Have to say I'm getting confused. Iran says Al Qaeda is CIA. Al Qaeda says the US is agent of Iran. What is the deal? Sunni jihadis warn against 'Persian empire,' call Nasrallah 'agent of anti-Christ,' declare 'Islamic state' in Iraq Yaakov Lappin Published: 11.20.06, 23:53 Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has been branded a "worshipper of idols, an agent of the anti-Christ," and "charlatan" by Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir in a statement made earlier this month, the full text of which has now become available. The message, which also contained threats to blow up the White House, forms another escalation in al-Qaeda's increasingly hostile anti-Iranian rhetoric, that has also targeted Hizbullah . Discussing the actions of US President Bush, Muhajir said in the statement, released by al-Qaeda's al-Furqan Foundation, translated into English by the Al-Boraq Workshop, and reproduced on the Jihad Unspun website : "He (Bush) turned to the Sham (Syria and Lebanon ) and terrorized its tyrant (Basher Assad), who is a Rafidi (Shiite) and a Nusayri (one of Shiite's factions). The blockade continued until he (Assad) had to open his country to hundreds and thousands of Persians to acquire citizenship in it, (so the they can) support the charlatan agent of the anti-Christ, Nasr Allat (a common nickname for Hizbullah's Nasrallah, and meaning a supporter and worshipper of Idols) who is called Nasrallah..." "Hence, the Old Persian Empire has become complete, extending from the countries behind the river, Iran and Iraq… to the Sham (Syria and Lebanon)," Muhajir said. Al-Qaeda-owned group claims Hizbullah allowed international forces entry to Lebanon, trying to cause revolution and civil war The al-Qaeda leader said the United States had become an agent for Iran. "I wonder whether the wise of Romans (Americans) realize that they have become slaves and mercenaries for Persia, and that they are fighting Persia's battles for free," he said. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html
If AQ unifies in setting their sights on Iran, then Iran definitely won't be successful in making Iraq a sister state once the US army leaves... where is this all going to go?
It only makes administration claims that Iran is backing the 'insurgency' even more laughable. Iran hates Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda Wahhabis consider every Shi'ite a "non-believer"...these guys are not lovebirds in cahoots with one another.
It isn't really that hard to understand. AQ has been killing Shias for a long time. Not just in Iraq, but elsewhere, especially Pakistan where it rarely makes U.S. newspapers. They hate Iran because Iran represents the preeminent Shia power source. They also use the fact Iran is majority Persian to stir up ethnic hatred against them. AQ's agenda for the Arab world is to overthrow the current regimes and create Islamist regimes in their place. Sunni Islamist regimes, BTW, since AQ and Sunni extremists don't even consider Shias as Muslims. Some non-extremist, non-militant Sunnis don't consider Shias to be real Muslims. It's a theological issue non-Muslims should stay out of but it fuels the anti-Shia terrorism of AQ. Iran has a completely different notion for the Arab world. They want persecuted Shias to rise up, be accounted for and exert influence. In addition to driving Al Qaeda up the wall, this agenda scares the daylights out of every Arab regime except Syria. Even Israel now considers Iran their primary threat in the region. In Iraq, AQ hated Saddam because he was a brutal secular Sunni who had nothing to do with them (other than to kill them). Our invasion has resulted in the installation of Shia domination which AQ thinks is worse than Saddam. The bottom line in Iraq, IMO, is the Sunni area will NEVER be pacified and free of AQ. It just ain't gonna happen. This is but one tragic result of the invasion. The Shia areas of Iraq will be heavily influenced by Iran, who has been arming the Shia militias and helping them retaliate against the AQ atrocities (by committing their own). The entire country of Iraq will never be a "sister state" to Iran. The Sunnis and Kurds would never go along with this, which is why Iraq must be partitioned. There is little hope of keeping it together in any way but name only. The Iraq invasion just gives Sunni extremists like AQ another excuse to hate America: We aided the Persian (Shia) empire. This may sound silly to some but it's exactly what happened from their point of view. Invading a virtually ungovernable country NEXT DOOR to Iran was supposed to increase our influence in the region and decrease Iran's. The EXACT OPPOSITE happened. Iran can thank the U.S. for sacrificing thousands of lives and many more thousands of wounded and maimed by doing their dirty work for them.
There is hardly a Shi'ite 'insurgency'...we would be in deep sh** if there was. A couple of 'flare-ups' with Al-Sadr and his people hardly constitute an insurgency. Iran is, however, financing and backing the Shi'ite militants so that they can protect themselves against Al-Qaeda attacks, i.e. retaliate against them. Iran knows what it's doing, it's gaining favor amongst the Shi'ite Iraqis while positioning itself as the natural 'protector' of Shi'ites everywhere (Lebanon with Hezbollah, Iraq with the Mehdi militia as well as others), not to mention positioning itself as the 'guardian' of Muslim interests, especially in Palestine. They're not only bolstering their image and reputation amongst ordinary Muslims, they're doing it while undermining the traditional Arab regimes in the region, especially those who align themselves with the U.S. (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, and the anti-Syrian regime in Lebanon). So far, it's working. Also, in this context, you can understand why the Saudis have dropped not-so-subtle hints letting it be known that it won't abandon Iraq to Iranian domination, which they intend to do under the guise of protecting Iraqi Sunnis. I should also say that Al-Qaeda in Iraq knows what it's doing as well. By provoking attacks from Shi'ite extremists/militants, they're forcing the Sunni population in Iraq into a proverbial corner...the message is simple: the Shi'ites are coming for you, we're the only ones that can protect you, so you better rally around us and support us or else.
What a mess. Iraq has become Afganistan. What we need to do is get Saddam Hussein and put him back in power. Seriously - just get the bathists who are loyal and say to Saddam - here, have the keys to your palace - do what you have to do....just make things the way they were. The middle east is far too complex to meddle in....we made a huge mistake...and the more we meddle, the more complex it becomes. It's time we realize that we don't add to stability.... We can either support dictators, or take them down - but either way we are damned. We're stuck in a mess - a mess that can only grow larger...we are tied to Israel and forever stuck in a quagmire that is the middle east from algeria to pakistan. Iraq will be a mess for a very long time. Who knows how long civil war - and this is just the beginning. The only way to turn the tide is to go to the source of the problem.....the root of it all....Israel and Palestine. There needs to be a grand, sweeping solution....one that's final..one that each side can claim victory. And it needs to have FAST.
Resolving the Israel dispute with the Palestinians will not solve (or lead to a solution for) all Middle East issues. That is Fantasy Island stuff. The Sunni/Shia political conflict is NOT sourced in the Palestinian issue and will continue to fester and explode independently. Israel is the one issue that unites most of the Muslim countries in that region. If Israel disappeared (either completely or as an issue), those countries would focus their hostilities on each other. Actually, Iran is emerging as the dominant issue in the region though the Arab regimes would never admit it publicly. They fear an emboldened, nuclear Iran more than they hate Israel. This isn't true at the present time but this is where things are headed. Here is another one: Iraq will also move of the Palestinians, if it already hasn't. While the Palestinian issue is crucial, it is moving down the food chain of the region's priorities. New Yorker, your statement about Saddam is interesting. The fact is he contributed mightily to stability in the region because he brutally suppressed free expression. It isn't politically acceptable yet to debate the issue but the question is valid: Was Iraq and the region better off with Saddam? I'm definitely no Saddam apologist by any means but it's a question that will be debated eventually.
So you would say we have a Sunni insurgency, and a Shia/Sunni civil war? What do you call it? With dozens and dozens (and dozens) of dead, mutilated bodies turning up everyday, clearly the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militias are killing somebody. In my opinion, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is more of an agent provocateur, creating mayhem all out of proportion to their numbers. They blow things up to promote chaos and violence. Basically, Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq put them there. As many have said, the irony is palpable. And as a couple here love to do, when faced with the unpleasant reality that their hero, George W. Bush, placed Iraq, and us, in this predicament, blame the Democrats! Blame the Left! And that, folks, is a sad and sorry joke. D&D. No Joke.
Not sure why the Sadr militia doesn't count as an insurgent group, among others. Iran is definitely supplying and sponsoring subnational groups in Iraq that are committing violence on the civilian population.
Man, the Middle East is turning into an excellent turn based strategic computer game. Let's see, you can play one of these seven groups: Al Qaida/Taliban, the moderate Sunnis, the Shias, the Kurds, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the U.S./British forces. Capture holy sites, run big oil, spread terror and mayhem, build a nuclear bomb and much more.
