Declining Jaafari

Sistani, Talabani and Sunni parties call for an end to the political deadlock for the selection of the Iraqi Prime Minister

Pressure on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to withdraw his nomination as the United Iraqi Alliance candidate as the next prime minister increases, this time from some very influential quarters. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most respected and influential Shiite religious leader in Iraq, has reluctantly entered the fray. This indicates the gravity of the situation, as Sistani does not wish to become the arbiter of Iraqi politics. Kirk Sowell reports:

…Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has shifted ground and is advising (read: instructing) Iraq’s largest party, the United Iraqi Alliance, to make unspecified concessions to the Sunnis in order to break the political gridlock and help form a government of national unity. The statement was issued through Abdul Mahdi al-Karbala’i, a key Sistani representative. The appeal was supported by Sadr al-Din al-Qabanji, the Imam of the Hussein Fatimid Mosque in Najaf, who urged Shia leaders to heed Sistani’s call forthwith. Although unspecified, this probably means that PM-nominee Ibrahim Jaafari should be replaced by someone more acceptable to the Sunnis. Most ominously for the UIA, Sistani warned that he might withdraw his support for the coalition if its factions failed to agree to concessions necessary for a unity government. [emphasis mine]

Further calls for Jaafari’s resignation come from outside the UIA. President Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Kurdish alliance, has “informed a committee from the Alliance that the Kurdish bloc’s decision to reject Jaafari was final,” and, according to Reuters, “I think the majority of other groups, or all the other groups, are rejecting Dr Jaafari as prime minister.”

Adnan Pachachi, a senior member of Ayad Allawi’s secular Iraqi National Accord and one-time candidate for president, has also called for a break in the stalemate; “”The Iraqi people are impatiently waiting for this issue to be resolved. When the parliament convenes it will be possible to start the steps to form a national unity government.”

TheAssociated Press reports the Sunnis have openly lined up against Jaafari; “‘We are still upholding our previous positions. We have reservations against al-Jaafari and we told them to let us know if they name new candidates,’ said Naseer al-Ani of the Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front.”

Previously, the calls for Jaafari’s resignation came from different factions within the UIA, including SCIRI’s AbdulMahdi and Jalal al-Deen al-Saghir, Mohammed Ismail Khazali of the Fadhila party, and independent UIA member Kasim Daoud. Now that Sistani has openly withdrawn support, Jaafari’s time is short. Jaafari’s Dawa party must decide if it will support him to the bitter end, in defiance of Sistani’s council and the united factions outside the UIA. Will Jaafari and Sadr stand against Iraq?

Sadr must decide if it will bring the Mahdi Army to the streets of Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala and force a showdown with the U.S. Army and Marines, and the Iraqi Security Forces. Iranian plans to gain influence via Jaafari and Sadr are close to being in shambles. The real questions are will Iran risk an open confrontation with the Coalition and Iraqi government by backing an open insurrection by supporting Sadr’s Mahdi Army and elements of the Badr Brigades said to be under their control, and will they risk losing their most influential and powerful pieces on the Iraqi chess board?

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

57 Comments

  • ECH says:

    Its crunch time for Iraq the next few weeks will determine its future for years to come.

  • Colin says:

    Well, since no one else has started the comments, I’ll get the ball rolling.
    Bill, what do you think would happen if all of the groups in the UIA publicly turned on Jaafari, yet Dawa and the Sadrists still supported them? Do you think the Mahdi army would take to the streets? If every other bloc had turned against Jaafari and the Sadrists still took to the streets, do you think that would provide enough justification to take out, disarm, whatever needs to be done to defang the militas while maintaining the backing of the general public?

  • diane says:

    OK, you were second to comment. The questions are still interesting.
    There are other possibilities. A quick capitulation could be a deliberate attempt to undercut the justification to take Sadr out. Do Jafaari and Sadr understand judo?

  • ECH says:

    I am worried Sadr will do something stupid like sending men to kill Sistani and try to blame it on Sunnis.

  • Colin says:

    If he did something like that and failed, he would essentially be slitting his own throat. Some ham-fisted attempt to shift blame to the sunnis would do no good to save him. He will have signed his own death warrant.

  • hamidreza says:

    Now that Sistani has publicly sided away from the Iranian hardliner supported factions, another options becomes available to the Coalition. There is much evidence of Iranian infiltration of Islamist militia in Iraq. There is also lots of evidence of Iran supplying IEDs and carbombs (both to insurgents in Iraq and in Afghanistan – note that in the past month, many IEDs and carbombs used in Afghanistan are closer to the Iranian border, and farther away from Taliban controlled areas of Pakistan).
    US could make a strong propaganda case against Iranian hardliner’s military, political and financial meddling in Iraq. This would culminate with US surgical airstrikes inside Iran along the Iraqi border, against hardliner IRGC (Pasdaran Revolutionary Guards) bases, al-Qaeda safehouses and IED factories. This could put Iranian hardliners on notice, and strengthen the hand of their enemies and rivals inside Iran. If the IRGC is made to suffer abject humiliation inside Iran, and have to re-establish themselves in the border areas amongst the hostile minority population, it could possibly result in the reduction of their activities in Iraq, as they now have to spend their resources defending themselves.
    If this causes insurrection by the Mahdi Army, then that would be a good pretext to arrest all of Sadr’s parliamentarians, to be replaced by Sistani people, and this would clear the logjam in Baghdad.

  • hamidreza says:

    ECH, I have been worrying about the security of Sistani as well. Debka File claims that Sistani was smuggled out of Najaf and is in hiding. I would not be surprised. There is no question that Sadr and Mahdi’s #1 priority is to eliminate Sistani and blame the Americans for that.
    The irony is that Sistani cannot receive direct personal protection from the Coalition without losing face to his Ummat. As soon as there is settlement on the political equation in Baghdad, Sadr should be picked up and a huge propaganda campaign against him should be initiated. I wonder if Iraqi intelligence service is up to the task.

  • Christine says:

    These people (Iranian hardliner supported factions) have a choice, move into the modern world, learn how to negotiate and listen to the will of the people or get out of the way in whatever manner they choose (death?).

  • Marlin says:

    An update on the situation from the AP.
    ——————–
    Shiite politicians failed Monday to persuade Sunni Arabs and Kurds to soften their opposition to a second term for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, leaving the Shiites with little choice but to replace him if they want to break the deadlock on a new government.
    But al-Jaafari’s supporters within the Shiite alliance showed no sign of backing down. Representatives of the seven parties within the alliance planned to meet Tuesday to discuss the standoff, which has blocked formation of a government of national unity.
    “For the alliance to make a change, it needs to have the support of five of the seven blocs within it,” said Salam al-Maliki, an al-Jaafari supporter. “This is impossible to secure.”
    AP: Iraq Sunnis Reaffirm Opposition to PM

  • Rob says:

    This development sounds positive. Iranian influence and money are being blocked. This may be the very best outcome. The gamble of leaving Sadr alive and open to having Iraqis reject him through the political process may pay off. God bless the American military which has fought so well to bring us to this point.
    Now the question goes to whether to have a little or a big military confrontation with Iran. Same reasoning, do you want to slap the Iranian elements that funded Sadr around a little militarily and leave it to the Iranians themselves to deal with the nutcase mullas who control their country or do you wait and hit harder and get a better shot at the nuclear research sites and factories.

  • tblubrd says:

    While I agree that Sistani’s move will help break the logjam, it is a little disconcerting. The new government will now be heavy on the non-secular orientation. Sistani’s involvement only makes the new government look weaker by not choosing a PM based on political discussion and debates. Now a religious leader has to step in to cure the problem, although it seems that there will at least be movement now. Perhaps Sistani does see the future influence of Iran as a danger (that would be optimistic). More realistic would be that he sees infighting with Sadr as more dangerous than Iran, for now.

  • Tom W. says:

    Don’t forget that Sistani belongs to a Shia sect that frowns on clerics serving as politicians. Bill points out Sistani’s reluctance to get involved, which bodes well for him backing out again once the deadlock is broken.
    Sistani also made pronouncements before the last election to the effect that the Sunnis are “your family” and must not be kept out of the political process.
    And if we have to fight the Mahdi Army, it’ll be a bloodbath–for the Mahdi Army. We now have several capable ISF units to storm the mosques and other “holy sites” for us, and in the past three years our troops have learned more about urban fighting than they had in the past three decades.
    Despite all the bluster, terrorists of all stripes in Iraq know how lethal our troops are.
    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060327.aspx

  • RyanLuke says:

    Iran losing influence? Wait a minute. If Dawa does not supply the prime minister, who will? Iranian trained and armed SCIRI is quite likely. That outcome would not be a failure for Iranian policy, but a victory. SCIRI has closer ties to Iran than Dawa, right?

    In addition, those who rule Iraq from the Green Zone may have some power, but at this point it seems that the fate of Iraq is more likely to be decided on the streets than in the national halls of power.

    It actually seems to me that al-Sadr represents a position that the Americans might do well to support. Of course he is not ideal for them, but the most important thing is that he supports Iraqi unity and has some connection across the Shi’ite-Sunni divide.

    Of course, his ties to Iran are not a positive from the American perspective, but Iran has heavy influence in Iraq. Perhaps it would be better to acknowledge and deal with it publically than to try to squash it and risk it blowing up in your face…

  • TallDave says:

    Sistani, whatta guy.
    Hard to believe there are guys like him around.

  • Len says:

    article by George Packer on the US counter-insurgency campaign:
    http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2

  • I don’t know why it is taking the English-language media to pick up on this, but just now Al-Hayat is reporting that Sadr has decided to compromise, and the UIA is now openly searching for an alternative to Jaafari. Specifically, the article quotes the Sadrists as saying that they will drop support for Jaafari if there is consensus in the UIA for another candidate.

    For Arabic readers, this is the article:
    Proposal… The Sadr Faction and the UIA Begins Looking for a Replacement

  • Bill Roggio says:

    Curse or insult each other in the comments, and they will be deleted. I’m not going to waste my time sending emails about this any more. Read the comments policy and email me if there are any questions.

  • Susan says:

    “There is much evidence of Iranian infiltration of Islamist militia in Iraq.”
    no there isn’t – there’s no concrete evidence of that.

  • Susan says:

    “These people (Iranian hardliner supported factions) have a choice, move into the modern world, learn how to negotiate and listen to the will of the people or get out of the way in whatever manner they choose (death?).”
    The current government in Iran was elected by majority, and the elections were certainly freer and fairer than Iraq elections – no one had to risk their lives to vote.

  • Susan says:

    “The gamble of leaving Sadr alive and open to having Iraqis reject him through the political process may pay off.”
    Millions of Iraqis will not reject him and killing him off would be murder.

  • dj elliott says:

    Susan
    1. We have not lost the war yet. Inspite of the prime enemy’s (MSM/anti-war fanatics) best efforts.
    2. North Korea would not fight for Iran. China would not put up with North Korea getting radical.
    3. Syria may be Iran’s official ally but, they don’t have enough to handle Israel. Watch them suddenly abandon Iran in that scenario.
    4. Iran would be difficult but do-able. Unconventional warfare would be the primary difficulty.
    Casualties would be heavy but not significantly so (I.E., less than the three days at Gettysburg).
    Economically, watch gas prices skyrocket while SoH is closed (until the mines are cleared and the IRN, IRGN and IRAF are destroyed.).
    5. If France can threaten Iran with Nukes, why not US?
    I can see a situation where the nuke powers agreed on a Nuke option against Iran.
    For one, SoH closure would be significantly shorter and (if done right) Iranian colateral damage would be no worse than Tamojin’s last visit.
    USN Retired

  • Susan says:

    “But the very fact that such a respected leader Sistani has spoke out against Jaafar is wonderful sign for the Iraqi people to move ahead!
    At least that is the way I read this!”
    You would be reading it wrong.
    bet you got the WMDs thing wrong too!

  • Indigo Red says:

    If whatever happens is not in Sadr’s interests, the Mehdi Army will again take to the streets in another showdown with the US military. We can live with Sistani as he tends to stay away from day-to-day politics. However, Sadr has to go.

  • Susan says:

    kinda funny to see someone respond to a post that was deleted…. supposedly because of CUSS words…
    (I consider war to be obscene myself.)
    So, here it is again with different words:
    Okay, we have played it safe for so long so as not to step on any toes and “Oh My” hurt the process of a peaceful republic for Iraq.”
    what a crock of baloney…. the USA has been trying to manipulate the process every step of the way, and has consistently made it worse, because they don’t know what they are doing.
    “IT IS TIME TO QUIT BEING SO D*** SOFT. This is a W**.”
    are you suggesting we drop some more bombs, kill some more innocents, ANGER some more Iraqi off and grow the insurgency here? That’s what it sounds like.
    “A w** that we want to win, right?”
    It is a w** the USA lost in August 2003. The only remaining question is how many get killed before we leave.
    “That we have to win. Well, put aside The “Well, we might make these people mad or those people mad” and get IT DONE. As for Iran and SCIRI, what’s the matter? We are quiting the games with them…they are in serious trouble with us and better be concerned about where they live.
    Be like Nike and Just Do IT!”
    If the US bombs or invades Iran, the whole world will be in deep, deep, deep TROUBLE that we will not see the end of for years and years. It will make what happened in Iraq look like a church picnic. The Iranians, unlike the Iraqis who had 12 years of economic sanctions and endless weapons inspectors to make sure they didn’t have any WMDs, are strong and capable of creaming our military in the Middle East. Yep, we could nuke them…. but then North Korea might decide to nuke Seattle.
    Don’t go playing all innocent and outraged if that comes to pass.

  • Susan says:

    Do you think the media won World W** 2?
    Just wondering how far your delusions go….
    “If France can threaten Iran with Nukes, why not US?”
    ah, it would be stupid beyond belief??

  • Susan says:

    “Iran would be difficult but do-able.”
    and the Iraq war is going to last a few months at most (per pre-invasion comments)

  • dj elliott says:

    Susan:
    Why? What facts (vice beliefs) are behind your statements?
    This is from someone who has done Nuclear Targeteering and knows how and what would be required to take Iran down…

  • Susan says:

    Hey, one pre-invasion comment that the w**mongerers got right:
    Iraq will pay for it’s own reconstruction.
    Yeap, and that will happen in 2012. But at least they got something right.

  • blert says:

    Here’s a link inre loose security in Afghanistan:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-disks10apr10,0,7789909.story?coll=la-home-headlines
    If true in Afghanistan, perhaps true in Baghdad.

  • hamidreza says:

    Susan writes: “The current government in Iran was elected by majority, and the elections were certainly freer and fairer than Iraq elections – no one had to risk their lives to vote.”
    Factually this is nonsense. Iranian presidential elections are a scam. Only approved and vetted candidates can run for this office, which is symbolic to begin with. Thus the ballot contains only selected names, and seculars and opposition figures who may take the risk of identifying themselves as a candidate are filtered early on.
    Then the campaign period is 2 weeks, and no rallies, speeches, programs, or debates that question the theocratic dictatorship is allowed. There are NO FREE or INDEPENDENT newspapers to report on the campaign. The race becomes a friendly rivalry between two factions of the same regime.
    Everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, or boycotts the vote. When Rafsanjani, a regime insider was leading, the hardline security faction who was controlling the balloting manged to rig their own friendly election to get their “death squad” Ahmadinejad on top.
    And you call this freer than Iraq with 2,000 candidates and 200 free newspapers and a lively campagn season?

  • dj elliott says:

    Susan:
    “War is politics by other means.”
    Or to put it more bluntly,
    political extortion on a international level. It is ugly but, sometimes necessary.
    We have been at war with Iraq since 1990. I was deployed there enough times, over the last two decades (+), for operations that the press ignored and that I doubt you have even heard of. This is finally ending it.
    As to the press, propaganda has always been a component of warfare because, (unless you go genocidal) war is about imposing ones will on another. It is more phycological than anything.
    Iran is working on a nuke and its president has threatened to use it on a US ally. That puts a Nuclear Ordinance Response or Preemption on the table. Iran picked the weapon. Not US.
    As for WWII, I probably have studied it more than you have. Both professionaly and out of curiousity. My degree in in History.
    As an example, how many KIAs in the three months it took to break out of Normandy verses three years of Iraq? On both sides? Was it worth it?
    I will give you a hint: US lost more to freindly-fire during that time than we have lost total(including accidents) in Iraq.
    By what definition have we lost in Iraq?
    You lose when you give up or die.
    It is obvious that you have not lost yet.
    You are still fighting against war and ignoring all to the contrary.

  • blert says:

    Additional oil production from Iraq is the cutting blade to Iran: one displaces the other.
    Getting Iraqi oil production up and rolling is essential to resolving both Iraq and Iran.
    Bush & Co have been too slow to establish the new Iraqi Army, the new Iraqi government, to destroy Saddam’s munitions and now to get oil production rolling.

  • hamidreza says:

    Susan writes: “Millions of Iraqis will not reject him and killing him off would be murder.”
    What rubbish. The supposedly “millions” who support Sadr are just a small fraction of the totality of Iraq. And just because 1 million ignorant illiterates support him, does not make him good for Iraq or the Middle East, neither does it make him decent.
    And in his last call for demonstration, only 2,500 people bothered to show up to support Mookie Sadr.
    Finally, Sadr is responsible for torture murdering at least 200 dissident Iraqis in Najaf, during his 2004 occupation. He also killed Hojjat. Khoi. Not only he is charged with murder, but killing Sadr would certainly be fair and would meet the approval of most Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and seculars.
    And BTW stop the trolling and the typical Islamofascist polemics. Since you prefer a murderous Talibanate run by Sadr, then why don’t you tell us what is so dandy about that.

  • hamidreza says:

    Susan writes: “are you suggesting we drop some more bombs, kill some more innocents, ANGER some more Iraqi off and grow the insurgency here? ”
    95% or more of the killings in Iraq is by IIslamists and fascists that TARGET innocent Iraqis, or the lawful security forces. Lets see you shed a selective alligator tear for these innocents. Read the statistics and educate yourself on the facts of Iraq. Start here: http://www.icasualties.org. Islamist killings are now running at the rate of 1,300 per month.
    If the US were to leave, the civil war will begin in earnest, and you will see, based on existing statistics, hundreds of thousands of people getting killed by the Islamists and Muhammedans.

  • ECH says:

    We have done a really poor job at building the Iraqi Security Forces. They have just started really getting humvees and they still aren’t as well armed as the insurgents (and this is coming from the soldiers themselves).
    The DoD has since the war ended had a paralizing fear of a strong Iraqi Army. They were origionally going for the Japan model with hardly any military. Then by slowly they realized we needed something, but still to this day they are paranoid of a strong Army when they should be paranoid of the militia.
    We are setting our goal to build a 130,000 man Army and that half the number I believe Iraq should have. And, we should be rebuilding the Iraqi Air Force to do their own bombings so the US isn’t going to be blamed for the next decade for Iraqi deaths. Of course I know why the DoD doesn’t want a real Iraqi Air Force and aren’t giving the Iraqi Army nearly enough like Artillery. That is because the DoD doesn’t trust the Iraq Army.

  • dj elliott says:

    ECH:
    So far this is what I have id’d received or destine for the IA/IP. The AP report of receipt of humvees in Anbar province is one month after first receipt was announced (1st and 7th IA Divs). Takes time to produce and deliver weapons.
    – Ground Equipment: 77x T72 (HU); 50+x T55 (salvage); 148+x BMP1 (HU & salvage); 57+x MTLB (salvage); 4x VT55 (HU); 573x Akrep/Scorpion (100 Delivered in 2005; rest in 2006); 43x ASV-150/XM-1117; 72x Shorland APC/ISV; ?x BRDM (salvage); ?x M1151 (unk number in service); 713x M1114 (Recept by end-jul); 170x M113; 100x Spartan; 600x DZIK3 (received 44 in 2005; delivery thru 2007); 100x 4×4 Reva APC (receipt?); 44x Panhard M3; ?x Panhard VCR (salvage); 115x BTR80; 50x BTR94; ?x BTR60 (salvage); 20x Fuchs; ?x armed pickups; 1200+x 2.5 & 5 ton Trucks (for MTRs).
    – Aircraft: 16x UH1; 20+x W3 Sokol (received?); 34x MI17 (received 10x Feb 06/rest by Jun 07); 4x Bell 206; 2x C-130B; 3x C-130E; 16x CH-2000; 2x SB7L-360; 7x Comp Air-7SL.

  • peterb says:

    Nuking Iran would be ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Attacks in Iraq would go up fivefold that day (80% of Shiite men would get involved). Hezbollah would begin launching all of their arsenal at Israel. The terror threat to the United States would increase by 10,000%. Every single islamic country would start developing nuclear weapons of their own. It also would be absolutely wrong and a crime against humanity. I doubt Russia will like it too much if nukes are flying that close to their borders. If anyone here seriously thinks this would be a good idea, they need to have their head examined.

  • mark says:

    peterb,
    maybe you should stop taking fools like Seymour Hersh so seriously,

  • peterb says:

    Lisa:
    I think Iran has a program but I believe most of the analysts when they say it’s about 5 years away from having a weapon. I think we have time to wait. I don’t think we have to jump into something crazy. We have time to think about this. Plus, there’s also the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and it also applies to Iran. Even if Iran got a nuke, using it would result in the complete destruction of their nation. Are you worried about North Korea launching? I’m not. Because I know if they do, North Korea won’t exist anymore and their leaders are interested in self-preservation.

  • Matt M says:

    “There is much evidence of Iranian infiltration of Islamist militia in Iraq.”
    “no there isn’t – there’s no concrete evidence of that.”
    Um, Susan, I hate to break this to you, but uh, there have been numerous articles and a few books written about Iran’s infiltration into Iraq since shortly before we invaded in March ’03. Take a deep breath and try a cursory Google search. Shouldn’t be too hard to find.

  • peterb says:

    Lisa:
    I totally agree. Very serious thought has to be put into this. I totally think the nuclear option should be taken off the table too. Nobody should even be talking like that. There has to be a way to do it conventionally if it is done. In Iraq, we erred on the side of taking action. Given what happened in Iraq, I think this time we would err on the side of doing nothing and only act if it becomes absolutely necessary. And I don’t think we can just assume that the Iranian government are all irrational fanatics. At least some of them and probably most of them are rational, calculated and do not want to die and will not launch a weapon for the reason of self-preservation.

  • dj elliott says:

    The fact that all of US have to live with.
    So long as Iran has and threatens to use WMDs,
    USE OF NUKES IS ON THE TABLE.
    WMDs are defined under US policy as Chemical, Biological and radilogical. Since we signed away Chem and Bio weapons by treaty, US policy is to retaliate in kind with Nukes. Nuke tiped bunker busters have been around since before the fall of Soviet Union.
    Iran and Iraq used Chemical weapons on each other in their 8 year war. A war that cost an estimated 1 million KIA and was ignored by the US. An Iranian mine clearing tactic in that war was to march 14 year olds thru the mines to detonate them. Against a regime radical enough to use those tactics, ALL WEAPONS ARE ON THE TABLE.
    To those who say there is no such plan. I was always tought two rules about plans in my 22 years in the Navy:
    “1. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
    2. There is always a plan, see rule 1.”

  • dj elliott says:

    By the way.
    Just because they share a religion, does not mean they are hardcore allies.
    Who do you think manned the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq war? (60% shia population in Iraq.)
    Iran is Persian.
    Iraq is Arab.
    That fight pre-dates Islam.

  • Michael says:

    DJ, Hamidreza, thanks for putting Susan’s talking points to rest.
    “The current government in Iran was elected by majority, and the elections were certainly freer and fairer than Iraq elections – no one had to risk their lives to vote.”
    Either Susan is completely ignorant of Iran, or she’s a schill. Maybe Susan is not aware of the brutality, the hangings, the hands cut off, of the honor killings, the death of women without rights and no voice that occur daily in Iran. Or she does not care about innocents who die by the hands of the Supreme Council. It is easy in a free society to point fingers. In Iran, you would have no fingers left to point, nor a blog, or a paper, or TV to complain openly to without being reported for your words against the Theocracy.
    The Mullah regime(Supreme Council) control every single part of society. The elections are a sideshow, handpicked puppets by the Mullah’s.
    Maybe Susan is not aware of the reporter who tried to get the truth out of Iran not long ago who was tortured and killed by Iranian thugs? Maybe she’s not aware of those suffering in prison now?
    Maybe Susan is not aware of thousands killed around the world by Iran’s sponsoship as financier, or its agents and assassins including but not limited to Argentina, Beirut, Saudi Arabia’s Khobar towers. The dead add up in Europe for any opposed to them, just like Saddam.
    Iran since the day it was born of Khomeini has but one goal – kill Satan(that would be us Susan fyi) and to remove Israel from the map. Their President stated so for every single person to hear. Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad lets us know openly his plans with even more bravado. We can ignore it, like we did Hitler prior to WWII – that caused millions more deaths than necessary, or we can face it head on now.
    Anyone with any shred of knowledge of history knows that to delay the inevitible gives the enemy time to build its resources. Currently, they are fighting us in Iraq along with Syria, Hezbullah, Sadr’s militia’s and their own agents. A meeting between Sadr, Hezbullah leaders, Syria and Iranian Presidents gave us conclusive evidence of direct collusion of our enemies.
    Russia by putting nuke sites into Iran knew what they were doing, this would cause a showdown. The question is now will they be helpful or harmful to our cause in Iran.
    I was at Louisiana Tech when US hostages were taken in Iran. Two groups of Iranian’s formed against each other on campus and fought each other with knives, bats anything they could get. Hundreds were there being educated in latest technology for engineering. Many on scholarships by “our terrible nation”. Those who fought for Khomeini, many now regret his ruthless rule, the death of thousands.
    Thousands have disappeared without a trace now since those fateful days. Like Iraq, I suspect we will find out of the true horror by wives, children, survivors. We only see a little now as reporters are not free to roam without minders and are intimidated, or in some cases imprisoned, tortured, put to death.
    Statements such as Susan’s are extremely sad. Iranian’s suffer daily under a corrupt regime responsible for untold death, torture and destruction to many people, inside and out of Iran.
    This too will come into the light of day. And it cannot come fast enough for those being oppressed.

  • mark says:

    peterb,
    you entire premise is wrong. the reason this is all so serious is dangerious is because these people in Iran currently running things are NOT rational and do NOT care about their lives…how can you not understand this yet act like you are knowledgeable on the subject? if they were rational people then none of this would even be an issue, i suggest you do a little research into what people like ahmadinijead or whatever his name is believe in, as well as the 12th imam,
    its scary and its real, and its perverted for people like you to blame the people who recognize the evil instead of the people who are the evil

  • peterb,
    “I think Iran has a program but I believe most of the analysts when they say it’s about 5 years away from having a weapon.”
    From the Ground Breaking Ceremony of the Oakridge Uranium Enrichment facility in 1942 to Hiroshima was 30 months.
    It took the Soviet Union from 1945 until 1949 to build its first atom bomb – 4 years

  • peterb says:

    Mark:
    From what I know about Iran from study and speaking to Iranians, the leadership is not as devout and religious as everyone thinks. They smuggle in alcohol and drugs in order to keep their populations occupied with other things. Tehran has one of the worst drug addiction problems in the world. The talks about religion, the mahdi, etc. are mainly to keep their people in line. It’s my understanding that a lot of it is meant to fool the masses and keep the mullahs in power. Ahmadinejad himself may not be rational but there are rational people behind him that hold levers of power. In addition to this, these are not the only people with power. There are predominant crime families and non-religious groups that hold a lot of sway in the country behind the scenes and are interested in self-preservation. When in doubt, always assume your enemies are rational. Throughout history, very few leaders have proven to be irrational. A great majority have been rational and interested in self-preservation.

  • peterb says:

    Even at the stage they are at today, it is at least 3 years away according to experts if everything goes perfectly and probably more like 5-6 under normal circumstances. Nobody is 100% sure that it is not for peaceful purposes. I think it’s for weapons but I can’t be totally sure it isn’t a bluff like Iraq’s WMD. We can’t have another rush to war. I supported the last one because I believed Iraq had WMD but I don’t think I will support this one. It’s far too dangerous.

  • Susan says:

    “We have been at war with Iraq since 1990. I was deployed there enough times, over the last two decades (+), for operations that the press ignored and that I doubt you have even heard of. This is finally ending it.”
    it is? how come it keeps getting worse and worse?
    “As to the press, propaganda has always been a component of warfare because, (unless you go genocidal) war is about imposing ones will on another. It is more phycological than anything.”
    ok, I don’t know what phycological is… never heard of it.
    “Iran is working on a nuke and its president has threatened to use it on a US ally. That puts a Nuclear Ordinance Response or Preemption on the table. Iran picked the weapon. Not US.”
    well, actually the US did sell Iran some nuclear weapons plans.. with some errors in them…. they thought that would throw the Iranians off, but the guy who handed the plans over tipped them off, since he felt he would get killed if he didn’t. Iran is not working on a nuke right now, but the steps they are taking could lead there sometime in the future… like five years down the road.
    But, even if they have a nuke, they still would not be as dangerous as Pakistan with nukes… and that, my dears, is a “done deal”.
    Only the earthquake emergency stopped Pakistan from buying the F-16s that Bush wanted to see them…. I know we have a long history of arming our future enemies, but that is beyond ridiculous to sell F-16s to a country with nukes where the population hates our guts.

  • Susan says:

    Susan writes: “are you suggesting we drop some more bombs, kill some more innocents, ANGER some more Iraqi off and grow the insurgency here? ”
    “95% or more of the killings in Iraq is by IIslamists and fascists that TARGET innocent Iraqis, or the lawful security forces. Lets see you shed a selective alligator tear for these innocents. Read the statistics and educate yourself on the facts of Iraq. Start here: http://www.icasualties.org. Islamist killings are now running at the rate of 1,300 per month.”
    Interesting that you should mention Iraq Coalition Casualties website, since I am friends with one of the guys who runs that website. He would say that you need to educate yourself on what is really going on in Iraq and WHO started it all.
    He is definately anti-Iraq war and pro-military.
    If you follow the news, not just the silly propaganda coming from the DoD, then you would know that the Americans there are killing plenty of civilians every day.

  • Susan says:

    “but still to this day they are paranoid of a strong Army when they should be paranoid of the militia.”
    They should be paranoid of both, since both groups will try to kill them. But then, the USA has a long history of arming and funding our future enemies, like Saddam and bin Laden…. and today: Pakistan!
    The Iraqi army will turn on the US troops if we don’t get them out of there. Just a matter of time.

  • Susan says:

    in regards to Bush:
    “I respect him but it would be nice for him to get the answers correct for a change!”
    yeah, like not starting optional wars for totally bogus reasons…. but why do you respect him? Hey, did you know that all wars start with lies?
    “We cannot create world peace here.”
    I would say a lot of posters here are seeing things that they want to see (just like the majority of Americans did prior to the invasion of Iraq) and are promoting WAR above all else as an option. This is truly obscene, not some words that people use.
    By the way someone said “I can’t be totally sure it isn’t a bluff like Iraq’s WMD”. I would like to point out that Saddam clearly came out before the war and stated that he had no WMDs. He did it live on Channel 4 TV in Britain. This is not “bluffing” it is TELLING THE TRUTH SINCE THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ. But anyone with half a brain could have told you that back in 2002. It was easy to figure that one out. Here’s what else is easy to figure out: Bombing Iran will lead us all into a world of hurt beyond your wildest nightmare. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. Don’t get caught overseas (if you are American) if that happens.
    “Statements such as Susan’s are extremely sad. Iranian’s suffer daily under a corrupt regime responsible for untold death, torture and destruction to many people, inside and out of Iran.”
    Iraq is suffering far, far worse than Iran is suffering in the last three years. And Iraq is suffering far, far worse today than they did under Saddam. They did not have political freedom there, but they could at least live their lives. Today, they cannot do even that. I think you are nuts to still believe that we can bomb people into freedom. Look how well it is all working out in Iraq, for crying out loud! How much evidence do you need?
    Freedom and democracy has to come from within, it cannot be imposed by bullets and bombs from outside. And even then, a country is far, far, far better off if it pursues freedom via non-violent means…. which I think is the heart of the reason that Canada is so much less violent than the USA. Both countries are independent of Great Britain today, one just took longer and one had lots of violence.
    Amazing how many Americans swallow that “this was necessary” in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    finally,
    “the reason this is all so serious is dangerious is because these people in Iran currently running things are NOT rational and do NOT care about their lives…”
    and the only way you would know that is because our media and US government has told you so… just like they told you that Iraq was a threat, had WMDs, Zarqawi is a big bad terrorist in Iraq (you did get the memo saying that was a US psych-ops thingy, right?) and loads of other true blue nonsense that has a very stinky smell.
    of course, you can dig up some ex-pats from Iran who will also say this, and maybe (unlike Chalabi) they will even believe it.
    You know, I would support the USA invading other countries or bombing other countries if only 100% of the collateral damage were your loved ones ONLY. You would still feel it was ‘worth it’, even if a huge number of your friends and family were killed, right?

  • dj elliott says:

    Susan
    So your argument is that since the situation has gone wrong in one place we should allow it to go wrong elsewhere?
    India’s and Pakistan’s NUKEs scare me because, I think they do not have good control over them.
    F-16s are not practical delivery systems for PKs nukes, the Chinese ballistic missiles they have are.
    Principle target: India.
    I could have swore that, the US Democracy was formed from a war against England. Name me a democracy that has been formed without a war. I only know of one and it was a country of warriors…
    Wars kill. They are inherently ugly. But, it takes two to agree and trust for peace to exist. Saddam lied so often that I do not think he could remember what the truth was. You are arguing that we should have trusted him?
    Think about how much distrust you have toward those who oppose your position. Would you make peace and trust your enemies with your family’s life. That is what you propose.
    As to my spelling, until Bill puts a spell check here, you will have to suffer. I think you know what word I was trying to spell.
    “Peace is a hypothetical situation that is deduced from the pauses in warfare.” (Usually due to weather.)

  • Mike E says:

    Susan said “there were no WMD in Iraq”.
    She should read this:
    Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
    By Christopher Hitchens
    http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/
    Hitchens by the way is quite liberal.
    Also the war was not only about WMD, it was about fundamentally changing the Middle East by introducing democracy.

  • Tim Solan says:

    Since US intelligence was mistaken about actual WMD in Iraq, this justifies in her mind that everything else coming from the Bush administration must be a lie/propaganda. Her hate and rage is affecting her judgment.
    Here is a list of some of Susan’s outrageous statements.
    “Hey, did you know that all wars start with lies?”

Iraq

Islamic state

Syria

Aqap

Al shabaab

Boko Haram

Isis