Iran's Incongruent Congruence

There must be a medical term for what happens to a person’s ability to speak truthfully when he becomes an ambassador or a government spokesman. A case in point is the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. His is a difficult and largely thankless task, but he did little to help himself with his glass half-full assessment of yesterday’s initial round of diplomatic talks between Iran, Iraq, and the United States. There is nothing wrong with a glass half-full perspective when the facts offer even a ray of hope, but when the glass is completely empty, as was the case in these negotiations over Iraq’s security, it is deceptive and counterproductive to pretend that progress was made when it clearly was not.

The diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, after nearly thirty years of official silence, focused on the security and stability of Iraq’s federal government and Iran’s role as helper or hindrance. Ambassador Crocker reportedly confronted Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Iran’s funding, support, and personnel involvement with terrorists and “militant groups” that continue to attack U.S., British, and Iraqi troops throughout Iraq. Ambassador Crocker also pointed out to his Iranian counterpart that many of the firearms, IED’s and other weapons used to attack allied forces are Iranian and arrived in Iraq directly from Iran.

Had this been a glass half-full diplomatic discussion, Iranian Ambassador Qomi would have stated something to the effect of “We don’t know how our weapons keep popping up mysteriously in Iraq, but we can assure you will do everything to find out who in our country is behind this and cut off their (insert whatever limb would be appropriate for weapons smuggling here) as a show of good faith” or similar. However, this was not a glass half-full discussion. Here is the (UK) Times online summary of the Iranian response:

The Iranians, whose leadership has long attacked the US as the Great Satan, rejected such accusations and raised their own fears, calling the US presence in Iraq an occupation. Tehran also criticized efforts to train the Iraqi Army and police as inadequate.

The Islamic Republic suggested creating a three-way system, comprising Iran, Iraq and the United States, to coordinate security.

Clearly, no headway was made in that exchange, since the U.S. insists that Iran is the cause of stability and terrorism in Iraq, while Iran denies any involvement and blames the U.S. for inviting attack by its mere presence in Iraq. There was no glass half-full common ground to agree on, but don’t tell that to Ambassador Crocker. After the rebuttal of each of his arguments, Crocker’s description of the “progress” made leaves one wondering to what discussions he was referring when he toasted the talks with this half-full glass:

There was pretty good congruence right down the line in support of a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours.

I am sure Ambassador Crocker is a well-educated man, but perhaps his schooling did not include the proper use of the word “congruence.” The term literally means agreeing, or being in harmony. The two sides did not agree on Iran’s role in Iraq, thus there was no congruence down that or any line. The only item on which the Americans and Iranians agree is that it would be beneficial for the region if Iraq were controlled by a stable centralized government. However, the “congruent” line diverges with who would control Iraq’s government. Iran is doing all it can overtly and covertly to undermine the Iraqi parliament that contains a mixture of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements. What Iran wants is a stable non-democratic Shia Iraq that could be a natural ally or potentially an expansionist target. The mullahs fear democracy in general and would be terrified of a democratic Iraq on its border. Already fearing the spread of western influence and ideas of freedom seeping into its radical Islamic culture, the mullahs cannot afford to have a successful, free Iraq residing next door. “Keeping up with the Jones’s” would take on a whole new meaning if Iranians could point to a free neighbor and ask, “why can’t we have what they have?” The U.S. wants precisely that scenario to develop but Iran dreads it and fights it at every turn. The two sides could not be more incongruent.

The only item on which Iran and the U.S. agreed in these historic talks was to disagree. The Iraqis, who set up the talks, soft-pedaled the animosity between Iran and the U.S. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, offered this remarkable interpretation of the meeting results, “It shows that both countries are looking at getting the problems solved.” That may be true, but both sides are also looking to solve the problems at the disadvantage or destruction of the other. Until Iran ceases its role as trainer, financier, and arms dealer to “militants” and terrorists in Iraq, and abandons its suicidal sprint toward nuclear weapons, America’s glass of optimism for Iran will and must remain decidedly empty.

82nd Airborne Casualties Prove Hagel Wrong

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a war critic and collaborator with Democrats on every effort to undermine President Bush’s executive war powers, returned this weekend from his fifth trip to Iraq. What wisdom has Senator Hagel gleaned from these trips? The following is from his opinion column in Sunday’s Washington Post:

We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is.... American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much.

Senator Hagel’s assessment that Iraq is a “civil war” not driven by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups is identical to the Democratic talking points endlessly spouted by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, despite assurances from several generals on the ground in Iraq who insist that Iraq is not in a state of civil war. For a Senator with access to intelligence estimates to argue that terrorists are not the core problem in Iraq is utterly disingenuous. Al-Qaeda itself would soon demonstrate the fallacy of Senator Hagel’s opinion.

Today’s headline AP article “Al Qaeda-Linked Sunnis Claim Bombing” opened with this sentence:

An al Qaeda-linked group posted a Web statement today claiming responsibility for a suicide truck bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year.

The fallen U.S. soldiers, all members of the Army 82nd Airborne Division, would certainly take issue with Hagel’s ill-informed dismissal of al Qaeda as a minor annoyance in Iraq, if they had not been killed by al Qaeda. This bombing illustrated a couple of important truths: first, Congressional “fact finding” trips never produce any facts, as they are carefully scripted and Congressmen take them to increase their own political stature rather than seeking any real understanding of core issues; second, like Iran’s constant destabilizing war on America via Iraq, al Qaeda is part of a massive effort by outside forces to foment turmoil and the spectre of Iraqi civil war. This is an organized propaganda campaign that Congressmen, with shallow understanding of the intelligence they are supposed to review, swallow hook, line, and sinker.

It is unfathomable that Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, could have come away from five trips to Iraq with the opinion that neighboring nations and terrorist networks are not the core problem in Iraq. Hagel fails to grasp the concept that Iran and al Qaeda, like China in Vietnam, are directly impacting the course of the war and America’s resolve to endure setbacks and casualties. Removing the weaponry, funding, and manpower injected into Iraq like a virus by Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda would afford Iraqis an opportunity to resolve cultural issues between Sunni and Shia in an environment without car bombs, IEDs, and snipers. It is the terrorists and outside interlopers that desperately want to prevent Iraqis from living together under an elected government. Stem the flow of destabilizing elements into Iraq, and the Iraqis will justify our faith in their commitment to freedom.

Iran's Bribery Worse Than Bombs

Iran is at war with the United States, allied forces, and the Iraqi government. What other appropriate term could be applied when a nation funds, trains, equips, and transports terrorist insurgents into Iraq to wage war against U.S. and allied troops? How could it be considered anything short of war when a nation seizes 15 members of an allied naval crew well within Iraqi sovereign territorial waters and holds them hostage? Does a nation engage in an act of war against the entire world when it dismissively ignores UN WMD non-proliferation policies and sanctions by blindly pursuing production of nuclear weapons? Is it not war when one nation blatantly bribes elected officials of another nation with the expressed intention of destroying a democratically elected government before it can adequately defend itself?

When taken in the aggregate, all of these behaviors by the current Iranian regime constitute an undeclared, but all too real war against America, Iraq, and those who fight for the democratically elected Iraqi government. The last of the insidiously aggressive acts listed above was exposed today in an exclusive article by New York Sun reporter Eli Lake, submitted from Baghdad. War critics like to evoke emotion and false imagery by using terms such as “quagmire” and “civil war” to describe the war in Iraq and why we should abandon it. These politically opportunistic terms, however, were discredited by a courageous member of Iraq’s democratically elected parliament, Mithal al-Alusi.

Al-Alusi, a father of two sons killed by terrorists in Iraq in 2005, went on record with Lake to explain the intimate inner conflicts occurring in Iraq, and to identify a major contributor to the unrest in Iraq: Iran. American officials have long complained of Iranian interference in Iraq, most notably through pouring funds, arms, and terrorists into Iraq. Al-Alusi, however, specifically identified a high level Iranian diplomat engaged in a less explosive, but no less lethal, effort to undermine the Iraqi government.

According to al-Alusi, Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq, Hassam Kazemi Qomi, offered him large sums of cash through an intermediary and invited al-Alusi to visit Tehran and meet with President Ahmadinejad and the ruling mullahs. Al-Alusi told Lake that such offers have been made to most of the members of the Iraqi parliament, but he was the first elected official to speak publicly about Iran’s effort to destroy the fledgling democracy or so thoroughly corrupt it through bribery that it would function as an Iranian puppet. From the NY Sun exclusive:

The fact that Iran would be interested in buying Mr. al-Alusi and his single vote in parliament is in itself a sign of both this politician's growing appeal to Iraqis and the Iranian strategy to diversify their influence to include politicians outside the Shiite bloc of religious parties that wield a narrow majority in the parliament.

Mr. al-Alusi said yesterday that he believed the soft influence of Iranians through bribes and economic leverage is even more dangerous than the role the Islamic Republic plays in facilitating and supporting the terrorists here.

And in this respect Mr. al-Alusi is not alone. A senior Iraqi minister here last week, who asked to speak anonymously, said that it is well known that Iranians are paying off both Sunni and Shiite legislators. "Any Iraqi who takes this money should be ashamed, but many are taking it," the minister said.

War critics have repeatedly expressed “no confidence votes” against President Bush and the Iraqi government, and have stated their belief that the Iraqis are incapable of sustaining a democracy. If decisive actions are not taken against Iranian interference in Iraq, these critics will be proven right but not because Iraqis were incapable. The Iraqi democracy will dissolve due to Iran’s overt and, until now, covert warfare against it. It has become clear that victory in Iraq cannot be achieved without some form of decisive containment of Iran’s aggressive actions in Iraq.

Brave parliamentarians such as al-Alusi are a rarity, and many will take the money offered by Tehran. America must not allow this Middle Eastern democracy, purchased as it was with American, allied, and Iraqi blood, to devolve into an Iranian puppet purchased by high level diplomatic bribery. Congress incessantly complains about “special interest groups” wielding too much influence on government. Now it must take action to protect the Iraqi government from Iran, the world’s most prolific terrorist special interest group.

CNN Whitewash of Iran's Terror Role in Iraq: Portrays Tehran as Wanting to "Help America a Lot"

During last night’s installment of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper aired a segment titled, “Evidence of Iranian Involvement in Iraq” (transcript here). From this title, a curious viewer would assume that the segment would include evidence or examples of Iranian interference and support for the “insurgents” fomenting attacks on American and Iraqi forces. In classic CNN form, however, Cooper first worked to frame the Iranian interference story in the context of criticism of the troop surge strategy. Cooper led into the expected updated body count from Baghdad with the statement, “If lawmakers needed any more evidence that Iraq will be a tough place to fix, if possible at all, they got plenty more today.” Following that gloomy introduction, CNN efforts to whitewash Iranian involvement in Iraq began in earnest.

Cooper deferred to the “expertise” of seasoned CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, reporting from Tehran, to provide insight into the Iranian reaction to accusations that Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with powerful weaponry and other forms of support. Amanpour, who notably lacks the word “terrorist” in her otherwise immense vocabulary, used quotations from “sources very close to the government” in Tehran to portray Iran as having no reason for or interest in harming American forces that had liberated their Shiite brethren in Iraq. Fighting the Americans, these sources have convinced Amanpour, is not in Iran’s national interest. Less believable was this gem from Amanpour regarding her Iranian government sources:

They say that they want a democratic and freely elected government in Iraq, which they say exists right now, and that, yes, their position is that they want the U.S. -- quote -- "occupying forces" out, but only have they have laid the groundwork for the possibility to get out, and not to get out precipitously, which would leave -- quote -- "Iraq in a bigger mess than it is in already.”

The idea that Iran would prefer a strong, stable, oil-rich and well-armed Iraq on its border rather than a weak, vulnerable, defenseless oil-rich neighbor is patently absurd. Hitler desired to seize and assimilate neighbors with abundant natural resources (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc) and Ahmadinejad possesses that same lust for expansion (as well as a similar desire to exterminate Jews).

It is very instructive that a reporter with Amanpour’s extensive experience takes statements like those above from the Iranian government at face value, but does not take seriously that same government’s outspoken threats to annihilate Israel and then the US with nuclear weapons and denies the Holocaust and Israel’s right to exist. How are viewers to decide whether Iran means us no harm in Iraq because we freed the Shiites there or whether Iran wants to destroy America, “the Great Satan,” a term previously coined in Iran? Since actions speak louder than words, and a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps Iran’s continued reckless drive to develop nuclear weapons, its own stated installment of 3,000 new centrifuges, and satellite images of ever-expanding Iranian nuclear facilities should be the basis of our final judgment on Iranian intentions.

Cooper then sets the stage for his next question to Amanpour by first reminding viewers that the Bush administration, despite the urgings of former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, continues to reject any diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Cooper then asks Amanpour whether the Iranian government is open to the idea of talks with the US on the Iraq War. Amanpour offers this remarkable response containing another portrayal of Iran as an innocent, unjustly maligned nation that holds the answers to lasting peace in Iraq:

Well, I think they do want to. And they have made that representation in the past.

Certainly, officially, it's really difficult to get a straight answer on this. But, unofficially, those people who I have been talking to say: Look, we were -- and they use the word partners with the United States over the war in Afghanistan, when the Taliban was kicked out, and we helped the United States, in a very constructive way, usher in the new democratic government of Hamid Karzai.

And even the U.S. admits that. So, these very same people are saying that: We should be having the same kind of cooperation in Iraq. "We know -- who knows Iraq better than us?" they say. We were at war with Iraq for eight years. We have this long border, as Michael pointed out. So many of the leadership and, by the way, the Badr Brigades, the militias, the people in Iraq now who are in the armed camps, were inside Iran. We know a lot, and we can help a lot. And we can help the Americans a lot.

So, on this side, many of the officials are wondering why they can't get to talks to -- with America about this issue.

Cooper and Amanpour neglect to provide the answer to why Iran “can’t get to talks” with America regarding Iraq, despite Cooper having mentioned earlier in this segment that Iran yesterday rejected UN requests to install monitoring cameras or allow inspections of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Cooper and Amanpour, always quick to point out perceived distortions or duplicity in the Bush administration, seem unwilling to point out the obvious deception from Amanpour’s Iranian government sources. Her sources claim innocence in Iraq and claim no animosity toward American troops or efforts there while funneling weapons, funds, and tactical expertise in terror operations into Iraq, facts acknowledged by the Pentagon and the US intelligence community.

Those same Iranian sources claim to innocently wonder why the US will not negotiate with them while they publicly vow to end Israel’s and America’s existence with nuclear weapons and refuse to comply with UN and UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions intended to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

If Iran will abandon its suicidal obsession with establishing itself as a nuclear power, the US and other nations will be willing to enter diplomatic talks on Iraq and a host of other issues. If these Iranian officials are truly wondering and confused, as Amanpour reports, she could relieve them of that burden by pointing out the hypocrisy of offering to help America and the Iraqi democracy while arming and supplying terrorists in Iraq and simultaneously racing to enrich sufficient uranium to destroy “the Great Satan.”

Perhaps CNN should dispatch its White House Press Corps reporters to Tehran to question Amanpour’s sources with the same impatient zeal and cynical distrust employed to interrogate and embarrass the Bush administration.

Technorati Search Tags: Christiane Amanpour Anderson Cooper Iranian Interference in Iraq Nuclear Diplomacy Iranian nuclear program Ahmadinejad Iraq War Global War On Terror White House Press Corps CNN