From “US, Iraqi forces clash with Shi’ite militia” (via AJ Strata):
Iraqi and U.S. troops battled Shi’ite militiamen in a village northeast of Baghdad on Thursday, and witnesses and police said U.S. helicopters bombed orchards to flush out gunmen hiding there.
Iraqi security officials said Iranian fighters had been captured in the fighting, in which a sniper shot dead the commander of an Iraqi quick reaction force and two of his men. They did not say how the Iranians had been identified.
A civilian was also killed and five people were wounded in the clashes, they said.
The U.S. military had no immediate comment.
[my emphasis]
As AJ notes, this coincides with a report out today detailing Iranian spies setting up shop in the region:
Agents of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are fomenting unrest in Iraq’s southern city of Basra, the Iraqi daily az-Zaman reported on Thursday.
Az-Zaman quoted Iraqi counter-intelligence sources as saying that fighters were being trained in Lebanon under MOIS supervision and sent via the Iranian border to infiltrate Basra.
Some of the fighters were being incorporated into the al-Hussein Battalion which has been responsible for numerous targeted killings and assassinations in Basra.
The daily quoted the sources as saying that the MOIS was the most powerful and influential intelligence service that had infiltrated Basra and several other key Iraqi cities including the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
“In Basra alone it has eight large intelligence basesâ€Â, it said, adding that the bases were operating under various guises.
I’m not certain what the international implications are here—those who’d like to see us fail in Iraq must be torn—but clearly Iran needs to be dealt with in some way; and the international community should be willing to do what it can to keep Iran from attempting to destabilize a legitimate elected government in Iraq.
Not that they will, mind you. But then, that’s par for the course these days.
Also, it’s likely we’ve known of the presence of Iranian fighters for a while. But this capture is tangible proof. Whether it turns out to mean anything is another question entirely. Because if the rest of today is any indication, all this means is that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for some good criminal defense attorney, some Korans, and a few years of halal meals.
Preemptive lefty talking points to follow.
I question the timing, blah blah blah, war never solved anything, yadda yadda, RumsfeldBushCheneyHitlerburton don’t understand the people we’re fighting etc.
Now that’s out of the way, maybe a fruitful discussion can ensue? Nah.
Screw that, Phil. Occam’s razor, man. Rove put them up to it. Duh!
So we’re talking about Iranian soldiers, not Iranians civilians who’ve decided to join the fray? If that’s so, Ahmadinenotgonnabepresidentanymore (yeah, not good with the spelling) is going to find him up shit creek.
“going to find himself…
Dead men get no trials.
Snide comment from Dr. Vic in 3, 2, 1…
The legally elected government of Iraq does not fall under the jurisdiction of the USSC. What’s more, the Iraqi’s are well versed in the making of war with their larger, meddling neighbor. Perhaps it will soon be time for the last Iran-Iraq war to begin.
We’ve recently had the U.S. military accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq, and now the Iraqis say they’ve captured Iranian agents in Iraq.
Yesterday President Bush said that the Israelis were acting in self-defense by launching an incursion into Gaza.
Additionally, Iraqi Prime Minister nixed any amnesty for Iraqis who had killed Coalition soldiers, because the Coalition had been sent under the auspices of the international community to help Iraq.
I think the odds are high that al-Maliki will soon announce to the international community that the United States will help Iraq defend itself decisively against Iran.
Hmmmm.
Considering the vast improvement in Iraqi training, tactics and combat abilities instilled by the US military. I think th 2nd Iran-Iraq War is going to be a lot different than the first.
Were I in charge of Iran I think I’d walk a little more softly.
Perhaps, we can turn the Iranian fighters over to the Russians, and say, “They know who butchered your 4 diplomats!” Then let the Russians visit Putin’s brand of “justice” upon them.
Days like these make me wish that our government had the resolve and determination of the IDF and go take care of business the way it should be done….
and not cower to the court of world public opinion..
And the left…..
Basra is in the British AOR, so I really don’t know what the heck is going on there in my usual,uh, informed manner. I would love to see the Iraqis go in and clean house – I reckon if they need some back-up, we’d be there.
I can’t see a whole heck of a lot of Iraqi tolerance for the folks they fought a long, hard war with…
Did anyone hear that thump? That was the sound of this story hitting the protective shield surrounding the leftist GWOT narrative.
This certainly clarifies our Iraq exit strategy:
TO THE EAST!
Major John-it is true that the Brits are in Basra, but I think that 1/34th BCT (MNARNG) just took over the AO that was being run by the Italians outside An Nasiriyah just to the north (at least that’s what the articles from GX magazine seem to imply). I am worried because the big Shia holy man who has pretty much kept the peace in Southern Iraq is an Iranian citizen despite having lived in Iraq for most of his life. If he starts to see Iran as a sectarian ally, he could cause big trouble.
Haven’t we known that foreigners are going to Iraq to fight for a while? It seems obvious that Iranians might also be a part of that phenomenon.
I could have sworn I heard someone fail to understand the difference between foreigners going as individual members of a loose terrorist alliance to fight somewhere and the members of an arm of a neighboring State coming to the fight.
You know, the difference between the Lincoln Brigade in Spain and the Wehrmacht in Spain.
Nah. Couldn’t have been.
Major,
I must remind you of your ROE. That insipid little voice gnawing at your ear must be ignored…much as one would ignore a gnat to concentrate on the snake at one’s foot.
Al-Sistani never returned to Iran for a reason—he despises those Iranian fundie loons, insisting on a secular government which excludes the clergy from office. I can’t imagine that he has any interest in allying with Iran, even though he’s from there.
Bender – yeah, what you said. Al-Sistani is a Shia holy man first, second, third and last. Iranian/Persian? Only by accident of geography, certainly not by self-identification, loyalty or such.
rls,
sorry – I will try harder.
I understand the difference. But that difference wasn’t spelled out in the article. If anything, the article said that they’re part of Sadr’s Mehdi Army.
Hmmm, my two cents on this matter? Well, it will be kinda stream of conscious, but here goes.
1) We went into Iraq as part of the War on Terror. Possible WMD’s, bring Democracy to the Middle East, etc. Is it working? Yes. Slowly, and with many difficulties, but it is working.
2) But I think most of us agree that it would be a disaster if we pulled out right now. You know, sectarian fighting may explode, National government may fall, terrrorism may find a safe haven, etc.
3) But Iran is also a problem and threat. Nuculear weapons program, etc. We need to address it.
4) Could we invade, if worst comes to worse, and all attempts at a diplomatic solution fail? Maybe, but there are some difficulties.
5) Can we invade right now? Well, we have 130,000 troops bordering Iran in Iraq, and about 18,000 troops in Afghanistan also bordering Iran. So the question is this, “Are they tied down in there respective countries, or are they free to attack Iran if need be?
6) To me, this seems to be the rub. To make the equation simpler, I am going to disregard Afghanistan for now.
7) Assume we decided to invade Iran with lets say 130,000 troops from Iraq. What would happen to Iraq? Would it be able to hold together as a nation? Or would it spin appart?
8) Also, how would the Iraqi’s feel about this? Our using there country as a springboard to attack Iran? Would they be supportive? Neutral? Or would they actively oppose it, including launching even MORE attacks against the U.S. forces as we marshalled on the Iranian border?
OK, let’s change the scenario slightly. Instead of attacking Iran with 130,000 troops out of Iraq, we attack Iran with 70,000 troops out of Iraq, and leave 60,000 to continue to occupy and help stabilize Iraq. What would happen?
9) Would 70,000 troops be enough to take down Iran?
10) What would happen to Iraq and the remaining 60,000 U.S. troops? Civil war? More attacks? Indifference? Better relations?
11) Personally, I think what might happen if we do that is we wouldn’t have enough troops to take down Iran, and the ones we left in Iraq would face a lot more attacks, because the insurrgents and terrorists would smell weakness. Also, I suspect the Shiites in Iraq would start to attack us alot more because we would be infidels attacking a fellow group of Shiite Muslims in Iran.
12) It seems to me that the key to handling Iran is to solve the Iraqi problem. We can do that by withdrawing our troops from Iraq immediately. What are the pros and cons to this?
Pro: 130,000 troops that can be used to threaten Iran from maybe… off shore? Placed on troops ships in the Persian Gulf? (I’m not a naval professional, so I’m only speculating.) Or perhaps they can threaten Iran from a different country. Afghanistan, perhaps.
Con: Iraq may self distruct. Which seeing as how we have spent a lot of blood and treasure to free and stabilize Iraq, would be a bitter pill.
Also, I suspect it would be much easier to logisitcally support an attack from Iraq, vs from offshore or from Afghanistan.
13) Well, what if we spend the possible two years it takes to stabilize Iraq, and then go after Iran? Pros and cons:
Pro: We aren’t trying to fight two wars at once. We can put a lot more troops and effort into Iran.
Con: Iraq may never stabilize, in which case, we have been tied down for two years and are no closer to a situation. Also, in those two years, Iran may be able to develope a nuculear weapon. Which would complicate things greatly. Also, in two years, we will be at an election time. The new president may well not have the stones to confront Iran, unlike Bush.
Bottom line, as long as we are battling insurgency in Iraq, Iraq is a liability to us. Once we are not battling an insurgency in Iraq, we have more options to deal with Iran.
Best Case Scenario: Iraq stabilizes, and we now have 130,000 U.S. troops poised on the borders of Iran in attack posture. Iran decides to cooperate witht the U.S. and the UN and allows in inspectors, shuts down it’s nuculear weapons program. Or they don’t, and we invade, and quickly take their nuculear weapon program from them.
Most likely Scenario (IMHO): Iraq slowly stabilizes, over several years, and we can pull out of Iraq and try to pressure Iran in other ways and from other places.
Worst Case Scenario: Iraq stays in a state of civil war / insurgency and we continue to stay there, tied down and taking casulties. Iran takes great pleasure in this and stokes the fires of Jihad in Iraq as much as it can. We have little to now ability to pressure Iran with troops from Iraq.
I hope it doesn’t come to war with Iran. I also hope it doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. I also think we have the best chance of actually getting Iran to back down if they see that we have 100K troops poised to invade if necessary, and have the will to use them if necessary.
Thoughts?
actus wrote: “Haven’t we known that foreigners are going to Iraq to fight for a while? It seems obvious that Iranians might also be a part of that phenomenon.”
Indeed. Over a year and a half ago I was involved in an “incident” (read:firefight) with some Shia militia, and we captured some Iranians after the battle. We even picked up an Iranian sniper – and his Dragunov rifle, which we then lugged around for two weeks because it looked cool.
So, no, this isn’t “new” news, but this is the first time I’ve seen the presence of Iranian fighters acknowledged in the press.
EFG,
The problem is that you’re a bigot. You’re ignoring the people who really have a stake in this: the Iraqis.
Pre-invasion, Saddam was feared throughout the Middle East as having the largest and most competent army in the region. Iran and Iraq have fought several (!) wars, coming out mostly push and pull without real resolution because the two countries had armies that were more or less equal. The Iranians had a little better quality, the Iraqis had a lot more bodies, so it evened out.
The U.S. military treated “the largest and most competent army in the region” like so many kittens. Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other, and vice versa. If the Iraqi and Iranian armies were roughly equivalent, and the U.S. went through the Iraqi army like shit through a goose, what does that say about the likely result of the Americans attacking Iran?
But the U.S. has just spent two years training the Iraqi army in how Americans do things, and publicly says that the Iraqis are good enough pupils that Americans will hold their coats in most cases. In fact, the public statements have been to the effect that the only thing the Iraqis can’t really do for themselves is a deep logistics train. What if those statements are at least partly true? How’d you like to be an Iranian, contemplating the facts that (1) the army you just barely fought to a standstill (2) got defeated in a day and a half by a tenth as many Americans (3) who now say they’re almost as good as they are?
No wonder they want nukes.
I don’t think we ought to do anything at all about Iran until and unless they actually launch on Israel. (If they launch on the Europeans the right thing to do is fall over laughing.) Once the Iraqis can stand on their own hind legs they’re gonna be both motivated and capable of ameliorating the nuisance. American involvement, if any, will be bringing ‘em beans and bullets, occasional handholding, and cheering them on. Erecting grandstands and charging admission probably isn’t in the cards, but possibly should be. TV rights?
So no, this isn’t a good argument for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Sorry.
Regards,
Ric
EFG,
How about this:
The Iraqi PMs offer to the insurgency is accepted, and that problem mostly dies down rather quickly. Then, a joint US, Iraqi force of say, 200,000 men invade Iran. After all, all those insurgents are going to be missing the bomb throwing and head sawing. It might be a great way to unify Iraq, by having a common enemy.
TW: the father of all wars. Heheh
Or split it, given how some Iraqis feel about Iran.
I think if you re-read what I wrote, you should see that I spent quite a bit of time discussing Iraqis. Which seems to kinda seems to go against your whole “ignoring the Iraqis” point. Which I am assuming is what lead to the whole “bigot” assumption. But your view, like your mileage, may vary.
BTW, your problem is that you are an armadillo.
Lee:
Possible, but I think it would be hard to talk Iraq into actually invading Iran with us. Not impossible, but very unlikely. But if the offer of amnesty was accepted, and the insurgency did die down, that would put the U.S. in an excellent possition to really put some serious pressure on Iran, backed by a serious military force of 130,000 troops massed right on Iran’s border. Plus if we could also threaten them from the east in Afghanistan, they would be trapped between the proverbial hammer and anvil.
No. I’m a coyote.
Regards,
Ric
My thought is that the involvement of Iranian troops in the Iraqi insurgency is pretty bad news. If it’s true that this has been going on for some time, I am surprised that there hasn’t been more media attention—even right-wing organs haven’t picked it up. It has however been pretty common knowledge that there’s substantial Iranian support for many Shia groups both in the insurgency and in the gov’t. There’s also plenty of anti-Iranian antagonism among Iraqi Shias. It sounds complicated.
Anyway, if Iran’s involvement in the Iraqi mess is like North Vietnam’s involvement in the South Vietnamese mess was, then it bodes very ill for the effort to build a democratic, stable, and non- anti-American Iraq. But a better analogy might be to Vietnam’s involvement in the Cambodian mess – the Cambodians hated the Vietnamese just as the Iraqis hate the Iranians, but a Communist (/Shiite Islamist) government is going to help out a Communist (/Shiite Islamist) insurgency next door, and it makes it very hard for the US’s preferred fragile government to hold together. There are enough indigenous forces threatening to tear the Iraqi gov’t apart already, and Iranian support for those centrifugal forces will make it a lot tougher. If any Iraqi settlement that emerges isn’t congenial enough to Iranian interests, it seems likely that they could ensure the insurgency in Iraq continues, at some level, basically forever—as the US and Pakistan ensured the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan continued indefinitely.
Which begs the question, WTF is a “right-wing organ”?
My pancreas did vote for Pat Buchanan in 2000, but it thought it was voting for Gore.
brooksfoe  And that thought can keep you warm at night…
Bruce
Crap. Ignore that hyperlink to Bruce. I was composing a screed about Bruce Springsteen, tried to preview my hyperlink here, and pushed publish instead of preview by mistake.
Sorry…
Well, it doesn’t say ‘Iranian troops’, just irregulars.
My understanding is that a few thousand Iraqi Shia were expelled to Iran under Hussein in the 1970s (their kids grew-up in refugee camps speaking Farsi-accented Arabic). Could some of these individuals are among the ‘Iranian fighters’?
brooksfoe
Yeah, an insurgency that has a supporting / sponsoring state behind it is very dangerous. If there is a place where the insurgency can go to find sanctuary and rest and recuperate, it is very difficult to defeat.
It sounds like from your arguements that the best thing to do to help quell the Iraqi insurgency is to ensure that there is no Iranian support or sanctuary. Which could involve having to either invade Iran, or put so much pressure on it that it ceases to support a Iraqi insurgency out of fear of American attack. I suppose if we did attack Iran, it could be argued that this would be a two for one deal. It would both eliminate any nuculear weapon program then have, and remove any Iranian state support for the Iraqi insurgency.
Idents, battle plans and lovenotes written in Farsi found upon the bodies tell of Persian provenance rather than Arabic.
Also, the Iranians will be found to have head or chest scarring from the self-inflicted mortification of the flesh that is part of the yearly festival Ashura, recalling the martyrdom of the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson Husayn ibn Ali in the battle of Karbala in the seventh century, c.e. This is particularly to be expected of those sufficiently zealous or devout as to be drawn to serve in Jihad.