news from hell hole called ( IRI ) - The Islamis Republic of Idiots

Iran's Engineered Elections Reelect Sanctions-Fed Regime

The results of Iran's eighth parliamentary elections were never meant to be a cliffhanger – the hard-line camp of fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came out on top; moderate conservatives maintained their stake; reformists were demoralized.

Hamas Undertaking a Broad Military Buildup, Israeli Study Finds

JERUSALEM -- An Israeli study says that Hamas, the militant group that now controls Gaza, is engaged in the broadest and most significant military buildup in its history with help from Syria and Iran, restructuring itself more hierarchically and using more and more powerful weapons, especially longer-range rockets against Israel's southern communities

Britons Seized in Iraq May Now be Held in Iran

Five British hostages who were kidnapped in Iraq last year may be being held in Tehran, the Iranian capital, according to intelligence reports received by the Foreign Office

The Case Against Iran

Imad Mugniyah, former operations chief of the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, was killed by a car bomb in February. This event is instructive for the United States in its dealings with Iran. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization

The Iran Problem
April 09, 2008 Washington Post David Ignatius
The language that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker used Tuesday to describe the Iranian role in Iraq was extreme -- and telling. They spoke of Tehran's "nefarious activities," its "malign influence" and how it posed "the greatest long-term threat to the viability" of the Baghdad government.Iran was the heart of the matter during Senate testimony on the war. With al-Qaeda on the run in Iraq, the Iranian threat has become the rationale for the mission, and also the explanation for our shortcomings. The Iranians are the reason we're bogged down in Iraq, and also the reason we can't pull out our troops. The mullahs in Tehran loom over the Iraq battlefield like a giant "Catch-22."The order of battle in Iraq isn't likely to change significantly for the rest of the year. That was Petraeus' implicit message when he was asked about additional troop withdrawals after July, when U.S. forces are to return to their pre-surge levels. He spoke opaquely about a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation," followed by an additional, open-ended period of "assessment." The translation was that he wants to keep the most robust possible force there, to prevent security from deteriorating on his watch. That's understandable for a commander, but it means the question of future troop strength will land squarely on the shoulders of the next president.And inescapably, the issue of containing Iran will fall to the next American president, too. Can a new administration draw the malign adversary that Petraeus and Crocker described into a new security architecture for the region? Can America reduce its forces in Iraq, without creating a dangerous vacuum to be filled by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Shiite militias?Who will bell the Iranian cat? That was the question lurking behind Tuesday's testimony. U.S. officials, even the most sophisticated ones such as Petraeus and Crocker, sometimes speak as if Iranian mischief in Iraq is a recent development. "The hand of Iran was very clear in recent weeks," said Petraeus at one point. But it has a long history.Iran's covert campaign to reshape Iraq has been clear since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Iranian intelligence officers prepared lists of Iraqis for assassination in the weeks and months after the war; they sent Iranian-trained mullahs to take over the Shiite mosques of central and southern Iraq that had been smashed by Saddam Hussein; they pumped an estimated $12 million a week in covert financial support into their allies as the January 2005 election approached; they infiltrated all the major Shiite political parties, and many of the Sunni ones, too.The Iranians have fixed the political game. They are on all sides at once. They have links to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Dawa Party; they funnel money to the Badr organization of Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is a key recruiting ground for the Iraqi army; they provide weapons, training and command and control for the most extreme factions of the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army's nominal leader, is actually living in the Iranian holy city of Qom, suffering from what intelligence sources believe may be clinical depression. A useful ploy would be to invite him to come home, and see if he can be drawn into negotiations.The Iranians were able to start the recent trouble in Basra and Baghdad through one set of operatives, then negotiate a cease-fire through another. In short, they play the Iraqi lyre on all its strings.Fighting a war against Iran is a bad idea. But fighting a proxy war against them in Iraq, where many of our key allies are manipulated by Iranian networks of influence, may be even worse. The best argument for keeping American troops in Iraq is that it increases our leverage against Iran; but paradoxically, that's also a good argument for reducing U.S. troops to a level that's politically and militarily sustainable. It could give America greater freedom of maneuver in the tests with Iran that are ahead.Somehow, the next president will have to fuse U.S. military and diplomatic power to both engage Iran and set limits on its activities. A U.S.-Iranian dialogue is a necessary condition for future stability in the Middle East. But the wrong deal, negotiated by a weak America with a cocky Iran that thinks it's on a roll, would be a disaster.Crocker has it right when he says, "Almost everything about Iraq is hard." That's especially true of the Iran problem. Petraeus and Crocker were taking the hard questions Tuesday, but soon enough it will be one of the presidential candidates who were dispensing sound bites Tuesday: John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

New Yorker: Military Conflict

General Richard A. Cody described the Army's efforts to adapt to its new commitments. (It was attempting to fight terrorism, quell the Taliban, invade and pacify Iraq, and, at the same time, prepare for future strategic challenges, whether in China or Korea or Africa.) The endeavor was, Cody said, like "building an airplane in flight."
Ahmadinejad: US Used September 11 As 'pretext' For Invasions

Iranian President Ahmadinejad accused the United States of using the 9-11 attacks as a "pretext" to launch invasions and cast doubt on the accepted version of the terror strikes. He said names of the 3,000 people were never published and nobody was able to respond to the main question, which is how is it possible that with the best radar systems and intelligence networks the planes could crash undetected into the towers.

Robert Fisk: The Fearful Lives In A Land Of The Free

Why do Middle Eastern Muslims living in Europe and North America so freely criticize Western imperialism, but are so loathe to denounce their native countries' repressive regimes? Robert Fisk has some answers.

Petraeus Recommends Pause in Iraq Troop Reductions

By Army Sgt. Sara Moore , American Forces Press Service- Apr 9, 2008
WASHINGTON - The United States should take 45 days after the last "surge" brigade leaves Iraq in July to evaluate the situation before deciding future troop levels, the coalition's top military commander said here today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus reported his recommendation in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He testified along with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker about the situation in Iraq and progress made since September, when the two leaders last delivered an update to Congress and the president. Petraeus and Crocker both said that while Iraq has made significant security, economic and political gains, the situation remains fragile and the progress is reversible if the United States does not stay the course. As the United States draws its forces down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams, leaders must ensure that the security gains made so far are not jeopardized, Petraeus said. The 45-day evaluation period would give commanders time to assess conditions on the ground and determine when they can make recommendations for further troop reductions, he said. "This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit," Petraeus said. "This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve." Petraeus cited the operational and strategic considerations he took into account when forming his recommendation, including: -- The military surge has achieved progress, but that progress is reversible; -- Iraqi security forces have strengthened their capabilities, but still must grow further; -- The provincial elections scheduled in the fall, refugee returns, detainee releases, and efforts to resolve provincial boundary disputes will pose challenges; -- The transition of "Sons of Iraq" -- organized groups of local citizens helping with security -- into the Iraqi security forces or other pursuits will require time and careful monitoring; -- Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year; --Performing the necessary tasks in Iraq will require sizable conventional forces as well as special operations forces and advisor teams; -- The strain on the U.S. military has been considerable; -- A number of security challenges inside Iraq also are related to significant regional and global threats; and -- A failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against al-Qaida, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iran influence. Since September, there has been "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq," Petraeus told the committee. Levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida and other extremists have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have grown, and there has been involvement of local Iraqis in security, he said. "Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable challenges remain," he said. "Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us, and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible." Several factors have contributed to the progress made in Iraq, Petraeus said. Iraq added more than 100,000 additional soldiers and police to its security forces ranks in 2007. Counterinsurgency operations across the country have pursued al-Qaida, fought criminals and extremists, fostered local reconciliation and enabled political and economic progress. The country also experienced a shift in attitude among the Iraqi population, he said. "Since the first Sunni 'awakening' in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected [al-Qaida in Iraq's] indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology," he said. "These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena." More than 91,000 Sons of Iraq local security volunteers are under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads, Petraeus said. These volunteers have helped to reduce violence and contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons caches, he said. The Sons of Iraq have been directly responsible for many lives and vehicles saved, and their value far outweighs the cost of the contracts to pay them, he said. "Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs," Petraeus said. "This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully." For nearly six months, security incidents in Iraq have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid 2005, Petraeus reported. Also, the level of civilian deaths has decreased to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. Deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence have fallen since September, and the number of high-profile attacks is far below what it was a year ago, the general said. While this progress is significant, al-Qaida is still capable of lethal attacks, and the coalition must maintain pressure on the organization and the resources that sustain it, Petraeus said. Defeating al-Qaida will require actions by elite counter-terrorist forces, major operations by coalition and Iraqi conventional forces, a sophisticated intelligence effort, political reconciliation, economic and social programs, information operations initiatives, diplomatic activity and many other actions, he said. Iraqi security forces have grown considerably and continued to develop since September, Petraeus said. More than 540,000 people now serve in the Iraqi forces, and half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under Iraqi provincial control. Additionally, Iraqi's training base has become more robust and is expected to generate another 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, he said. Coalition officials expect that Iraq will spend more than $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, he said, allowing the United States to reduce its Iraqi security forces fund for fiscal 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion. Recent operations in Basra, where Iraqi forces responded to a spike in violence by Shiia extremists, highlighted improvements in the Iraqi forces' ability to deploy units, supplies and replacements on very short notice, Petraeus said. However, they also underscored the considerable work still needed in the areas of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, cited Iraq's political gains in the past months. Iraq's parliament has formulated, debated and passed legislation dealing with issues of reconciliation and nation building, he said. The parliament has passed such important laws as a pension law, de-Baathification reform, a provincial powers law, and a vote to change the design of the Iraqi flag. Crocker also noted the gains made in Iraq's economy and in improving governance and services. The most obvious indicator of these gains has been the revival of marketplaces and long-shuttered businesses, he said. Iraq is now earning the financial resources it needs for reconstruction through oil production and export, and so the coalition's focus has shifted to capacity development through the provincial reconstruction teams, Crocker said. The 25 PRTs throughout Iraq have been working to improve provincial and local governance capabilities and to establish links between provincial and federal governments. "We are seeking to ensure that our assistance, in partnership with the Iraqis, leverages Iraq's own resources," Crocker said. Looking at the progress in the political and economic arenas, as well as the security gains, it is clear the strategy that began with the U.S. troop surge is working, Crocker said. However, it does not mean U.S. support should be open-ended, he said. In this vein, the United States and Iraq have begun negotiating a bilateral relationship that will include economic, political, diplomatic and security cooperation, he said. This relationship will be a legal framework for the presence of American troops in Iraq, but it will not establish permanent bases there and will not specify troop levels, Crocker said. "Our aim is to ensure that the next president arrives in office with a stable foundation upon which to base policy decisions, and that is precisely what this agreement will do," he said.

US-Iran Conflict Likely to Deepen
April 10, 2008 China Daily Gao Zugui (China Daily)
Iran has begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, defying the West which fears Teheran is trying to build nuclear bombs. As the Bush administration draws closer to the end of its tenure in office, the prospect of a US military strike against Iran is increasing, partly caused by the serious misjudgment of each other's strategies. The Bush administration, which calibrated its rhetoric about military strikes against Iran in recent months, is getting more agitated about the Iran issue.The administration considered Iran would be the biggest beneficiary of its toppling of the Saddam government in Iraq and had expected it to behave.However, contrary to its expectations, Iran, Washington alleges, has tried every means to enhance its influence in Iraq, therefore becoming the biggest obstacle to improving the security situation of that country.And the US is increasingly concerned about Iran's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Lebanon, Afghanistan and even in the Muslim world where Iran is seen as the leader of the Shi'ites.Such developments, undoubtedly, has set the stage for conflict between the two countries.And their misreading of each other's strategies may further escalate the conflict, possibly leading to war.Senior Iranian officials and strategists divide the world into two camps, a "dominating" group led by the US, and the other the "dominated" block comprised of developing countries.The dominating group, the US in particular, is in decline while the "dominated" block is emerging such as Iran and Venezuela, giving the latter an increasing relative advantage.The US, trapped in the Iraq quagmire and unlikely to pull out in short term, is in its weakest state, Iranian experts and strategists believe.Meanwhile, Britain, France and other world powers have their own vested interests in Iran, meaning that they would not fully support US sanctions against the country.And they even think that US needs Iran's cooperation in issues such as reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq.And Iran, taking advantage of the rift between the world powers and its cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency, is protracting the issue to gain time to research nuclear technology.It is also improving relations with Arab countries and enhancing ties with India and Venezuela to expand its regional and international influence, creating a favorable external environment to counter the US.Under such circumstances, the US, the Iranian strategists say, cannot impose effective sanctions against Iran and therefore a US military strike is definitely out of the question.They say that the Democrats, if they claim the White House this year, will adopt a different policy toward Iran.Guided by such thinking, Teheran continues to pursue a hostile and unyielding stance when dealing withWashington . However, in the US, where the Republicans view Iran as a realistic threat, the policy of the Democrats is not expected to be vastly different.For example, Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, who has advocated using diplomatic and political solutions to resolve the Iran issue, has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike.Such serious misjudgment of each other's strategies, coupled with the intensifying standoff between the two sides, can only add fuel to the tense situation and significantly increase the possibility of the US launching a military strike against Iran.Against this backdrop, the Bush administration, with its remaining days in office, has three strategic options to deal with Iran.First, Washington should try to reach a compromise with Teheran.Under such scenario, the US should acknowledge Iran as a big power in the Middle East region and embark on diplomatic talks with Teheran to resolve issues that are troubling both, such as the rebuilding of Iraq, and Iran's security.But this option, however, seems highly unlikely to be adopted given the reality on the ground.Second, the US could continue its seemingly strategic containment of Iran, a policy that has been followed in the past three decades.Currently, Washington's many policy initiatives seem to point this way. The US, for example, is committed to offering $30 billion in military aid to Israel from 2009 to 2018. And it is still trying to settle the Iran nuclear issue through a diplomatic and political framework.Third, the last resort is a military strike against Iran.Although the other two options seem more realistic and safer, they need time and patience to realize.But as diplomatic and political solutions to resolve the stand-off seems to be going nowhere, the possibility of a military attack is on the rise.And even if Washington is to fully adopt the containment policy, it may still resort to a military strike to debilitate Teheran's military power.The author is deputy director of the Institute of Security and Strategy under China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations The article first appeared in the journal Peace and Development.