Maybe the mullahs aren't so crazy

ARTICLE: Iran Cited In Iraq's Decline in Violence, By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post December 23, 2007; Page A01

Apparently we can deal with the "crazy mullahs" once the fear of U.S. invasion is reduced.

For once, insurrection within the Intelligence Community is a good thing, thanks to our divider-not-uniter president.

Comments

[pat tryon]

The headline and the article are not the same."There has been a reduction in . . . attacks," Gates said. But, he said, it is uncertain whether the decrease is a result of U.S. and Iraqi actions "or whether the Iranians have begun to reduce the level of support. . . . We don't have a good feeling or any confidence in terms of how to weigh those different things."

[andyinsdca]

Maybe they are so crazy. The brinkmanship in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday goes way past the normal "playing chicken" that navies have done for decades as part of the cold war and has occurred in the Gulf. Iran was probably trying to goad the US into shooting at their patrol boats in a feeble attempt at a propaganda win. This time, it didn't happen, but next time, it might.

Iran better be careful what they wish for, or they are going to get it good and hard.

[Wiredman]

My take is that the US Military is "taking apart" the Iranian special forces network just like they took apart Al Qaida. Isn’t that the actual reason for the decrease in attacks? Why do think the NIE report has caused the Iranians to pull back support for their network in Iraq? If anything, I think the NIE report would encourage them to increase their support of their networks in Iraq. The bottom line is, their strategy is losing. Iraq will be a long term partner of the US.

None the less, I do like your thought process because it makes me think in terms of an Irianian POV.

[Brian]

If the Iranians were ever inciting violence in Iraq--there has been no convincing proof--they were doing so because simply because they thought they were next. Certainly they hoped to shape Iraq in a way favorable to them, but their real concern is the US military in Iraq.

I don't see how that threat could have subsided meaning I don't see Iran inciting violence in the first place. There is no doubt they have connections to the terror networks in Iraq, their level of involvement beyond that is weakly detailed.

The decrease in violence with the main source of worry remaining suggests that they have not been as meddling in Iraq as some have believed.

[Michael]

Andy, we've got the sea and air power to give it Iran hard, but they have the ground power and regional contacts to give it to US hard.

[Bruce Sterling]

As the threat of a US strike on Iran became alarmingly real to the mullahs last summer-heightened by the presence of two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf and especially by Israelis bold strike on Syria ‘s secret nuclear site-a panicky Iran fearful of seeing its nuclear assets destroyed thought it best to lower tensions with America and play a less assertive role in Iraq. This may have led to a trade off where the US would back off from striking Iran in exchange for a reduction of violence-by choking off the flow of men and arms into Iraq and curbing Shiite militias. Indeed, Iran went so far as to broker a truce between al Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Bader Corps, two feuding Shiite militias that were causing much mayhem and death. Whether Iran will continue this restraint after the NIE Report is anyone's guess. The recent incident in the Persian Gulf where five Iranian gunboats provocatively circled and closed in on three US warships is not a good sign. If the mullahs think they could restart the violence in Iraq with impunity then they will do so as this could benefit the Democrats in the presidential race-the party calling for removal of our forces from Iraq and the region.