Ahh, Bob. The regime in Syria is Alawite Shia; a minority yes, but in charge.

"the delusion that Iranian Shias will not work with or support Iraqi insurgents, Afghan Taliban, or al Qaeda terrorists, merely because these groups are Sunni."

No, the argument is slightly more complex than that.

If we assume that Iran wants Iraq to become a stable Iranian ally (which should be obvious) then it is in their interests to support the elected Iraqi government (who are more pro-Iran than they are pro-US, many of whom come from Iranian backed political parties such as Da'wa and SCIRI (Now SIIC).)

Given that it is in their interest to support the government, why would they supply weapons to groups who reject that government? Why, in particular, would they supply Ex-Baathist Sunnis and Salafist Jihadis, both of whom were their sworn enemies against their friends in the government.

It makes about as much sense as the US supplying arms and training to Shiite rebels in Saudi Arabia. Forget about the denominations and faiths, look at the politics.

Now, I grant that it is possible that Iran *is* playing a very dangerous game, turning up the heat on the US with the intent of keeping them in Iraq in order to keep them tied down and unable to attack Iran. However, there are strong arguments against them taking such action;

1) If it was demonstrated clearly that they were it would provide the US with the causus belli required to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (the very thing that Iran wants to avoid)

2) As above, they would be destabalising a government that is their friend in favour of people who are their enemies.

3) They don't have to get involved because it is obvious that in the next couple of years the Iraqi government is going to evict US troops, leaving an Iranian-Iraqi alliance. This will happen quite happily without Iranian involvement.

So, given strong arguments against Iranian involvement, and the lack of any credible evidence in favour of Iranian involvement, it behooves us to ask for extraordinarily strong evidence to match the extraordinarily claim that Iran is acting in such a foolish manner.

In response to the Blotter article, well, given that everyone is onvolved in a propeganda war, I'll believe what military analysts say when the evidence is provided in public, to independant witnesses with the ability to fact check the claims.

Been there, they are in involved.

Yeah, and "secular" Saddam would never work with "religious" al qaeda

"I'll believe what military analysts say when the evidence is provided in public"

So your working assumption is your being lied to?

Lets see... 1979 Hostages, 1983 Marine Barracks bombing, 1998 Kobar Towers, capture of top ranking Iranian intel agents in northern Iraq (oh, thats right, they were "diplomats"), abduction of British navymen....

Yep, I cant see how anyone would make the logical connection there.

Military must be lying.

Ahh, Bob. The regime in Syria is Alawite Shia; a minority yes, but in charge.

In Syria, the population is 90% Muslims and 74% of those are Sunni, including the security services that many experts claim is actually running the country, as is Assad's wife. I guess you could make the argument that by being Alawite, Assad is then a Shia is good standing, but that might only bolster my point--he still supplies arms and support to Sunni terrorist groups, making this yet another Shia regime that supports Sunni terrorism as an extension of their foreign policy.

If we assume that Iran wants Iraq to become a stable Iranian ally (which should be obvious) then it is in their interests to support the elected Iraqi government (who are more pro-Iran than they are pro-US, many of whom come from Iranian backed political parties such as Da'wa and SCIRI (Now SIIC).)

Given that it is in their interest to support the government, why would they supply weapons to groups who reject that government? Why, in particular, would they supply Ex-Baathist Sunnis and Salafist Jihadis, both of whom were their sworn enemies against their friends in the government.

The answer to that is blindingly simple isn't it?

Iran wants to force the coalition out of Iraq and NATO out of Afghanistan, and the simplist way to do that is to support any group attempting to keep these countries destabilized and violent.

They have little to no interest in making Iraq an ally, at least not all of Iraq; they are keenly interested in controlling the southern Iraqi provinces when oil abounds, and they have the bulk of their allies. Iran would be quite happy with a a partitioned Iraq, as they could then exert their influence more fully, free from a cetralized Iraqi government. A partitioned Iraq would also allow them the freedom to pursue the Kuds in the north that have been a thorn in their sides for decades, or at the very least, might lead the Turks to confront the Kurds, drawing pro-Kurdish groups out of northwestern Iran to fight Turkish forces.

It is in Iran's best interests as a nation that views itself as a rising regional superpower to provide support to any terrorist group that could destabilize neighboring countries, and further their foreign policy aspirations to more influence the Persian Gulf Region.

and the lack of any credible evidence in favour of Iranian involvement

If Iraq's oil production stays low, world (and Iran's) oil prices stays higher.

What motivation could be simpler than that?

"So your working assumption is your being lied to?"

Well, yes. I assume that everyone is playing the propeganda game.

"Iran wants to force the coalition out of Iraq and NATO out of Afghanistan, and the simplist way to do that is to support any group attempting to keep these countries destabilized and violent."

The simplest way (and probably the only way) to get US forces out of Iraq is to ensure that the Pro-Iran government in Iraq gains control over the country, followed by a parliamentary move to expel US forces in entirety. Any other method will simply leave US permanent bases in place. Thus you want to be friends with the government in place and friends with nationalists who can force such a vote. What you don't want to do is give US forces the excuse to stay around forever.

(NB. Afghanistan is a different issue. There constant trouble on the boil is the best play)

"They have little to no interest in making Iraq an ally, at least not all of Iraq; they are keenly interested in controlling the southern Iraqi provinces when oil abounds, and they have the bulk of their allies. Iran would be quite happy with a a partitioned Iraq, as they could then exert their influence more fully, free from a cetralized Iraqi government."

Partitioned or not they want Iraq as an ally of theirs, not the US. I don't think that they care one way or another about partition, except that they have the same issues with an independent Kurdistan as Turkey does. A unified Iraq would eliminate that threat. A partitioned one would allow greater control of the South. Swings and roundabouts.

What they do need however, is a government stable enough to reject the US occupation because a small scale insurgency isn't going to do it for them. That's why I say that supporting the Sunni insurgents isn't in their best interests. Supporting the Salafi Jihadists would be plain nuts.

"It is in Iran's best interests as a nation that views itself as a rising regional superpower to provide support to any terrorist group that could destabilize neighboring countries, and further their foreign policy aspirations to more influence the Persian Gulf Region."

But the point is that they get more influence with a stable Pro-Iranian government in Bagdhad than they do out of an ongoing US occupation. Supporting Sunnni insurgents promotes the latter, not doing so promotes the former.

Why would they want chaos when their guys are in charge? Like I say, that would be like the US trying to destabalise the Saudis.

(As I say, in Afghanistan the logic is exactly reversed. Ongoing chaos in Afghanistan keeps NATO troops bogged down at a very low cost and may buy some influence with the possible new Islamist regime as opposed to the current Pro-Us government.)

"If Iraq's oil production stays low, world (and Iran's) oil prices stays higher."

World oil prices aren't going down for anyone and , without wanting to get all conspiritorial about it, the people who have done most to ensure high oil prices over the last five years have been the US government. I'm sure the Iranians are quite happy about it but they're just riding the wave without having to actually do anything at all.

In fact, that is the big gag of the whole war. The big winners are, without a doubt, the Iranians and they didn't need to lift a finger beyond a little counterintel, Chalabi style.

"capture of top ranking Iranian intel agents in northern Iraq (oh, thats right, they were "diplomats")"

Oh yes, and if they are Iranian intel agents, can we see them, along with evidence of the same.

Once again we are asked to take it on good faith that they are who the US says they are rather than who the Iranians say they are.

Frankly, I am fed up with taking things on good faith. I want to see some cold hard evidence, not unsupported supposition. Surely that isn't so wrong?

"I am fed up with taking things on good faith. I want to see some cold hard evidence, not unsupported supposition. Surely that isn't so wrong?"

You are the one in bad faith

The US provided their names, their ranks, and their positions in the Iranian regime. The iranians admitted they were with the regime but denied they were there for espionage or insurgency reasons.

You are choosing to accept the word of a lying, terrorist supporting regime that is flaunting international law on a daily basis and crushing individual liberty domestically.

You are the one with the problem, sir.

"The US provided their names, their ranks, and their positions in the Iranian regime. The iranians admitted they were with the regime but denied they were there for espionage or insurgency reasons."

Of course they admitted they were with the regime. As did the Kurdish authorities in the area (our allies remember). As, I imagine, did the President of Iraq when he met with them previously. The question isn't "Were the people in the Iranian consulate Iranians", it is "Were they instigating and supporting the insurgency?". On that question we have no evidence whatsoever just an accusation from one side and a denial from the other.

"You are choosing to accept the word of a lying, terrorist supporting regime that is flaunting international law on a daily basis and crushing individual liberty domestically."

No, I am choosing to accept no-one's word without evidence. Cold, hard, independently verified evidence. Where you choose to place your faith is, of course, your own choice, but every government, particularly in wartime, has a history of outright falsehood for wider gains.

Isn't one of the bases of conservative thought that when the government says "Trust me on this" you should get suspicious?

"Isn't one of the bases of conservative thought that when the government says "Trust me on this" you should get suspicious"?

No its not. That is the bases of conspiracy theorist goofiness

Healthy skepticism is certainly warranted. Blanket doubt/solipism is not.

Unless you are a paranoid.

TMP:::"Yeah, and "secular" Saddam would never work with "religious" al qaeda"

NO!!! Saddam had STRONG TIES to al qaeda and 911

"Isn't one of the bases of conservative thought that when the government says "Trust me on this" you should get suspicious"?

TMF:::"No its not. That is the bases of conspiracy theorist goofiness"

TMF your HALF right

some leaders have a MORAL COMPASS,,, some dont

some DESECRATE the OVAL OFFICE,,, others are FORTHRIGHT and defend the HOMELAND aginst EVILDOERS

TMF:::"Healthy skepticism is certainly warranted. Blanket doubt/solipism is not."

SOLIPISM??? whats that

i AGREE with most everythinmg else

"Healthy skepticism is certainly warranted."

What part of "I'd like to see some evidence for that claim" do you consider goes beyond "Healthy skepticism"?

"Blanket doubt/solipism is not."

Asking for evidence and reserving judgement until it is available is pretty much the opposite of Solipsism, which is, of course, the belief that knowledge beyond mind is unjustified or even impossible. A Solipsist would never ask for material evidence beause he would regard it as worthless. I am specifically asking for material evidence in support of a claim which is 'Empiricism'.

Sorry for the digression, but you can read simple stuff about Solipism here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

and about Empiricism here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Rafar, what about the Iranian made EFPs we have found in Iraq? Is that proof enough for you they are involved?

Rafar, what kind of proof do you need? Do you need to see them with your own eyes?

Rafar,

Let's say that I can prove that the Iranian government purchased a very unique, very specific type of weapon, and the serial numbers of the weapons shipped were documented prior to transfer.

If within months of purchase those weapons started being used in distinctive attacks indivative of that very specific weapon type, and then these weapons started being captured in, say, Baghdad, and American forces captured them in very significant quantities--say more than 10% of the overall shipment--would you then believe that Iran was supplying weapons?

"Let's say that I can prove that the Iranian government purchased a very unique, very specific type of weapon, and the serial numbers of the weapons shipped were documented prior to transfer.

If within months of purchase those weapons started being used in distinctive attacks indivative of that very specific weapon type, and then these weapons started being captured in, say, Baghdad, and American forces captured them in very significant quantities--say more than 10% of the overall shipment--would you then believe that Iran was supplying weapons?"

I would certainly be very interested in such evidence. Do you have any from an independent or verifiable source?

I guess that depends on how credible the U.K. Telegraph is.

Relatively credible, but I would note that the story says;

"The find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Teheran is providing support to Iraq's Shia insurgents."

I never claimed that the Iranians weren't arming the Shia militias. Hell, for all intents and purposes, the US army is arming the Shia militias, by providing equipment to the heavily infiltrated Iraqi police.

This post was about Iran supplying Sunni guerillas, not Shiite groups. We all know that the Badr corps, for example, was founded, funded and trained in Iran. They are, of course, the armed wing of SIIC (Was SCIRI) and run the interior ministry and thus a large section of the Iraqi police.

Forget it Bob, this dude is mainlining the kool-aid.

"Forget it Bob, this dude is mainlining the kool-aid."

I'm sorry, asking for evidence and keeping to the original point of the post ("That said, I'm already sick and tired of the smugly ignorant (check out the Blotter's comment thread as well) who repeat the delusion that Iranian Shias will not work with or support Iraqi insurgents, Afghan Taliban, or al Qaeda terrorists, merely because these groups are Sunni.") is drinking the cool aid?

Surely believing stuff without evidence and arguing against strawmen versions of the post are the behaviours of the kool-aid drinker?

I mean, he wasn't talking about Shia groups, and neither was I.

I'll tell you what scared me. The number of people in the thread on the blotter who advocated everything ranging from nuking Tehran to turning the whole of the Middle East into a sea of glass. On evidence as poor as that offered. Believe what you like, but that is just sick. Surely you agree with that? Aren't we the people who consider all human life to be created equal?

Karl

Now your making sense! I agree with you too!

Dont know about Sadaams "strong" ties with Al Qaeda, however. IOve gotta respectfully disagree with you on that point.

Clearly he harbored well known islamic jihadist terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, and also probably harbored the 1993 WTC bomber, Rahman Yasin for years, and provided millions to suicide bombers families in Israel, and likely had his emissary in Prague meet with Muhammed Attah several months prior to 9-11, and allowed al-qaeda linked terrorists Ansar Al Islam to operate with impunity in northern Iraq, and his regime had multiple contacts/high level meetings with Zawahiri, Bin Laden, and other top ranking Al Qaeda, and who knows how many other connections which haven't been uncovered..

But Im sorry, my friend, I cant take the leap of faith that you do by calling the ties to al qaeda "strong".

Thats where we'll have to agree to disagree buddy! Otherwise, KEEP THE FAITH

TMF:::"Now your making sense! I agree with you too!"

YES!!!!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Clearly he harbored well known islamic jihadist terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, and also probably harbored the 1993 WTC bomber, Rahman Yasin for years, and provided millions to suicide bombers families in Israel, and likely had his emissary in Prague meet with Muhammed Attah several months prior to 9-11, and allowed al-qaeda linked terrorists Ansar Al Islam to operate with impunity in northern Iraq, and his regime had multiple contacts/high level meetings with Zawahiri, Bin Laden, and other top ranking Al Qaeda, and who knows how many other connections which haven't been uncovered..

But Im sorry, my friend, I cant take the leap of faith that you do by calling the ties to al qaeda "strong".

Thats where we'll have to agree to disagree buddy! Otherwise, KEEP THE FAITH
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

AGREED!!!! itsa just simantics!! you say tomayto i say tomahdo

YES!!!!

asking for evidence...

Living in a cocoon willfully ignorant of existing evidence, previous news stories, and 38 years of historical context is more like it.

You came to this game with opinions already formed -- based on nothing but your "faith" that reality had to be the way you desired it to be.

"Living in a cocoon willfully ignorant of existing evidence, previous news stories, and 38 years of historical context is more like it."

No, not really, but thank for for the frank assesment of my character. I, of course, have absolutely no idea about you so refrain from drawing conclusions about you.

By the way, why 38 years of context? Why not, say, a couple of hundred? Would you try to analyse the relations between the South and North of the US going on only the history of the last 50 years, or would an understanding of the last 200 be of more use?

"You came to this game with opinions already formed -- based on nothing but your "faith" that reality had to be the way you desired it to be."

No, again, you are confusing someone who has not drawn a conclusion and is presenting an argument for why evidence is needed to draw the given conclusion with someone who has already made his mind up.

As I said, it is possible that Iran is arming Iraqi Sunni Insurgents, it just doesn't make any sense. Given that it makes no sense I would expect some good solid evidence to convince me otherwise.

In contrast, Iran arming Iraqi Shiites makes sense, and so evidence for that is hardly a surprise. Iran arming Iraqi Sunni insurgents makes no good sense, so evidence of it would be a surprise.

I note that you haven't offered any yet.

"your "faith" that reality had to be the way you desired it to be."

Again, that isn't Empiricism which is what asking for evidence of claim is. Obviously if reality had to be the way I desired it to be Iran would be a land of peace, freedom and goodwill to all, Iraq would be a flowering garden and the US military would pack their bags from around the world and go home to perform some productive labour. Unfortunately this isn't the case.

Out of interest, do you join those calling for the nuclear elimination of Iran or do you condemn them?

By the way, why 38 years of context?

Think about it for a while. Your mind needs the exercise. It involves Paris.

"Think about it for a while."

Sorry, I thought that it was perfectly obvious that I was suggesting that you needed to extend your context. In future I will ensure that when I address you I write as clearly and simply as possible.