Politics makes strange bedfellows however this for the Shiite world is truly an unholy alliance. Western intelligence officials now believe that Iran is trying to cultivate a new generation of al-Qa'eda leaders who will be prepared to work closely with Teheran when they eventually take control.
Iqbal,
You don't know how many times I wound up being told I was full of sh*t by various analysts when I would suggest, based upon information I was seeing, that Iran's IRGC was attempting to control both sides of the Iraqi insurgency, as well as Al Qai'da senior leadership.
They held Bin Ladin's son, Sa'ad, under quasi-house arrest for years, only to let him travel to Lebanon to train terrorists there. It was widely known that Al Qai'da elements were traveling between Pakistan and Iraq, via Iran, with the permission of the political/security leadership of Iran.
So I'm pleased to see that some intelligence analysts are finally coming around to trying to understand Iran's Machiavellian game in Iraq.
What I don't understand is why the various groups, Takfirist and Shi'a, are permitting themselves to be party to being marinets of the Iranian puppet master??
And if anything, if Al Qai'da is relegated to looking to Iran as a patron, then it suggests that the Bush administration was highly successful in alienating AQSL from its previous Sunni patronage.
My problem is I can see the broader trend, but I can figure out the details of the arrangement and ultimate agenda. I think you've made great point about Syria and Iran both desiring that they humiliate the US to the extent that we no longer have the will to interfere in the Gulf in the future.
But I keep looking for the pieces I'm missing. One of those is how will the Takfirists continue to wage sectarian attacks in Iraq against Shi'ites, while their patron is presumed to be the head of the Shi'a world?
Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Hawk |
