long as they seem willing to incite a civil war, why not incite one in Iran for them as well? Don’t they have a restive Kurdish population as well a other disaffected non Persian groups? The Iranians have too much time on their hands that allows them to develop nuclear weapons. They nedd to be distracted.

GFB on January 3, 2007 at 3:12 PM

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Thanks for not slinging your obscene names at me.
You think the words “civil war” is of greater concern than Iran interferring with Iraq with the international community and MSM turning their back on the evidence?
Tish Tosh. Such priorities.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Thanks for not slinging your obscene names at me.
You think the words “civil war” is of greater concern than Iran interferring with Iraq with the international community and MSM turning their back on the evidence?
Tish Tosh. Such priorities.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Well I am giving up the obscene ones for the new year. So far, so good. ;^) How about this one: obtuse. My comment points out the hypocrisy of the RW who had fits about the NBC usage, but the Sun, no worries.

Do not put words in my mouth. I think there is so much to be concerned about in Iraq that it is hard to prioritize them all.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM

I can’t imagine why you guys lost the election with that kind of profound insight.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I’m guessing they teach you that sort of sensitivity in liberal humility training.

Loverly.

At least some of us on this side claim no such sensitivities. We’re honest about ourselves.

;-)

Except that liberals never read anything through to the end that they know contradicts what they WANT to believe.

Liberals will read the headline, shrug their shoulders, and yell “right-wing propaganda” as they toss it in the trash.

Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Liberals never let the facts get in the way of their point of view. Don’t you know that by now? WMDs? There are no WMDs. Those war heads … they don’t COUNT! >>brushes mustard and Sarin gas war heads under a rug>buries headlines about mass grave after mass grave being found

One Angry Christian on January 3, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Interesting that the New York Sun is now using the nomenclature “Iraqi civil war”. Of course when NBC did this, there was hell to pay. Like I said, interesting.

Not with a bang but a whimper….

honora on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Did they put it in quotes? Maybe they were being snarky. You know snark? Right.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Did they put it in quotes? Maybe they were being snarky. You know snark? Right.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM

No quotes. Use the link.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Exit question: can this new information be used to drive a wedge between Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian sponsors?

Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Exit question: can this new information be used to drive a wedge between Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian sponsors?

Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Assuming the answer is “yes”, whom do you envision doing this wedge driving? (This gets, you’ll pardon the expression, more Byzantine by the day)

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

We are pretty screwed with the pansies coming into office..

Viper1 on January 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM

We are pretty screwed with the pansies coming into office..

Viper1 on January 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Gosh, you’re right. Let’s hope those Dems don’t make a big mess in Iraq.

LOL.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM

I can’t for the life of me figure out why the story of the Iranians caught in Iraq wasn’t a bigger story. When I first read about it on Christmas Day, I thought it’d be huge in the news. It wasn’t.

When I saw that the last of the guys had been kicked loose because of “diplomatic immunity”, I thought I was going to have a freakin’ aneurysm.

flipflop on January 3, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Well I am giving up the obscene ones for the new year. So far, so good. ;^) How about this one: obtuse. My comment points out the hypocrisy of the RW who had fits about the NBC usage, but the Sun, no worries.

HOnestly, how many people read the SUn? NBC broke the “civil war” cheery so it doesn’t have the same shock/propaganda value.

Gosh, you’re right. Let’s hope those Dems don’t make a big mess in Iraq.

LOL.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM

You probably won’t believe this but there is no big mess in Iraq. There is a case of the MSM jumping on any bad news and occasionally over-hyping it. That is what newsies do. They create controversy in order to get eyeballs on there adverts.

This has been the pattern. Enemy stirs up trouble. Media claims doom. Our military finds a solution. Overtime, our long slow grind towards a more normal Iraq continues. Just listen to our soldiers, they have no incentive to give a rosy scenario if things are turning to s*** with no hope.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Assuming the answer is “yes”, whom do you envision doing this wedge driving? (This gets, you’ll pardon the expression, more Byzantine by the day)

Any number of parties could use it. Knowing that your sponsor (and ideological brother) is also arming your enemy is pretty valuable information.

Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

Time for the Gomer Pyle quote again, viz.
“Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

CyberCipher on January 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM

And therein lies the major problem and fatal flaw, Brian.

Whereas the enemy looks at the situation and correlation of forces with the intention of determining a way to take advantage of the situation — to win — the so-called leadership here is first and foremost interested in how anything they say and do will affect their chances of reelection and their parties standing. A sure recipe for disaster.

tomk59 on January 3, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Do not put words in my mouth. I think there is so much to be concerned about in Iraq that it is hard to prioritize them all.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Try some of your own advice, where did I put words in your mouth?
What I mentioned, and I will type real slow, is that basically there is one story(one this thread)–the internatioanl and msm is ignoring the Iran intervention, you brought up a change in grammar, then I said I thing your priorities are skewed. Speaking only of this blog, I have no idea what your priorities as a philosophy is (nor do I care) just that between the two chosen stories you picked one that I thought was a lower priority. You apparently think the words “civil war” is more important than Iran’s attempt to undermine a democracy. I would never put words in your mouth, I don’t think they would fit with that foot there.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 6:08 PM

“and I will type real slow” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

Civil war? What do libs care about a civil war? Wasn’t a ‘civil war’ the very reason we got involved IN Bosnia? Now a civil war means we gotta get OUT?

Tony737 on January 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM

This has been the pattern. Enemy stirs up trouble. Media claims doom. Our military finds a solution. Overtime, our long slow grind towards a more normal Iraq continues. Just listen to our soldiers, they have no incentive to give a rosy scenario if things are turning to s*** with no hope.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Check out the latest poll from the Military Times. Support of the war and of Bush, and more troubling, belief in the war, has sunk like a stone this past year.

honora on January 4, 2007 at 12:26 PM