Congresswoman: Iran has formally agreed with Sunni jihadis to partition Iraq
posted at 6:05 pm on February 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember her? She’s the congresswoman from Minnesota who laid that Vulcan photo-op death grip on Bush at the SOTU:
Kid from Brooklyn thinks she’s got Katherine Harris kookiness potential. And you know what? She just might:
“Iran is the trouble maker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And do you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq.
And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. [Close enough. -- ed.] And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made.
They are going to get half of Iraq and that is going to be a terrorist safe haven zone where they can go ahead and bring about more terrorist attacks in the Middle East region and then to come against the United States because we are their avowed enemy.”
A formal partition agreement between Shiite terrorists and Sunni terrorists seems … unlikely (albeit not impossible), but if Iraq falls apart and we pull out, a de facto partition doesn’t seem unlikely at all. It’s all a question of how many resources each side wants to commit to sectarian war against each other versus consolidating power in its own spheres of influence. If the Mujahedeen Shura Council a.k.a. the Islamic State of Iraq a.k.a., the Sunni insurgency turns its attentions to terrorizing Anbar and the Iranians turn their attention to Basra, then they might be willing to accommodate each other, at least for awhile. Spiegel and NPR each have reports out today about how far gone Basra already is towards being controlled by the Sadrists, which makes the British drawdown that much more depressing. From NPR:
Richard Beeston, diplomatic editor of The Times of London recently returned from a visit to Basra, his first since 2003. He says in 2003, British soldiers were on foot patrol, drove through town in unarmored vehicles and fished in the waters of the Shaat al Arab on their days off. He says the changes he saw four years later are enormous.
“Nowadays all troop movement in and out of the city are conducted at night by helicopter because it’s been deemed too dangerous to go on the road and its dangerous to fly choppers during the day,” he says.
Beeston says during his latest visit, he noticed a map of the city in one of the military briefing rooms. About half of the city was marked as no-go areas…
This is indicative of many parts of southern Iraq, says Wayne White, a former State department middle east intelligence officer. White says the south is riddled with rival Shiite groups vying for power, and roving criminal gangs because there’s nothing to stop them.
Iran would enter and bring those rival groups to heel, either by backing one over the others (probably SCIRI) or smashing them all itself and asserting direct Iranian control. Given that they’ve done it by proxy in Lebanon, they’d probably do it by proxy here too. And quickly: a intrasect war is the last thing they want on the Shiite side, especially now that there’s one threatening to break out on the Sunni side. The Blotter points to a letter from Ansar al-Sunnah to the leader of AQ in Iraq dated last month complaining about AQ having killed some of its boys. Last week, the Islamic State of Iraq issued a statement emphasizing that it’s not the same group as AQ and shouldn’t be referred to as such by the media. And a few days after that, al-Zawraa, the Sunni jihadist satellite network, broadcast a speech by its owner slamming Al Qaeda for making Sunnis’ lives harder.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Shiites respond if a full Sunni red on red war breaks out. Do they try to capitalize by attacking the divided forces, or they lay back, avoid conflict for the time being lest it drive the Sunnis back together, and then go after the winner when the smoke clears?
Update: Bachmann has issued a statement clarifying her earlier comments by not really clarifying them at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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’s like the NAU for Iraq!
Except faintly plausible.
see-dubya on February 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Wither goest Kurdistan?
jeffshultz on February 23, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Perfect, Iran can flood the region with terror, weapons, and cash, inorder to set up a “state of terror”, that will train and supply terrorists in the region and throughout the world for generations, work to build, test, and deploy an atomic weapon, all the time enslaving the local populous……….
And President George W. Bush, who went to war to try to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to an oppressed people is the bad guy………..
I get it now……
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 7:08 PM
By all means, time to “pull out” and “re-deploy” Mr. Murhta…
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 7:09 PM
What seems so blatantly obvious to us is denied by the left, all in the name of their power grab. They are worse than fools, they are willfully asking for murder and mayhem.
bbz123 on February 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM
No debate. No conflicting info. No arguing the points.
Just the usual blind mockery shoot and run.
John from WuzzaDem on February 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Leaving Iraq now will turn that country into another Lebanon, massive civil war with every faction fighting every other faction. I wonder how many people would die if that is allowed to happen?
I can’t understand why England is pulling out their troops now when they are needed the most. How will that stabilize anything?
Is the whole world ready to just give up on the middle east and let that area devolve into civil war? That would kill millions!
RedinBlueCounty on February 23, 2007 at 7:20 PM
*snort*
spmat on February 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I think some people (Allahpundit?) have a hard time grasping that history (or depending on how you are looking at it, the future) end up being the sum of 1000 small consecutive events not one grandiose event at a time. Read America Alone for insight on this.
The US government has been fighting to keep Iraq together. It isn’t much of a conspiracy at all to say Iran is opposed to whatever we are doing and would love to partition it. That is just the facts of the world we live in prety much. What doesn’t make sense is claiming there is already a line drawn on a map and written agreements. It seems pretty nutty to claim that but even so it in no way invalidtes that Iran would try to accopmlish it.
Now apply what I just said above to the NAU it is exactly the same. It is a strawman that there are lines on a map for a NAU with Bush’s signature on it. This doesnt negate the reality on the ground and in policy. Claiming there is no proof of an actual entity called NAU and saying argument over is sticking your head in the sand. In a few years you will claim you are right that your bottled water doesnt actually say manufactured in the NAU meanwhile your tap water is pumped up from Mexico city. What a victory you were right nothing is named NAU! (fictional example obviously)
Resolute on February 23, 2007 at 7:30 PM
She says “sorry if my words have been misconstrued” - what a copout - this is such a stupid tactic. If anyone makes a mistake, just say “I goofed, I’m very sorry”. Don’t blame others for ‘misconstruing’ - tactic overused by both parties.
Entelechy on February 23, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Allah, in the very last sentence of his New York Times opinion piece - published days before his murder by a Shiite death squad - Steven Vincent wrote:
The definition of prescient.
ganeshpuri89 on February 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Interesting and trenchant analysis from everyone so far, but…the important part of AP’s post is that the “Vulcan Death Grip” is placed over the face of the victim, she’s just giving him a nerve pinch……..
ScottG on February 23, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Bachmann may be suffering from rookie clumsiness. I’ve heard her several times on the Northern Alliance Radio, and she didn’t sound anything like Harris Out-To-Lunch. People I respect - like the folks at Powerline, Captain Ed, and King Banaian - seem to like her, but I don’t know if it’s just her (R) affiliation. There’s nothing on their front pages about this. And the Strib (the “She just might:” link above) running down a Republican is as unusual as the LA/NY Times or WaPo doing so. I’d be really interested in what John Hinderaker or Captain Ed have to say. And they might: they broadcast Saturdays from 11-5 Central. I stream them on wwtc in Minneapolis. It’s 3 2-hour segments. John is on the 1st segment; Ed, on the 2nd.
eeyore on February 23, 2007 at 9:59 PM
There is no such think as a Vulcan “Death Grip.”
/trekkie
See what you made me do? I need to watch Star Wars to cleanse myself.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM
That is illogical……
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Meanwhile, in other news, the U.S. has formally agreed with Israel on the partition of Iranian targets.
Tony737 on February 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Duh, there is a real death grip but that’s only on the WWE.
It must suck to live in Iran. First they lose a million or so to the Iraqis during their war. Then they have to live under Sharia law. Now they’ve got their government and religious leaders leading them like lemmings over the cliff. Here’s a politically incorrect quote from Churchill way back in 1899 about the Middle East:
nuff said
Mojave Mark on February 24, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Given that the operative term in this case is “partition”, it would actually be the reverse of the NAU scenario. Splitting a country up, not destroying the separation with its neighbors.
Just saying…
Freelancer on February 24, 2007 at 2:05 PM
That may be closer to the truth than any of us know.
Maxx on February 24, 2007 at 7:55 PM
The Minneapolis Star & Sickle wants nothing more than to kookify a staunch christian and social conservative such is Michelle.
The NY Times runs a front-page article that describes how Iran wants to overtake the southern half of Iraq (recall Iranian infiltators) and no one takes issue with it. The NY Times calls Hakeem (sp) the number one Shia leader in Iraq and a strong affiliate of the Iranian Regime and no one takes issue with it.
But Michelle speaks to the matter and she is immediately called a kook.
Captain America on February 24, 2007 at 10:54 PM