Iran has the US by the Balls

Iran has the US by the Balls

by Isaac, one of our fans

"The US has Israel by the balls", wrote Belman in Hamas.

This applies doubly in the case of Iran,(I think he means that Iran has the US but the Balls") in particular with respect to US policy in Iraq. There's been serious anger expressed on this blog about US and British nonchalance towards Iran's virtual takeover of Iraq and the green light that the US and UK have basically given for it, and with damn good reason. It's obvious to any policy wonk with 1/10 of remaining brain function that the most dangerous organizations in Iraq by far are the Shiite militias, and the Badr Brigades in particular.

The Badr Brigades are the single greatest threat in the Mideast, far more than Hezbollah, vastly more even than Hamas. The Badr Brigade members have trained in Iran for decades, essentially answer to and are funded by the Iranian mullahs, and effectively do Iran's dirty work for it. Now, the Shiite militias are dangerously powerful, since they're affiliated with the SCIRI party of that Iranian agent, Abdel Aziz Hakim, and the Dawa party and have basically concentrated the military and police power of the Iraqi state in their hands. They are essentially bringing the Iraqi state with its incredible wealth into Iran's grasp, and the US and Britain just stand there and let it happen, while wasting their limited firepower (and political capital) on the Sunni Ba'ath insurgents, who are the only ones who can realistically bring down the deadly Iranian puppet government taking shape in Baghdad. This is shaping up to be the worst foreign policy blunder since Napoleon decided to spend a winter vacation in Russia-- Iran is on the brink of becoming the unchallengeable master of the entire Middle East and the Persian Gulf oil fields and shipping routes, and yet the US is doing nothing about it!!!

It's unfortunately not too difficult to figure out why the Bush Administration is basically just sitting on its hands while Iran takes control of Iraq through its Badr Brigade proxies-- the Bush Administration is politically feeble and afraid of taking the aggressive steps that everyone recognizes are needed to check the power of Iran and the Badr Brigades. I don't think that Condi Rice is necessarily an Israel-hater, as some other posters here have been writing-- I just sense that she's basically indifferent to Israel one way or the other, and she's in way over her head here while being too proud and arrogant to admit it. She's a Sovietologist, damnit. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but she's not the one who should be guiding Bush's decisions so much on the Middle East. She doesn't know what she's doing, and her utter failure to appreciate the danger of the Badr Brigades and their takeover of Iraq makes her totally unqualified to be occupying such a high office.

Her colleagues in the Bush Administration aren't much better. Dick Cheney is too caught up in his own ego and power drunkenness to actually think straight. Donald Rumsfeld is so hopelessly obsessed with his pet project of the "leaner, meaner US armed forces" that he can't see the forest for the trees and readjust his policies to meet the threat of the Shiite militias. And the neocons that so many anti-Semites rant about as being so pro-Israeli? Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the other idiots in the Bush Administration keep blah-blahing about democracy this, democracy that while failing to realize that democracy needs a lot of other things (cultural things especially) to work. Otherwise, as in the Palestinian territories and in Iraq, it's just a fig leaf for bloodthirsty Islamist fanatics to claim some legitimacy for the same deadly ambitions they've had before.

There's an obvious reason why the Bush and Blair Administrations are acquiescing like wimpy little cowards to the threat of the Badr Brigades in Iraq-- they think it's the path of least resistance for them to get out of Iraq without the media paying too much attention to the impending disaster of their own making, while leaving a subsequent administration holding the bag and forced to clean up the mess as Iran basically gets control of the entire Persian Gulf and launches its long-awaited war of civilizations. WE CAN'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS!

It's the responsibility of everyone on Israpundit and other blogs who cares about Israel, the free world and the mortal threat of the Iranians, to hit the Bush Administration hard, to not let them take the easy way out of letting the Badr Brigades take control, to let them know that the political price will be heavy and unsustainable if they don't confront the threat of this Iranian proxy army. Politics often makes strange bedfellows and this is no exception-- although the Sunni Ba'athists are generally portrayed as the enemy of the US in Iraq, with scarce and precious US firepower wasted on resistance bastions like Fallujah and Tel-Afar, the Sunni resistance is the only native Iraqi force actually capable of militarily standing in the way of Iran's ultimate super-empowerment upon taking possession of Iraq's resources. Therefore, the Sunni insurgents, as a few others here have written, are in effect the strongest US ally against the ultimate threat of the Iran-allied Shiite militias.

Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, oddly enough, could go either way and might even be useful as another bulwark against the Badr Brigades. Though the Madhi fighters are also fundamenatalist Shiite nuts, they don't have the same ties with Iran-- they largely trained in Iraq itself and if anything, bear some resentment against the Badr Brigades for leaving Iraq while the Mahdi fighters stayed and toughed it out. Also, the Sadrists are rivals with the Badr Brigades in cities like Basra. The Sadrists should also be selectively strengthened at the expense of the Badr Brigades. It's also time to accept that the Kurds are already basically independent, and help them-- over the years, not necessarily at once-- to break free and deprive Iran's Shiite militias, at least, of the oil in northern Iraq, before the Badr Brigades basically overwhelm Kurdistan with sheer numbers once they gain power.

Finally and most important, the US and Britain need to turn their guns and tanks against the Badr Brigades, the one true threat in Iraq. I'm not expecting much from the Brits since thus far, the performance of the British is perfectly in line with historical expectations-- they're basically useless on the battlefield, almost as useless as the French. The Brits are basically good for giving nice rousing speeches that sound so sweet to the ear and invigorating for the fighting spirit, but other than Agincourt and Trafalgar, the British are utterly incompetent and consistently losers when it comes to actual fighting-- someone else always needs to step in to actually fight the war. Even Churchill's Britain basically got kicked around all over the place in Norway, France, North Africa and of course Singapore, catching relief only when Hitler was kind enough to direct his bloody ambitions eastward instead. It was up to the US, Russia and the Chinese to do the actual fighting in that war.

But the US at least, has the toughness, firepower and training to crush the Badr Brigades for good and prevent Iran from basically seizing control of Iraq. We need to maintain the pressure on the Bush Administration to do what any sensible analyst knows it has to do, until the Administration leaders finally grow a pair and take down the Badr Brigades. If the US won't do it, then Israel may have to do so itself. This is national survival here, even if it doesn't look pretty to the cameras.

Posted by Ted Belman at January 12, 2006 04:26 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11995


Comments

1. Ted Belman said:

Your knowledge and advice is greatly appreciated. I believe that your vision is clear. I have long argued that the US should retreat to Kurdistan and let the Sunnis and Shiites have a go at it as they did in the Iran/Iraq War. I find nothing to disagree with. The Sunnis must be strengthened to take on the Shiites. This obviously widens the theater. Syria is playing both sides and allying with Iran.

The problem is that if the US were to challenge Iran's hegemony it would have to attack Shiitestan and Iran both. There is no way to contain the problem short of WWIII. Showtime for Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Would they join the war in earnest or just give it lip service and let the US do the heavy lifting. It would be imperative that the Egyptian Army be used to take over Shiitestan.

A sea change is necessary. I do not believe that the US could go it alone. It must side with the Sunnis and get them to retake Iraq. No doubt it would in the Sunnis' interest to limit Iran, but they would still demand more of the US, maybe even the destruction of Israel. Frightening times.

Posted by: Ted Belman on January 11, 2006 03:33 AM

2. eglick said:

America should have gone to Iraq with plans for a no-nonsense and bloody campaign to decisively destroy a major nexus of the fascist Islamic enemy (all the while keeping guns pointed at the neighbors if only to keep them cool). Instead, it went for “regime change” - hoping, if possible, to seed civil/government reform in the deal. Now, with its limited intent having successfully played out, Iraq has become a federation of regions under the de facto control of Iran. This is nothing less than a major world disaster. It essentially signals America's surrender in the war against Islamofacism and acquiesence to the destruction of the Jewish state. Such an event, perhaps 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now, will surely signal the end of Christian Europe, but it will also be the beginning of the end for America and the Anglo world. In this reading of events, Iran's call to obliviate Israel can be seen as a victory-over-America speech. And more future evidence showing that, once again, the world knew, stood by and did nothing. The larger war will yet play itself out but I believe that without the Jews around, Christiandom will fall.

Posted by: eglick on January 11, 2006 05:30 AM

3. Isaac said:

I concur with your analysis here, and I certainly think it helps to emphasize what the mainstream media (even so-called "conservative" commentators on Foxnews) have generally been so oblivious to-- Iran poses a mortal threat in the form of the Badr Brigade proxies, and no amount of sugar-coating or garbing with the flattering robes of democracy could camouflage that. The Iranian mullahs are genuine evil geniuses, the master chess players, the puppetmasters who've been jerking around the US all along to do their bidding in Iraq without paying a cent or shedding hardly a drop of blood. If the USA ultimately does withdraw from Iraq while leaving the SCIRI and the Badr Brigades in power, historians will no doubt record it as one of the most stunning and unbelievable politico-military achievements in recorded history, even if its results are soaked in blood-- the utter, absolute, humiliating defeat of the world's greatest superpower, Sun Tzu-style, by a backward desert third-world country led by fundamentalist whack-jobs, and without having to unsheath their swords.

It's gotten to the point where I can't even stand to read Little Green Footballs or the Tim Blair, Spleenville blog anymore. They cheerlead every stupid Bush speech and move, no matter how much it effectively benefits Iran in substance. When it's pointed out to them that Iran is basically playing the US like a violin, using American troops to quell Sunni insurgent unrest so as to give Tehran effective control over Iraq through the highly-placed Badr Brigade officials (who basically control the Interior Ministry), they practically throw a temper tantrum, cover their ears with some lame "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" routine. They're trapped in narrow short-term thinking with obvious and easy-to-identify bogeymen like the Ba'athists, unable to see the larger strategic picture with the ultimate evil of the Iranian theocracy, and the threat it poses if SCIRI and the Badr Brigades extend their power. It's this shallow, stupid thinking that the Iranians are counting on in their sick machinations, the mullahs slowly spreading their tentacles across Iraq while the Bushies and their cheerleaders are frozen like deer in headlights. Most of the LGF bloggers are pro-Israeli, but more than being pro-Israeli they seem to be pro-Bush-- whatever the cost-- with the urge to "stick it to the libs." I like sticking it to 'em too, but that doesn't mean we should cheer every Bush Administration move when it's obvious that some of the Administration's policies are unequivocal recipes for disaster in the form of almost complete Iranian control of the Persian Gulf. The Iranians have almost everyone now under their thumb. The Russians still eagerly expand their treasury by selling advanced weapons to the mullahs' regime, and the old Moscow-Tehran alliance remains intact. India relies for its economic survival on an oil and natural gas pipeline from Iran, which along with ancient Perso-Indian cultural ties draws them into Iran's arms as well. The Brits, French and the rest of Europe, whatever their recent protestations about Ahmedinejad's mad ravings, rely too much on Iran's oil to act even against their proxies. Only the US has the power and the advantage of an entrenched position on Iraqi soil.

The US may not have the capacity to take on Iran head-to-head at this point, but at the very least, the US can smash Iran's proxies in Iraq, denying the mullahs the glittering prize that's right in front of them-- the effective control of the resource gem of Iraq via the Badr Brigades and SCIRI/Dawa. If SCIRI and the Badr Brigades effectively take control of Iraq, then Iran is nothing less than a superpower led by nut-job mullahs, and then it's curtains for the US, Israel and the West in general as eglick has duly noted-- the ayatollahs are effectively in control of the world's petroleum, both a major share of its production and its shipment through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a powerful military and a chokehold on trade through the world's most strategic region. Iran has been the ultimate, deadliest foe all along, and they've been craftily manipulating the US at every juncture, cynically making use of two desperately sought US strategic objectives-- the "spread of democracy" and the strengthening of the Iraqi security forces-- to insinuate themselves into the very heart of the Iraqi government. A hostile Iraq has always been the only obstacle to Iran's complete control of the Gulf and the rich oil fields around Basra, and now, the mullahs have tricked the US into doing their work for them.

The Sunni insurgency, it's true, is the only indigenous force capable of effectively fighting the Badr Brigades, but unfortunately, alone they can do so only in the limited region of central Iraq (the Sunni Triangle and some neighborhoods in Baghdad) where they're strongest demographically. Elsewhere in most of Iraq, and in the heart of the Baghdad government, only the US can actually defeat them. The British, Poles, Italians, Bulgarians and Australians at this point are almost useless-- they're just lazing out on their bases doing nothing except getting in the way. Either they should fight or leave, and because of their garrison locations, they're well-positioned to initiate some strikes against the Badr Brigade bases strewn throughout southern Iraq.

This won't lead to some "Shiite revolution" as so many pundits fret about-- the secular Shiites and Sadrists themselves would bid good riddance to the Badr Brigades, who even their fellow Shiites realize are merely Iran's own homegrown military wing in Iraq. But I doubt that the Brits or the Poles have the stomach to actually fight an enemy that can fight back, so it'll be up to the US. It doesn't matter if a confrontation with the Badr Brigades fouls up the "democratic outcome" of December 2005-- a democracy means little if it's merely a crude cover for an Iranian colonial government-in-waiting. By refraining from the necessary confrontation with the Badr Brigades on the pretext of the "democratic" process in Iraq, we'd be playing right into Iran's hands. Their effective control of the Iraqi levers of power through the Badrites in Shiitestan is an intolerable and disastrous result, no matter how it specifically comes about.

Again, even if we can't tackle the Iranian threat directly, we can thwart Iran's victory-through-proxy in Iraq, and block them from the almost unlimited power they would derive from such control. We should indeed boost the anti-government Sunni insurgents as Ted is suggesting, but also launch US air strikes and ground operations against the Badr Brigade strongholds throughout the country. The Interior Ministry has to be gutted-- it's a den of Iranian-trained militia members who are basically using the Ministry as a vehicle to assert their control over the capital and the country as a whole. It's Iran's central nerve center in Iraq.

This will all of course require a basic acceptance that the "democratic revolution" in Iraq was and is a farce, which is precisely why Iran's proxies called for the elections so prematurely, when they knew they could rush themselves into power. The torture prisons and terrorism on both sides have already demonstrated this fact, and now it's time to own up to reality and confront Iran's proxies before they bring Iran's lethal plans for total strategic domination to fruition.

Posted by: Isaac on January 11, 2006 06:57 AM

4. Isaac said:

Incidentally, this is starting to make me wonder about who Israel really needs to take the helm now. This is a terrifying period in Israel's history, and one naturally gravitates to a fighter like Bibi somewhat. But Bibi can also be a loose cannon, and a good fighter is of little value is he chooses the wrong fights.

As for Kadima? Problem is, I know barely a damn thing about Olmert one way or the other and how he'd run things. Hard to really say anything with certainty as things now appear.

Poor Israel-- stuck with uncertainty in political leadership at home, along with almost guaranteed stupidity at the helm of its "ally" the United States. Both parties are basically led by idiots who would wimp out and follow the same disastrous Iran-appeasing policy in Iraq. George W. and his brother Jeb, Hillary, Gephardt and Lieberman on the Dem side-- all seem perfectly happy to ignore the Iran threat and waste still more US firepower on the Ba'athists (or on Syria, which would be yet another diversion from the Iranian threat through its Iraq proxies-- Syria is best served by having an incompetent milk-toast like Hafez's dim-bulbed son at the helm, rather than rabid fanatics like the Muslim Brotherhood).

Both the well-known Democrats and Republicans, in other words, seem willing to basically roll out a welcome mat for Iran's Badr Brigades to take power, essentially sacrificing Israel and the security of the world's oil supply for short-term political gain. Maybe McCain or Giuliani, or even one of the Dems' current dark horses might take a different tack and wage the battle that must be fought, but I'm not holding my breath, frankly.

Posted by: Isaac on January 11, 2006 07:50 AM

5. Ted Belman said:

A who's who published in Nov 30/05

Shiite Militias and Iraq's Security Forces

See also Shi'ite challenge to US policy posted today.

And don't forget this The ultimate quagmire

Posted by: Ted Belman on January 11, 2006 08:48 AM

6. Dan Barkye said:

Francisco Gil-White should be revisited, and his theories about the covert support that it gives to the Islam Fundies adopted. This is the only conclusion worth from this article and "Hamas".

Posted by: Dan Barkye on January 12, 2006 07:03 PM

7. Midwest Fella said:

I have said this for many years. Yes its as fanatical as some of the Islamic states. But as shown so many times before in history... some times you have to fight your enemy as though you were your enemy. War is hell. Here what I purpose...

Operation West-Kahn

The US sends a massive force starting in Gaza sweeps through the West Bank.... They then could jump over to Syria and suprise the hell out of them. Mop up the whole countries military. After that reinforce in Iraq, possibly with the draft. To really thwart global terror its now needed. After well reinforced hit Iran so hard it would make the earthquakes seem like freeway noise at best. After an all fight with Iran our grand crusade would wipe up the insurgents in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others along the way. Until finally regrouping in China for a little Peking duck & R&R. We would shake the hands of our fellow Chineese business men and thank them for all the wonderful Wal-mart trinkets. Then were done. Islamim fanatics would be right where it they to be, living in the 7th century with no electricity or western culture. And the rest of the world can get back to the Olympics, vactions, spending money and getting back to doing whatever they want without worrying about these cancerous shitbags killing civilians around the world.

I know it sounds harsh but its time the US and its best allies finish the job, for good. Pussyfooting around and chit-chatting is what caused escaltions like the previous world wars and evil dictatorships to flourish.

/rant off

Posted by: Midwest Fella on January 13, 2006 12:10 AM

8. Dan Barkye said:

Midwest Fella, maybe you go and tell it to Bush? Seriously! As an American to another.

Posted by: Dan Barkye on January 13, 2006 02:17 AM

9. radiorote said:

Isaac, it would be difficult for Fox News to be anything but tepid regarding the Middle East, since the wealthy terrorist sponsor and Saudi Prince, Bin Talil, owns a good chunk of Fox News Corporation (and AOL).
Remember how he made Fox news stop refering to the French rioters as being Moslem?

Posted by: radiorote on January 14, 2006 02:48 AM

10. Elias said:

Have you ever thought that maybe Israel can play a pivotal role in quelling its neighbors by really becoming a beacon of freedom; by following along the prosperous and well proven path of states which are governed under the principle of equal protection under the law, whether Jew or Gentile.



It seems suicidal to tred the path of the last 50 years.



Look at it in the context of Marcus Garvey vs. Martin Luther King; one first called for a two state solution while the latter had hope in humanity's ability to live in peace together.



A two state solution will not benefit anyone, and is not a long term solution. The politics of disposession must end.



Hamas must understand that the clock cannot be turned back 50 years, the West must understand that it cannot be turned back 2000 years, and Israel must understand it cannot be turned back 5000 years.



There needs to be a shift in paradigm. The conflict is within, more than it is out there.

Posted by: Elias on January 30, 2006 05:18 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)