Very well. Perhaps I should have called her master propagandist instead of sensationalist
Why thank you. You are no slacker in that department yourself.
I have stated factually the content of multiple reports that I have heard:
The Iraqi government, in the persons of the PM and DM, is accusing Iran of meddling in Iraq, specifically by support al Sadr with weapons, training, and (unspecified number) of men. As reported by the BBC.
The US Army also says that Iran is supporting al Sadr. Also reported by the BBC.
The US Army is telling its men that Iraq is sending al Qaeda into Iran. As reported by soldiers blogs.
The British in Basra report a number of provocative Iranian steps, including seizing British troops on sea, seizing border areas, etc.
Iraq papers report Iranian support for al Sadr, and state that 'tens' of captured prisoners are non-Arab speakers. As reported by Iraqi bloggers.
Tensions have been rising between Iraq and Iran, with the Iraqi government reporting Iranian interfernce in Iraq and free flow of Al Qaeda through Iran into Iraq. As reported by Beirut Daily Star. It is also now reported that about half of the 9/11 hijackers came through Iran. You can believe that the mullahs are helpless and their borders are uncontrollably "porous" if you wish to be so naive about it.
The Iraqis report that they just captured a rather important Hizbullah (Iranian-backed) honcho in Najaf. As reported by debka.
Iranian backing for al Sadr is spoken of as common knowledge in Iraq. As reported by Mort Zukerman of the US World and News Report.
Most importantly from my point of view, NO MENTION WHATSOEVER has been made of Iran in the New York Times, not even to repeat the statements of Allawi, his officials, US Army spokesmen regarding Iranian meddling in Iraq. When it was just reports in regional papers, you could say the NYT didn't want to print it because they couldn't confirm it. But they have a duty to report on major pronouncements from the Iraqi government and the US Army, and they don't need to confirm the truth of the statements to report them. For them to ignore the announcements of Allawi, his DM, and the US Army regarding Iranian interference amounts to a spike of the story.
Have you looked at the same reports I did? I provided links to many of them. It's so easy to sit back and accuse me of making stuff up - all you need to do is not check the sources yourself, and hey, presto, I must be doing propaganda. After all, if it was true, the NYT would tell you, right?
You are wrong about Iranian support for Sistani, btw. Sistani is following a quietist tradition and has the Hawza (the clerical hierarchy) backing him. The dog that is not barking in Najaf right now: you do not hear any fatwas from the Najaf clerics telling the citizens to oppose the Americans and the Iraqi troops. The Iranian mullahs are not interested in quietism right now; they have made their interest in a chaotic Iraq quite plain. And if you want chaos, then Sadr is your man.
The political advantage to Iran of a weakened and chaotic Iraq is obvious; if Iraq stays down, Iran is the major power in the region. The more that Iran can keep Iraq down and in chaos, the less political leverage and military power America will have to do anything to hinder the mullah's race to get working nuclear missiles. Once Iran has nuclear missiles, it's a new regional game as all the the other regional powers rush to get them too.
With your first point false, all your conclusions are false also. |
