War in the Shadows?
There's been plenty of evidence in recent months that the US and Iran are fighting a covert war in Iraq -- or, more correctly, the US has decided to fight back against the Iranians, who have been waging a war against us there since 2003.
(And overall since 1979, but that's another story.)
Consider this: since an overall reassessment last summer and fall of US policy toward Iran in Iraq, we have imposed sanctions against a major Iranian bank, hurting their finances, moved a second carrier to the Persian Gulf in a show of force, and captured five of their spies diplomats in a raid in Irbil. In an act widely believed to be retaliation, terrorists wearing Iraqi Army uniforms and speaking English managed to penetrate several layers of security at the town hall in Karbala, where they captured and murdered five US soldiers. Most bets are that these were operatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
This more muscular US policy came after it was decided that efforts to restrain Iran by showing self-restraint were to avail. Consequently, the Administration changed the rules of engagement to allow the military to be more aggressive in disrupting Iranian networks in Iraq.
With that background, the kidnapping yesterday of the second secretary of the Iranian Embassy to Iraq in Baghdad takes on added significance. According to the ABC report, the men were wearing the uniforms of an Iraqi Special Operations unit -- one that works closely with the US. Surprise, surprise, the Americans have denied any US or official Iraqi involvement. Just what we would expect them to say.
Stratfor, however, in a newsletter to subscribers (free subscription here), looks at the possibility and seems to believe this was a US operation:
It is important to note that Sharafi's position at the embassy is the kind of diplomatic posting that frequently would be a cover for intelligence operatives. So if he were an Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security operative of some importance, kidnapping him would disrupt Iranian operations as the U.S. security offensive in Baghdad gets under way. Second, the United States has been very public in saying it intends to become more aggressive toward Iranian covert operations as part of its effort to bring pressure against Tehran. U.S. intelligence has substantially ramped up the collection of information on Iran -- a move that would serve whether the goal was to actually attack Iran, plan negotiations or just try to figure out the mind of Tehran. The snatch of a second secretary would fit into this effort.
This is not the first incident of this kind. In January, U.S. forces arrested five officials from an Iranian diplomatic office in Arbil, a northern city, and have been holding them ever since -- a maneuver that fits with the Bush administration's strategy of demonstrating that Washington has the ability to weaken the Iranian position in Iraq. In an act of apparent retaliation, Shiite militants attacked the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in the southern city of Karbala on Jan. 20, and after a 20-minute gunbattle, abducted five U.S. soldiers, who later were killed. The operatives spoke English, had U.S. military uniforms and identification cards and arrived in armored white GMC suburbans. Using their English-language skills, the gunmen were able to arm themselves at a local police station and then penetrate multiple layers of security before opening fire on a U.S. civil affairs team.
Stratfor also speculates that it was an independent Sunni job, but I disagree: my money's on it being another small battle in the clandestine war being fought between Tehran and Washington. The timing and fit with US interests is too good.
Of course, the Iranians likely will feel obliged to retaliate. That could mean kidnappings of US personnel or even more assassinations. Their goal is to dominate the region from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and backing down in the face of our new aggressive posture would make that goal much more difficult to reach.
The hope of the new American campaign, however, is to create doubt on the part of the Iranians, that doubt leading them to back off in Iraq. Conventional wisdom had US resolve weakening, especially in the wake of the Republicans' disastrous losses in 2006, but President Bush has often put his popularity a distant second behind doing what he thinks is right. This may well be one of those moments, in which case Iran has to gauge carefully just how hot they want to make this "Shadow War."
LINKS: Jules Crittenden wonders if the US has decided to play hardball. Ed Morrissey speculates that it may really have been a rogue IA unit, and later notes that Iran isn't exactly denying its role in Iraq. Power Line doubts that it was us, taking the "gloomy conservative" stance. They may be right. Michael Ledeen laments our dithering over whether to tell Americans what we know about Iranian interference in Iraq. Finally, Tigerhawk laughs at Iranian outrage and says we should give Sharafi back in 444 days.
Recent Comments