The Democrats Gift To Iran

Loading

So Iran is training Sadr’s men:

Iraqi Shiites are being trained in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics at a secret camp inside Iran, according to two militants who say they have spent time there.

Seasoned guerrilla fighters said large numbers of Mahdi Army volunteers have gone to a base near Tehran for instruction in how to shoot down helicopters and destroy armored vehicles.

The Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has frequently battled against U.S. and British forces in Iraq, most recently in Diwaniya. The militia, estimated to range up to 20,000 men, has also been linked to death-squad killings of Sunnis and political assassinations.

The fighters’ assertions could not be independently verified. But Peter Harling, an Iraq analyst at the International Crisis Group, an influential Brussels-based research organization, and a leading authority on al-Sadr, said Mahdi Army fighters were now being trained in Iran.

"I have had confirmation that some of the Mahdi Army’s ‘historic’ commanders have sought refuge in Iran, where, according to their family members and friends, they are currently receiving military training" in preparation for further fighting inside Iraq, Harling said.

Of course some of the sources in this article attempt to say that Iran knows nothing about it.  I mean why would they know that thousands of Iraqi’s are being trained in their country right?  Geez.

Meanwhile this report states that the training is centered on explosives and attacking helicopters:

Another fighter, who asked to be identified only as Abu Rafed, said he had seen hundreds of fellow Iraqi Shia militants there. "We were taught how to attack the Americans, we learned all the modern ways to shoot down helicopters and destroy tanks and armoured vehicles. It is preparation for the time when we will have a big battle with the occupiers."

And further evidence that these reports are true via the mere fact that the newly trained troops are being captured in Iraq:

Last week Maj-Gen William Caldwell, the US military spokesman in Iraq, said that questioning of fighters captured as recently as this month confirmed many had been in Iranian training camps.

With all those facts the Democrats still believe that it’s their duty to hold talks with the enemy, against the Commander in Chiefs wishes:

Asked about a meeting between Iran’s envoy to the United Nations Javad Zarif and some US Senators Saturday night, Mottaki said the meeting did not serve any specific purpose, but meantime added, "But certain individuals from outside the US administration have already had meetings with Zarif, where the two sides have mainly discussed the situation in Iraq and the security conditions in that country."

And:

In clear reaction to the recent reports about willingness of certain US senators and congressmen for attending talks with Iranian counterparts, a member of the Iranian parliament’s presiding board here on Sunday called on the US democrats to annul the D’Amato Law to prove their good intentions.

"The US Democrats have gained control over the US Senate and Congress for some time now and they have voiced willingness to contact and negotiate with the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. They should be informed that they are to display their good will through using the desirable potentials and possibilities that they are now enjoying," Mohsen Kouhkan said.

He further continued, "As the D’Amato Law was approved at a time when Democrats were the dominant party in the US Congress and Senate, we propose that they, as a first step in showing their good intention, make this law null and void."

So we have representatives of our government meeting with a country that is training and supporting those who kill our soldiers in Iraq.  And what are they discussing?  The security situation in Iraq.

Anyone see a disconnect there?

The 2006 election, a gift that keeps giving….

A git for the Iranian government which allows and sanctions the rape and murder of Iranian women for protesting against them.

But do we hear from Code Pink on this?  Women’s rights groups nationwide?  No…..Watch this important video from Glenn Beck where he interviews Ghazal Omid, author of Living In Hell, about the rape and murder of one woman and the lack of interest the MSM shows towards the pro-Democracy protests:


Yup, A gift that keeps on giving.

Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would some please ask Neville Nancy what her alternative foreign policy plans to do about Iran?

Are we just supposed to pretend that none of this is happening?

Are we supposed to overlook the Iranian backed attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and elsewhere?

Does engagement mean we overlook all that?

Iran is being emboldened by our evident weakness on all fronts. How many more Americans and innocents elsewhere will now die as a result?

The Iranians are training Shiites. Our troops are being attacked and killed by Sunnis. If you aren’t already well aware of that distinction, nobody should trust anything you have to say about the Middle East.

Wow, that is some display of ignorance on your part Bryce. Sadr’s men have infact been attacking our troops for sometime. Iran has also been supplying the insurgents IED’s for sometime.

I know lefties love to state that Secular and Non-Secular, Sunni and Shiite, wont work together against a common enemy but it’s just not true. They will indeed work together against a common enemy.

Further on my earlier post about the discovery of an Iranian arms shipment to the Taliban, Tom Joscelyn wrote this Weekly Standard piece a year ago about a high-ranking Taliban detainee at Gtimo who has acknowledged providing security for a meeting between Taliban leaders and Iranian officials in the weeks after 9/11, during which Iran pledged to help the Taliban in its war against the U.S. As Tom details, there is great reason to believe Iran has made good on this pledge — including by letting Taliban and Qaeda fighters escape into Iran after the U.S. invaded Afhganistan in October 2001.

Conventional wisdom from foreign affairs analysts and intelligence community types, of course, is that Iran despises the Taliban and, consequently, is likely to be “even more” helpful to us in Afghanistan than the Iraq Study Group farcically assumes it could be in Iraq. Maybe we should reassess, no?

Andy, I’m not sure that you would disagree with this, but it’s quite possible that the Iranian regime both despises the Taliban (all the evidence would suggest that it does) while at the same time is quite prepared to arm it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Quite frankly, there’s a lot that the US could learn (or, more accurately, relearn) from that. In a rough world, the pursuit of the national interest may lead a country, any country, to engage with any number of thugs, psychos, and madmen. If that’s what it takes, so be it.

Andrew, I do agree — enthusiastically. This is why I have never understood the reluctance in many corners of the U.S. government to believe that al Qaeda’s Sunnis would make common cause with Shiites from Hezbollah and Iran, or secular Baathists like Saddam, if it would serve the greater goal (for them) of harming us. In international affairs, opportunism as well as who and what you hate more (or, maybe better, perceive yourself as threatened by) are historically better guides about potential alliances than ideology. Given our own history (aligning with Stalin in WWII, for example, or National Review’s joining forces with Mother Jones against the dreaded Postal Service), I don’t understand why our analysts categorically assume that there are some actors who would simply never work with other actors.