The Chia Probe
This Israeli/ Chalabi probe is getting bigger and hairier and uglier, and promises to turn into a proper stink rather than a disappearing item of interest, if Chalabi turns out to have been playing us and dumping intel to IRAN at the same time as he was being backed by Feith and assorted neo-clowns. Other articles refer more specifically to compromises involving US signals and the NSA.
Tying this all together suggests that Israel was pushing an agenda on us that included, against all common sense, inserting Chalabi into the neo-con sphere of influence, who apparantly, was selling both us and presumably Israel out to Iran. Holy fuck.
Here's a fun, largely crazy speculation: If Chalabi was ultimately an Irani agent fronting as a friend of Israel, was IRAN somehow pushing a US war in IRAQ!? They were incredibly bitter enemies with Sadaam and his minority Sunni control of Iraq (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iranians Sadaam offed in the war), and they are now widely considered to be arming Shiite militias. If you've been reading the Guardian, you know that puts Iranian sympathizers in effective control of large sections of the cities of Iraq as we speak - and the US is, in fact, pulling out of cities left and right in Iraq, hiding in bases and unable to respond to assasinations of appointments of the interim Iraqi government.
It's hard to believe that Iran wanted a US war in Iraq, but if they knew from Chalabi what our pre-war plans were, if in fact Chalabi was pushing the plan that eventually formed, that suggests, just suggests mind you, that Iran knew we'd destroy Sadaam but blow the transition to a pro-western government. Shit, my barrista knew that. But it does give Iran a golden opportunity to extend political influence and some military control of Iraq.
Why they don't pay me, I'll never know. But in spite of my wild speculation, if it comes out that IRAN WAS PLAYING THE UNITED STATES THROUGH CHALABI AT A POLICY LEVEL INTO WAR (an idea supported slightly by heavily armed , aggressive search of his offices a few weeks ago), think of the political consquences. It'll make Iran -Contra look like Raisin-Bran Cilantro.
posted by JAB at 8:34 PM
3 Comments:
North Korea too, but the problem there is even worse. China is not only tchetchier than the members of the Arab League, but less likely to dither. (AL members might blow up buildings and kill people, but China would invade somebody.)
Also, Iran boasts a marginally effective opposition while NKorea has none.
More wacky thoughts: did he punish Wu for NOT spying for China and reward Chalabi when he spied for Israel and/or Iran? If this was in a novel would anyone believe it?
Waiting breathlessly for the story to unfold,
Indeed on many fronts. Iran's definitely driving toward nuclear weapons (please calculate for yourselves the chances that Pakistan and N. Korea haven't helped with that.) There is no understating the nuclear danger with Iran and N. Korea.
But Michelle's point is a good one though- Iran, unlike Iraq, has a real functioning opposition, the place is many things, many of them horrible, but it rather more parlimentarian than say, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
This is two-edged. Democracies are, I think, smarter and more powerful at fighting wars, but are less likely to commit national suicide for militaristic notions of honor.
So where are we? Our Iraq is not really in control of much besides parts of the south and Bagdad, and the U.S. seems to be backing up into bases, leaving very little forces for an outright invasion of Iran; this would be far, far more bloody than Iraq, it's much bigger, much more mountainous, and the list of Iranians happy to see the US Army marching through can be counted on as the shortist thing since W's attention span. We're not invading under anything short of a nuclear precipice.
There is a tactical issue then - when Israel wiped out
Iraq's nuke plant in 1982 or so, it was tremendously effective. But if a tactical strike against facilities fails, diplomacy is probably shot, if we can't realistically back it up with the possibility of an multilateral invasion. Thank you, W.
So that leaves you with several unattractive possibilities, and what I'm begining to see is something like this: the US makes noises about a tactical strike, saying it will have to back up growing threats from Israel, bad cop. It will have to threaten to anhilate Iran if their is a nuclear response. Britain and France say look, they just had this stupid war, they're crazy but tired and Israel is on their case, so here's the deal: you let the UN take apart your nukes, the US backs with deliberate speed out of Iraq, and Iran behind the scenes directs a sort of Shiite-dominated Western-neutral parlimentary state. US announces parlimentary democracy, and watches the growth of a brand new baby Iran. If they get real power and more world legitimacy, Iran might go for verified disarmament ala Libya. States not run by madmen, or who are not already running the world, crave respect.
The only alternative that doesn't set the Middle East on bloody fire is an incredibly tight tactical strike that definitely and complete sets their nuke program back ten years. It would be different if Iraqi stability had emerged in time to pre-position US forces in some kind of coherent offensice way (the key neo-con fantasy) but it simply isn't and it won't likely happen before Iran gets the bomb.
Short of evacuating Florida to Iraq, I don't see any possibility of a "Western-neutral" parlementary state in the next, oh, say 100 years.
Post a Comment
<< Home