Friday, January 12, 2007

The Iranian Connection III

Some quick fact-checking. uncovered a few important things:

  1. The Iranian terrorists diplomats, I blogged about on the 4th, had already been released in late December.
  2. Why? The Iraqi government sided with the Iranians.
  3. Not to fear. We captured more Iranians in Iraq. Then the Iraqi government forced us to let them go too.
  4. Does this mean the Iraqi government will prevent the US from dealing with Iran? Rice won't rule out military actions.
  5. And then there was this: Did we just declare war on Iran?

While you were sleeping, the war with Iran might have begun.

Not everyone is sleeping on this one. I think war with Iran may just be the elephant in the room. Shmuel is spot on in pointing out that the Democrats have not been sleeping on this one, either.

The Dems have been opposed to a troop build-up since before it was officially announced. Since the 04 elections we have been hearing about the infamous "plan" the Democrats had for Iraq. First it was John Kerry's secret plan. Nobody knew any of the details, except that it was "a better plan." The Dems took this secret plan and ran with it in the 06 elections. With major wins in the House and Senate, the silver lining for Republicans was that it was now put-up or shut-up time for the Dems. Hey Democratic Party: The American people still would like to hear your "better plan" for Iraq. So far, all we have heard is the same old thing: Whatever Bush wants is wrong, and we take the opposite position. If Bush wants more troops, Dems want less. If Bush wanted to bring troops home today, I'd be willing to bet we'd probably hear Murtha screaming that the troops have a job to finish and that the President should just let them do their job.

But I digress... Shmuel points out that the Sen. Biden, in all of his glorious omniscience, recently said
If the president concluded he had to invade Iran … or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that. … I just want to set that marker

Translation: Just who does he think he is? The President? Well guess what! He needs Congressional authority to declare war, and we own Congress, and HE isn't going to get an ok from us. Ha! He can't have his war with Iran unless we say so. SO there. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaa.

Shmuel then discusses two comparisons being made about Iraq. One comparison is the tired, old, somewhat delusional comparison being made between Iraq and Vietnam, and Bush and Nixon. The other comparison is much more appropriate.
Netanyahu is the most vocal alarmist on Iran, and in the meetings he has with U.S. visitors, he tends to repeat the analogy he uses in public. It's not about Vietnam, and it's not about Cambodia. "This is 1938," he says. "Iran is Germany, and it is about to arm itself with nuclear weapons." The Saudi monarch, I wrote in Ha'aretz, "for whom the Nazi analogy is not his natural domain, expressed exactly the same fear, but in somewhat different words." One of the senators came home with this nagging thought: Is it possible that Iraq is really the secondary issue—and Iran is what policy-makers ought to be worrying about?

How is this for a theory: It may never have been about only about Iraq. Never only about Saddam, never only about WMD's, never only about ending tyranny in Iraq... consider this: War with Iran would NEVER have been possible (or have a chance of succeeding) without first taking out the threat posed by Saddam. A ground invasion would be almost impossible without a very large, permanent base. A base we now have in Iraq.

No comments: