by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 29, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

utting Iran on notice, President George W. Bush warned the Islamic Republic that “we will respond firmly” to meddling in Iraq. Three weeks ago, the U.S. military captured two high-ranking Iranian agents Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi and Col. Abu Amad Davari at an Iranian liaison office in Irbil, Iraq. Chirazi is the No. 3-ranking man in al-Quds Brigade, a clandestine Iranian terror group that funds and trains the Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere. One week later, five more Iranian agents were detained by U.S. forces, prompting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to disavow any involvement in the U.S. action. Al-Maliki met Iran's firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Sept 13, 2006, working out some kind of security deal. With Bush pushing Congress to add an extra 21,500 troops to protect Baghdad, some question on which side al-Maliki has played his hand.

      Bush and Ahmadinejad have locked horns over Iran's feverish pursuit of enriching uranium, something triggering recent U.N. sanctions. Ahmadinejad has stubbornly refused to give up Iran's rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, permitting Tehran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” prompting more intense interest in Tehran's atomic program. “Failure in Iraq, would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace,” said Bush on Jan. 14 to CBS's “60 Minutes,” concerned that Iran's nuclear ambitions present a threat to U.S. national security. Bush also expressed concerns about Iranian interference in Iraq, giving the military the green light to attack Iranians involved in supporting the insurgency. Pentagon officials have accused Iran of supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite insurgents and militias.

      U.S. officials believe Iran supplies insurgents with sophisticated anti-tank weapons, including shoulder-fired rocket launchers believed responsible for taking down a Blackhawk helicopter, killing 12 soldiers, including high-ranking officers. With Bush urging 21,500 more troops, it's reasonable to ask whether Iraq's new military tips off insurgents on U.S. troop movements. Al-Maliki's relationship with Tehran exposes the very real possibility that Iraq colludes with Tehran, endangering U.S. forces. “If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops—or innocent Iraq people—we will resist, said National Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe, disputing the idea Iran promotes peace and stability. All indications point to Iran fighting a proxy war through Iraq's Shiite insurgents, including the Badr Brigades and Moqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi army.

      Objections to Bush's “troop surge” stem from al-Maliki's collusion with the Iran's Revolutionary Guards, currently supplying insurgents weapons and logistics to Iraq's new army. U.S. troops die daily at the hands of insurgents funded and supplied by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. With Iran's involvement, mounting evidence offer more proof. “If you're in there trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week, putting Iran on notice that the rules of engagement have changed. Iran's U.N. ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi announced his country's plans to build a national Bank in Baghdad based on an economic and security arrangement signed in Tehran by al-Maliki. Asking for more Iranian help, al-Maliki walks a dangerous tightrope, trying to stop insurgents and terrorists at the expense of the U.S. military.

      Iran wants to control the new Iraq, believing eventually both countries would merge into a new Persian empire. Al-Maliki has demonstrated more loyalty to Iran than the U.S. government. If he has any chance of survival, al-Maliki knows he must align himself with Tehran to gain control of Iraq's Sunnis and foreign terrorists. Al-Maliki knows that free elections have given Shiites a mandate to control Iraq and join forces with his Persian brothers in Tehran. Sunni and foreign terrorists want al-Maliki's head for collaborating with what Ayatollah Khomeini called “great Satan” or what Osama bin Laden branded the “infidels.” “We have experience of reconstruction after war. We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis,” said Qomi, playing “the nice guy,” directly undermining the U.S. effort to stop Tehran from fighting its proxy war in Iraq.

      U.S. officials must wake up and smell the coffee that Iraq's new government has loyalty to insurgents and Tehran, not the White House. Bush asks for 21,500 troops when his own generals, including Iraq commander Gen. John P. Abizaid, warned that more U.S. forces would worsen sectarian violence. Al-Maliki has made it clear where his loyalty stands—and it's not the United States. Al-Maliki sees himself in a battle to save his own hide from Sunni radicals and foreign terrorists—supported by Saudi Arabia—unwilling to surrender Iraq to a Shiite majority and Tehran. “It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocents in Iraq, that we will stop them,” said Bush, signaling that the U.S. won't bend to Iranian demands. Before the White House commits more troops, it must carefully weigh al-Maliki's loyalty.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.