Omar over at Iraq the Model translates an article from az-Zamman that claims Iranian Revolutionary Guards are supplying Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with advanced weaponry, with Lebanese Hizbollah as the intermediary.
Here's what you should know about this: Zarqawi hates the Shi'a community, with the fiery passion of the Sun's core. When I was with TIME, we monitored al Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) pronouncements through the Web, market DVDs and audio tapes. If the stack of Zarqawi fulminations against the Americans and Jews were a foot high, for example, his tirades and sermons against the Shi'a were 10 times that. He hates 'em, which is pretty much in tune with hard-core Wahhabi doctrine.
On the other hand, he never said a word against Iran. Instead, it's the Ba'athists who see the Persians as the bogeyman to the east. Thanks to an 8-year war with Iran, the Ba'athists are fighting an insurgency against the Iraqi government, which they consider an Iranian plot. Zarqawi's aims are much bigger than that, and focus more on the American presence.
Now, one of my old sources -- who I hear has since been picked up by the Iraqi Interior ministry, the poor guy -- told me once that Iran was supplying Sunni insurgents in Iraq in a bid to keep the Americans bogged down to the tune of $100 million to $200 million a year. The Iranians were acting through what the CIA would call "cut-out" groups and the Sunni insurgents often didn't know who their ultimate bankrollers were. My source was neither insurgent, nor American, nor tied to the Shi'ite parties. He moved between all the parties because of his apparent neutrality and his information was always top-notch. He told me about the shaped charges of IEDs months before they started becoming mainstream knowledge.
Back to Zarqawi. Thanks to Zarqawi's virulent anti-Shi'ism, it is highly unlikely that he would deal with Lebanese Hizbollah, or that Hizbollah would want to deal with him anyway, unless they're complete lapdogs to Tehran. I don't believe they are, despite such accusations from right-wingers in Washington and Tel Aviv Israel.
So what are we are to make of all this?
- Probably, the story is fundamentally true, in that Iran is sending advanced weaponry, including Strela-7 missiles and lots of Kalashnikovs, to Sunni insurgents. Some of these weapons will inevitably find their way to Zarqawi's boys. Iran is also lending support to the Shi'ite militias such as the Badr Organization and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. A certain amount of chaos next door benefits Tehran.
- Thanks to a network of middlemen, it is unlikely the Sunnis fighters know the ultimate source of the weapons, and if they do, they possibly don't care. The Ba'athists, mainly, are fighting alongside Zarqawi now because their enemies are more or less the same, but Ba'athist commanders know that should they dislodge the Shi'ites from power -- a highly unlikely event, in my opinion -- Zarqawi will turn his guns on them. They (mostly) cooperate with AQI anyway, because he's got the money.
- Iran is willing to fund guys to blow up Shi'ites if their larger aims -- keeping America off-balance and bogged down, and cementing their hold on Iraq's government -- are met.
No. 3 is a controversial claim, I know, and some people (*cough, cough* Juan Cole) refuse to entertain the idea that Iran would sacrifice Iraqi Shi'ites for their plans.
That kind of thinking works well in logical, algebraic formulations of the issue, but it doesn't work well with the hard, geopolitical facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq. Iran was quite willing to send 15-year-old Shi'ites to their deaths on the front-line with Iraq in that 1980-88 war because they'd be martyrs, which has a long tradition in Shi'ism. Plus, they're dealing with Iraqi Arab Shi'ites. A lot of Iraqi Shi'ites died so that Iran wouldn't break out of the Fao during the Iran-Iraq War, and it's unlikely Tehran has forgotten that. Iraqi Shi'ites may share a faith, but they don't always see eye to eye.
So, the mullahs in Tehran could regard the Shi'ite losses in Iraq as a) regrettable but acceptable losses and b) a convenient reason to expand their influence next door, in much the same way that Turkey regards violence against Turkomans as a reason to keep their fingers in Kurdish affairs. ("We must protect our Shi'ite brothers!")
Hard-nosed power politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed.
It’s sounds like Iran’s own Iran-Contra — sending arms to the last people you’d expect, for cynical and expedient reasons.
I remain dubious, only because one has grown used to US-style conspiracies in the media. The ultimate shi’a conspiracy theory is that Iran blew up the Golden Mosque, which is why the guards there were not killed, but simply tied up. That’s too hard-nosed for me.
I think only Sunni paranoiacs believe Iran blew up the Samarra mosque. Most people would blame jihadis more or less in Zarqawi’s camp.
I find it stunning that many people will not only not believe what George Bush says but will actively believe the opposite, simply because Bush said it. I.e., Bush says Iran is a threat, so therefore it’s harmless. This is not true.
While Iran may not be as much of a threat as Bush would have the American public believe — it’s not close to building a bomb, for example — it’s not a benign force in the region. They are in a competition for regional sway against America and Israel. They are quite willing to play hardball to do it.
Things are rarely clear-cut in Iraq. Believing that there are simple solutions — “Stay the course!”, “Pull out now!” — on the part of either the right or the left is a sure sign that the people proposing the solutions don’t understand the problems at all.
You cannot underestimate the Iranian regime’s influence on Hizbullah. Hizbullah receives the majority of its money from Iran. Look at this picture of one uneducated “sheikh”, Nasrallah (leader of Hizbullah) kissing the arm of the so-called Ayatollah Khamanei:
http://www.metransparent.com/images/nasrallahkhameneibig.jpg
Nasrallah has said that he believes that Khamanei is the leader of the faithful, just like millions of Iraqis follow Sayyid Sistani (who is 100 times the man and leader of Khamanei). By the way, Nasrallah was chosen as Hizbullah leader by Iran. Hizbullah acts for Iran, make no mistake. Both have no place in Iraq.
What we do know:
American troops are getting their arms from the us government. British troops are getting their guns DIRECTLY from the british government. Sources : DOD, MOD.
Sanctions could be put in place, but I think we shouldn’t take anything off the table as it will show weakness. What do you guys think?
Part of my family, long ago, were Iranians, and I visited the country, decades ago. My first thought, reading the “improbable” idea that Iranian Shia would be helping to blow up Iraqi Shia, was, “But the Iraqis are Arabs. Very expendable from the Iranian point of view.” (And vice versa, I might add.)
I think it’s hard to understand, from the outside, the depth of racially and culturally based contempt between the two groups. I find it very easy to see the Iranians viewing a bunch of Arabs, Shia or otherwise, as expendable in the pursuit of influence. It’s totally despicable, but it is predictable.
What you seem to be missing here is that Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, al-Qa’eda and Zarqawi (ie. the hard core salafi-wahhabi) state routinely that the Shi’a are apostate idolators who should be killed at the first opportunity. How likely is it that the Iranians would arm them? “Hard-nosed power politics” would dictate that these are mortal enemies to be stomped into mush at best and avoided at worst. If you want to be really cynical you would be better placed arguing that the Iranians are arming them so that the US military will do the stomping for them. In any case it is highly unlikely that there would be any aid forthcoming from the Iranians. The assertions otherwise are of the same ilk as those that stated that Saddam would be aiding al-Qa’eda which was/is complete and utter nonsense. Saddam knew better. The first person they would have used weapons on would have been him. Sometimes politics does make for strange bedfellows but there is a limit particulary when the potential bedfellows have said that they will kill you if you get close enough to let them do it. The Shi’a are viewed by the hardcore salafi as a bigger threat to Islam than the US or the west. They consider them to be the enemy within to be purged and cleansed from the faith. The Arab/Persian ethinic differences are real however that misses the point that for the salafi what they are battling for is the soul of Islam, for the right to claim that they are the sole orthodoxy and that all others are heretics. They would no sooner do business with the Iranians than the grand dragon of the ku klux klan would welcome Jesse Jackson to dinner and vice versa. All this talk of Iranian aid is coming from sources that want the US to go to war against Iran.
It’s ridiculous to think this is the work of people who want to see the US go to war against Iran - US forces are utterly bogged down trying to handle the insurgency in Iraq, they can’t spare the forces to take on a large, well equipped military in a country with more easily defended terrain than relatively flat Iraq.
Iran is supplying Zarqawi for the same reason Reagan supplied the mujahideen in Afghanistan - a short-sighted wish to bleed their enemy, without thought to the long term negative consequences.
I couldn’t agree more that power politics make for strange bedfellows. Indeed, I have made similar points about Iranian-Israeli cooperation against Iraq and about Neo-con support for Sistani. See my ZNet article, “Beyond Incompetence: Washington’s War in Iraq” and/or my blog, www.profcutler.com.
The crucial piece in all this is that the US invasion intentionally unleashed Shiite power in the region (sparking Sunni Arab rage) even as this Najaf-based Shiite power was—in the figure of Grand Ayatollah Sistani—intended to undermine the power of clerical rivals in Qom, Iran and the religious backbone of the Iranian regime. That created the conditions for a marriage of convenience between historic rivals: Sunni Arab dominated regimes (and former regimes) and the incumbent Iranian regime.
That said, I don’t see how the traditional tensions between Persian and Arab Shiites matters in the Zarqawi question (which is not to say it doesn’t matter in other important ways). I have seen nothing to suggest that Zarqawi makes any distinction between Arab and Persian Shiites. Both would presumably understand him to be a major enemy. If Shiite holy places in Iran have been spared, this is probably a consequence of logistics more than theology. The incumbent Iranian regime might be coldly calculating enough to arm Zarqawi, but the downside is not only Iraqi bloodletting but the empowerment of an essential foe of Shiite power. That downside is long term, however. Expediency argues for short-term triangulations and strange bedfellows.
I would not have thought that you could not draw a comparison with Iraq and Viet Nam. Then I thought about Iran supplying insurgents down the Ho Chi Minh trail or whatever it is called now days. I thought about how the Soviets/PRC helped the Communists Nationalists of Viet Nam fend off the Great Satan’s attempts at bring democracy to the southeast Asia. You know that always seems to be our fall back position, bringing democracy to the area. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it. “ And then duh! We now have a Mi Lai only now it is in Iraq and it is called Haditha. I am now beginning to think that I must be getting so old that I have lived to see this all come around again. Those that refuse to learn history are condemned to repeat it. There is nothing new under the sun. And on and on, it’s so true. Anyway there is hope in this. After the Yankee Yellow dog went home and the lackey puppet overthrown, Viet Nam found itself in a little shooting war with China. Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows which especially seems to be the case in Iraq where all that everyone can agree on is that the infidel crusader should pack his tent up and go home.
The capital of Israel is Jerusalem not Tel Aviv. And they are not the only ones who look at Hizballah as Iran’s lapdogs. Check out some of the posts on http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/ or http://www.beirutbeltway.com/. These are independant Lebanese sites who see Hezballah in the same way.
“Jerusalem is the official capital, and the location of the presidential residence, government offices and the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament. In 1980, the Knesset confirmed Jerusalem’s status as the nation’s “eternal and indivisible capital”, by passing the Basic Law: Jerusalem — Capital of Israel. However, the United Nations disapproved of this designation and considers Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital. The international community argues that Israel’s capture of the eastern half of Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six Day War was in violation of international law, and that the final issue of the status of Jerusalem will be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Therefore, nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv (CIA Factbook). See the article on Jerusalem for more information.” From Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#_note-capital
The argument that the Iranian government is helping the Sunni insurgents isn’t that they are hoping for Zaquari (or the Baathists) to win and rule Iraq. It is rather that they are happy to allow a war between the U.S. and the Sunnis drag on and on.
The Iranians want the Iraqi Shia to rule Iraq.
If the Sunnis—either al Quaeda in Iraq or the Baathists, look to be winning, then Iran could always cut them off (perhaps even leaving them in a lurch) and intervening in a major way on the side of the Iraqi Shia.
The downside to this from Iran’s point of view is getting caught by the Iraqi Shia. It might put a serious strain on what they hope will be a permanent friendship.
The arguments that the Persians don’t care about the Arabs may well be true, though why is it that the Arab Shia from Lebanon are so willing to play along? So, the Persian Shia say, yes, the Sunnis are mass murdering our fellow Shia in Iraq, but they are only Arabs, not Persians. Oops!
I would think that a more plausible excuse is that we are only giving them weapons that are useful against the Americans. Or, they only give weapons to Sunni factions that fight Americans, not those who attack Shia shines and civilians, and so on. Or that Zaquaris guys get the weapons, and Badr death squads get the names of those getting the weapons.
Arming both sides, in differin amounts, with differing types of equipment; one directly, one indirectly. The goal of bogging down the US army is both desirable for the gov’t of Iran, and neccessary. If things had gone better there, the administration’s next steps would be preparing for a war with Iran, and the Iranian government has to have known that. That adds some desperation to the mix.
” Kalishnakov” advanced weapon? bwhahaha
Anti-aircraft missiles and shaped-charge IEDs would only really seem useful against the Americans (and British), given that they’re the only ones with helicopters and armoured vehicles. So possibly the Iranians are supplying just that kind of weaponry?
Chris — I just have to say that the contention that the Iranians are arming Zarqawi et al. despite all the questions raised about such an idea here and elsewhere just reinforces how convenient such an assertion is to our war-mongering rulers. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld would be thrilled if they could tie all their buggaboos together neatly like this. Since their entire history is of a regime peddling self-interesed lies that have led to disastrerous policies, I would hold what you are saying to a VERY high standard of proof. You may have it, but you need more to convince me. This reads like a neocon wet dream.
Please understand, I read you because your reporting has always seemed honest. But when what you report is SO very convenient to the enemies of peace and democracy, I am skeptical.
Hello Chris,
I’d like to invite you to have a look in my webcomics about Iraq. It’s “Tales of Iraq War”: http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/
Your comments are welcome.
Best regards,
Latuff Rio de Janeiro, Brazil