http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/middleeast/21IRAN.html I'll give the Bush Administration one thing. This isn't a boring Presidency.
Remember all those people streaming into Iran from Afghanistan during the recent unpleasantness there? Oops. It will be interesting to see Iran's response to this (aside from the usual bluster - I mean the real response). But how we let those Ansar al-Islam peeps get out of Iraq and slip into Iran, I'll never understand. Their charred remains should still be littering the landscape of northeast Iraq. I'm not suggesting that is the faction behind this, but their presence certainly can't help this situation.
While the news from Israel is getting most of the attention (which is understandable), this is also an interesting test for the Wolfowitz Doctrine, and perhaps more pertinent because there's no real quid-pro-quo in effect, as there is with Israel. To what extent does the military victory in Iraq provide a platform for influencing the behavior of states that view the US with hostility? Will this kind of pressure help the internal (to Iran) trend toward moderation, or will it radicalize the younger generation away from the US, back toward the hardline inheritors of Khomeini? Is this really an effective way of dealing with supranational terrorist organizations? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/international/middleeast/28IRAN.html
Iran has always been the toughest nut of the three Axis of Evil countries because of its dual-governing structure. The big problem for the Bush Admin on this is that Khatami has the potential to be a real reformer, if they could figure out a way to get rid of the clerics who are really in charge of the country. Problem is, any action against the clerics would likely result in Khatami's assassination and a new ayatollah, which leaves us further back than we started. Meanwhile, is it just me, or does Saif al-Adel look a little too much like Tim Howard?
So was Iraq supporting Al-Qaida or is it Iran? Maybe Bush just confused the two before the last war. Pretty soon we'll be bombing the Dominican Republic for its role in 9-11. Maybe Americans would then be able to find it on a map.
My thinking from reading the rethoric of this administration is that they don't really want to get involved in Iran. The prevailing thought is that the regime of the Ayatollahs will crumble from within. There is also the idea that if the US can create a democratic model in Iraq, then Iranians will be motivated to imitate it. But if somehow it can be proven that Iran is supporting Al Quaida, then Bush will have positioned himself into a corner. He will have to either take tough action, or step back from his 'war on terror' rethoric. My feeling is that the US really wanted the war in Iraq, and so they played up every transgression by Saddam. In regards to Iran it seems a bit different, like they are trying to play it down a bit. Obviously the US has to keep some ambiguity to keep the Ayatollahs guessing and motivate them not to work with the terrorists. But bluffing is dangerous. If Iran is caught redhanded, then the USA might be forced into action and we may see another invasion. I hope it doesn't come to that.
Seems that way now, although there are reports of unnamed hawks advocating "regime change" in Iran within the administration. In any case, it's further indication of how little the war in Iraq actually had to do directly with terrorism.
Al-qaeda reconstituted and on the move i really didn't think this was worth it's own thread but for what it's worth al-qaeda has taken up bases in Cambodia http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6519951%5E2703,00.html haven't read a post here, but what what it's worth, I'm betting he us will not take up offesnvie military action against Iran, Korea or Syria because a recent report by a rear admiral was quoted as saying that it would take another 6mo for the carrier groups to be configured in forward staging positions and if ya figure another several months to mobilize an already overextended military, the move would get to lose to the 2k4 elections. War w/ Iran & Korea would be far bloodier w/ significantly greater risk of unconventional weapons counter strikes. Given that an Al-samuud missile nearly struck HQ in Qatar and that NK is known for having more accurate missiles, the losses would be far greater of a political risk to the whitehouse han even the neoconservative hawks would risk. they have their Paxamericana, and they always intented to use it 2 project democratic values to pressure Iran, Syria, & to a lesser exten SA, but they never really wanted 2 go up against better trained, better equipped, & highly motivated armies of Iran or NK. They wanted to pressure them indirectly. But to quote undersecretary Wolofowitz, "iraq was doable."