Global Politician, NY
Feb 14 2005
Iran Supported and Secretly Promoted U.S. Invasion of Iraq
2/16/2005
By David Storobin, Esq.
In what is emerging as a spectacular coup for Iran, it is becoming
ever more clear that the Islamic Republic not only supported the war
in Iraq, but actually used its covert agents to help make the case,
often with falsehoods, for the American invasion.
In recent days, Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi received support in his
bid to become Prime Minister of Iraq from Muktada al-Sadr, a Shia
terrorist with links to Iran. The al-Sadr family has been cooperating
with Iran and Iran-sponsored Lebanese Hizballah since the overthrow
of the Shah. Spokespersons for both al-Sadr and Chalabi have
confirmed cooperation with and support for each other.
In 2004, Sadr engaged in a massive guerilla and terrorist offensive
against American troops, hoping they will run from Iraq like they did
a generation ago from Lebanon after a series of bombings, at least
some of which were organized by members of the Sadr clan with help
from the Islamic Republic.
During the latter years of Saddam’s reign, Chalabi emerged as a main
proponent of invasion of Iraq, often meeting with U.S. officials and
regularly appearing in Western media. At the same time, it is now
known, he was cooperating with Iranians and passing to them
information about the United States. Today, he certainly seems like
the Ayatollah’s choice for Prime Minister of Iraq.
Chalabi’s bid is a long shot and he’s probably too unpopular to win
his struggle for the position of Prime Minister against the two main
candidates, Ibrahim al-Jafaari of the Islamic Mission (“Dawa”) Party
and Adel Abdul Mahdi of the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution. Humam Hamoudi, a top official in the Supreme Council, was
quoted in the New York Times as saying that al-Sadr will support any
of the three candidates who will emerge as the Prime Minister.
However, it is also becoming clear that both al-Sadr and Iran are
keen on increasing Chalabi’s power, in hopes that he may emerge as
the Prime Minister later and for now to be a highly influential
government official in the new Iraq.
That Chalabi does not seem overly religious is not as much of a
problem for Iran, as many may presume. Iran has long cooperated with
secular, Ba’athist Syrian regime. It supported Armenian Christians in
their war against Muslim Azerbaijan, and maintains better relations
with the Christian Greece than their Muslim Turkish rival. The
Islamic Republic, like any other country, views its self-interest as
the most important criteria. It is for this reason that it decided to
embrace the supposedly anti-Islamic nuclear weapons and ignore
Russia’s human rights violations against Chechens and other Muslims.
So why would Iran be interested in an American invasion of Iraq?
The enmity between Iran and Iraq is well-known. They fought a bloody
war in the 1980’s with Saddam’s military using Weapons of Mass
Destruction. In fact, it was the Iraqi threat that caused the
Ayatollahs to re-examine their policy of rejecting nuclear weapons,
which they originally considered as a violation of Islamic law.
Iraq was the dominant force in that part of the Middle East and
weakening it meant it would be easier for Iran to spread its
influence not just to Iraq, but also to other countries, including
the predominantly Shia nation of Bahrain. Half of Yemen’s population
is Shia, as is a significant minority in Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and other Arab countries. The
Shia tend to be poorer and less educated than Sunni Muslims and
claim, with at least some justification, that they are discriminated
against. They are, thus, easy preys for pro-Iran guerilla and
terrorist recruiters.
At least as importantly, Iran realized that Washington had only one
“bullet” after the war in Afghanistan and if Saddam were to be
invaded, the leaders in Tehran (and their allies in Syria) can sleep
safely at night, knowing the U.S. will be too busy with insurgents in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and terrorists around the world. Just to be
sure that Americans will have a bitter taste left in their mouth from
fighting wars, Tehran and Damascus sponsored anti-American terrorism
and insurgency in Iraq, guaranteeing casualties and the impression
that Washington is losing badly. With the United States seemingly in
trouble in Iraq, it would be unable to bring together an
international coalition or even build popular support at home to
attack a much bigger Iran.
Nor was the government in Tehran concerned that having American
troops and bases on its western border would enable Washington to
attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. already had soldiers,
bases and a friendly government on the eastern border of Iran in
Afghanistan, so they could easy bomb the Islamic Republic from the
East, if that was the Pentagon’s decision. While Iran has fairly
strong ground forces, their air force and air defenses are
phenomenally outdated and too small. Thus, an air attack by Americans
from the Afghani bases in the East would almost definitely succeed,
even if it was necessary to fly all the way to the Iran’s western
border (presuming they had accurate intelligence information as to
which targets should be hit). Meanwhile, Israel was always a threat
to attack from the West by flying over Iraq and the impotent Syria
before reaching the Islamic Republic.
The American invasion of Iraq made action against Tehran’s nuclear
facilities much less likely. For one, Israel will now have to fly
over U.S.-dominated Iraq (it is doubtful that Turkey would allow the
Jewish State to use its air space to bomb Iran, even though it is
horrified at the prospect of nuclearization of its fundamentalist
neighbor). As such, Jerusalem will not to move without permission
from the White House.
Meanwhile, the White House feels stung by the troubles faced in Iraq
– troubles caused largely by Iran and that would not exist without
its financial, military, logistic and intelligence support. Even
those insurgents and terrorists not affiliated with Tehran and/or
Damascus, are benefiting from the distraction of American forces. Due
to their lack of size and money, these insurgents would be quickly
defeated if the U.S. did not need to focus on terrorists sponsored by
Iran and Syria.
Given the daily or even hourly reports of troubles in Iraq, Americans
simply do not have the will, nor the international support, to deal
with Iran’s nuclear program, and they do not want to risk being
dragged into a war by being accused of allowing Israel to fly over
Iraq to bomb nuclear installations in the Islamic Republic. Moreover,
just like with soldiers, U.S. intelligence agents are also limited
and the more are tied up in Iraq, the fewer can spy against Iran,
weakening America’s ability to hit the proper targets.
As such, Iran quietly supported Washington’s plans to invade Saddam’s
Iraq and used its collaborator Ahmad Chalabi to promote the idea in
Western circles. It has scored a double victory: not only did its
Iraqi rival go down, but now Israel and the United States are now
less likely to interfere with its nuclear program.
David Storobin is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.)
degree from Rutgers University School of Law. His Master’s Thesis
(M.A. – Comparative Politics) deals with Extremist Movements in the
Middle East and the historical causes for the rise of fundamentalism.
Mr. Storobin’s book “The Root Cause: The Rise of Fundamentalist Islam
and its Threat to the World” will be published in 2005.
–Boundary_(ID_qpZspMgdDx4WgJ+1ZUMtaw)–