Or are the accusations entirely without basis in fact, a deliberate attempt to justify an attack on Iran?
The fact is no conclusive evidence has been presented to prove the case either way. One can read reams of authoritative text on the subject – both boldly asserting Iran’s interference, and equally painting Tehran as a maligned victim. The fact is, everything is possible, but exploring those alternatives is often inconvenient, especially when the ultimate aim is to find an excuse to launch military action against Tehran.
Accusing Iran of being responsible for the death of American troops in Iran is not without a similar and chilling precedent in recent US history.
There are still plenty of Irish-Americans reading this article who remember stuffing their dollars into the Noraid collection tin knowing full well they would be used to buy explosives and Armalites for the boys back home in Ireland. Explosives and Armalites they used against British civilians and British soldiers. Let us not be naïve.
Of course there are going to be Iranians who hold the same “noble” convictions of their Irish-American counterparts. There are doubtless Iranian officials who would turn a blind eye, as did their Boston opposite numbers. And with no doubt whatsoever there will be criminal elements who would be delighted to organize the purchase and transportation of weapons across a border as leaky as the one between the US and Mexico.
Whether motivated by political conviction or a handsome fee, it really makes little difference in the end.
While Washington could have acted a little more proactively to clamp down on Noraid activities, none of this suggests that the White House actively and officially sanctioned the murder of British civilians and soldiers, does it? And if one can accept that premise, one also has to accept the possibility that the Iranian weapons that have found their way into Iraq did not necessarily get there with the blessing of the Tehran government.
Perhaps, like Washington, Tehran is being deliberately ambivalent. And really, you do not go to war with a country for being ambivalent.
There is another interesting aspect to the “Iranian” involvement in Iraq that has not been adequately explored by the mainstream media.
It is worth taking note of the fact that many Sunni Iraqis commonly refer to Shia Iraqis as Iranians. It is a religious, racial thing. They do not consider the Shia Iraqis to be real Arabs, so they refer to them as Iranians, who are Persian.
Given the general lack of understanding that Western countries have of the Middle East, despite their decades of interference here, isn’t it conceivable that the frequent reports if “Iranian” activity cited by Sunni Awakening Councils who are now allied with the US military, might in fact be mis-identifications?
It could be widespread, or it could have happened only occasionally. It could be deliberate, or it could be an innocent mistake, but one with far reaching consequences.
There is a precedent. During the Balkan Wars, Muslim jihadists, or just plain mercenaries, fought on the side of the Bosnian army. They were commonly referred to as Afghans, when in fact most of them were not.
Actually, many of them were Saudi.
Some of these “Afghans” might now be in Iraq. There is ample opportunity for confusion, and ample opportunity for deliberate trouble making.
Iraq is a mess. Any semblance of law and order is but a distant memory of the really old folks who can remember when the British ran the place. Persecuted by Saddam Hussein, then bombed, starved and then bombed again, occupied and abused, it is a land of opportunity for the unscrupulous and those wishing to settle a score.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
