And Iran, Iran so far away

In recent days there have been signs there might be an effort underway to prepare a foundation for possible action against Iran at some point in the future. Whether this action is military, economic, or diplomatic remains to be seen.

Iran is a charter member of the Axis of Evil. A hallmark of President Bush's policy since 9/11 is to wage a global war against terrorists, and Iran sits at the heart of the terror world. There will be no lasting success in the Global War on Terror unless Iran's support for terrorism is dismantled.

(By Iran's support, I mean the support from the regime in power in Iran. Much of the population in Iran yearns to be free, but they are kept in thrall by brutal tactics.)

However, very little has been done directly in confronting Iran. Military action is problematic, because the US military is stretched so thin in Iraq. Units are on their second and third deployments. Guard and reserve units are overtaxed. Non-combat units find themselves filling combat roles. The US cannot undertake a major military campaign in Iran at this time.

Now, with word that troop drawdowns are being contemplated in Iraq next year, perhaps the Bush Administration is starting to send signals to Iran that those troops might visit Iran, since they're already in the neighborhood.

(Intel Dump looks here at the usefulness of having bases in the region as part of the effort to confront Iran.)

What are those signals?

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Bush said "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

These were not idle words. President Bush is well aware of the awful mistake his father made, when he indicated support would be forthcoming for the Shiites in early 1991 if they rebelled against Saddam. The Shiites rebelled, and US forces sat by and watched Saddam's goons slaughter the Shiites. President Bush surely would not want to make a similarly empty promise.

Recently there have been two reports of Iranian weapons being intercepted coming into Iraq. One shipment was intercepted by American forces, the other in British-controlled territory.

In fact, in the first story, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld revealed that Iranian arms have been found in Iraq on more than one occasion in recent months.

Why are we hearing about this now? Because this is one way to put pressure on a nation. By publicly stating 'we know what you're doing, Iran, and you know that we know', the US is putting down a stake in the sand, one everybody can see, and implying action might be taken if Iranian opposition continues.

In the Guardian article, there is this hilarious statement. "Iran has repeatedly denied any involvement in the insurgency or party politics in Iraq."

This is an utter, bald-faced lie. Iran has been deeply involved in Iraq. The invaluable Michael Ledeen has written about this (see here and here).

But why tell the lie? Who is the intended audience? Not the US government and military. Iran knows these entities are well aware of Iran's involvement in Iran.

No, the lie is said to give cover to the pathetic diplomatic negotiations between Europe and Iran, negotiations that feckless Europeans want to undertake in an effort to get Iran to stall its drive for nuclear weapons. Iran goes along with this diplunacy, and drags its feet, in an effort to buy time. By at least publicly appearing to be a good citizen next door to Iraq, the Iranian regime allows European diplomats to say look, we can work with Iran here. And all the while Iran's nuclear arms program continues. Tick tick tick.

Time magazine had a recent article on Iran's meddling in Iraq. It is a must read. The article recounts detailed plans Iran has made as far back as 2002 to affect events in Iraq.

(Hat tip to the valuable RegimeChangeIran blog.)

The article says some information in the article came from "a U.S. military-intelligence document obtained by Time". An interesting question is just how did this document come to be in the possession of Time. Was it leaked to Time, as part of an effort to ramp up the pressure against Iran?

Also, Time spoke to "a senior U.S. officer", and "military intelligence officers". Just how did these sources come to be available to Time? Were they deliberately allowed to speak to Time?

There's more. On August 12, President Bush said that "all options are on the table", if Iran doesn't bow to pressure and halt their nuclear program. Again, such phrases aren't used carelessly.

At an August 9 DoD press briefing, Rumsfeld said, about weapons coming into Iraq from Iran, "ultimately, it's a problem for Iran". Also, he said troop drawdowns could depend on whether Iran is "going to be helpful or unhelpful".

Again, pointed words to put Iran on notice. It matters what is said in public, because it indicates what you are willing to commit to. I hope much stronger things are being said in private, in tony salons in Washington, New York, and across Europe. But, in diplomacy words mean things, and public utterances are instructive.

However, there is a danger in this. The biggest club in the galaxy does you no good if everybody knows you will never use it.

Iran has been committing acts of war against the United States since 1979. Then, revolutionaries took our embassy, held hostage our diplomats and citizens for 444 days, and we did very little about it. (Never mind President Carter's failed mission with 8 helicopters.) What kind of message did that send? What kind of country allows its people to be held like this, with no response?

The message is: we're weak and vulnerable.

(Have you ever wondered why the Soviet embassy wasn't attacked? Perhaps because Iran saw signs of Russia's resolve, and their preparations for an invasion of Afghanistan, which would come a month later?)

And indeed, in 1983, Iran, through its client agent Hezbollah, blew up 241 of our Marines in Beirut.. This was not President Reagan's finest hour. America's response was to withdraw from Lebanon. What kind of message did that send? What kind of country allows its soldiers to be murdered like this, with no response?

The message is: we're weak and vulnerable.

Iran was involved in the attack on the Khobar Towers in 1996, an attack that killed 19 Air Force personnel.

While covert action was taken, another message was sent. The United States will not act publicly and militarily against Iran in response to these acts of war.

There are other examples of Iran's involvement in terrorism. Iran is named in the Axis of Evil for a reason.

President Bush and the United States government have now put a lot of chips on the table. If Iran calls our hand, will we respond with force? At this point, we have to. Over the past 25 years, we've already given Iran, and Al Qaeda, too many reasons to think we won't stand up to them. We cannot capitulate in this war against the terrorists. They will not stop. They have stated, explicitly, they want us dead. When will we believe them?

-----
The Fourth Rail has no illusions about Iran's nature.
The Belmont Club correctly worries that the anti-war Left may have already made it impossible for the US to use military force against Iran.
Austin Bay points out a defensive capability is also useful.
Captain's Quarters looks at the inept European diplomatic effort.
Michael Ledeen has another excellent piece on Iran.
Hugh Hewitt links to a warning that things can get even worse in Iran.
The Counterterrorism Blog points out Iran is gathering its allies.
Michelle Malkin links to an article about the recent rocket attack on a US Navy ship. One wonders if Iranian weapons were used. (HT: Terrorism Unveiled)
Austin Bay links to a Strategy Page article that also wonders if Iranian weapons were involved.
California Conservative looks at diplomatic options.
Dan Darling has more excellent work, this one on Iran's involvement with Al Qaeda.