Al Qaeda threatens to wage war on Iran

[DeadCanDance]

One thing that's troubled me about neocons and Bush-fans, is the tendency they have to lump all muslims into one group. To create a false impression that we face one monolithic enemy.

For those who don't know already: Al Qaeda and its associated groups are an extremist sunni movement. Their blood enemies are the shia, and particularly the persians. The persians (shia) and the arabs (sunni) are blood enemies going back hundreds of years. The likelyhood of Iran actively supporting al qaeda is about the same as Hugo Chavez supporting George Bush. They are natural enemies.

A smart, clever president, who was able to recognize nuance in geopolitical world affairs might be able to exploit the differences between persian and arab. But, alas we have a president (and his supporters) who fail to recognize any nuance, and simply think that somehow Iran, al qaeda, and bin ladin are all part of the same group:

Al-Qaida leader in Iraq threatens Iran

Group will wage war unless Iran stops supporting Shiites

CAIRO, Egypt - The leader of an al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq within two months, according to an audiotape released Sunday.....

“We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you,” he said in the 50-minute audiotape. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19667464/from/RS.4/

 

[hjmick]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Exactly. Iran has common interest with us in fighting al qaeda. They are natural enemies of al qaeda.

A smart, clever president could use Iran the way FDR used the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. We don't have to like iran. We don't have to coddle them. But, we can use them. In fact, Iran was somewhat helpful to us when we attacked afghanistan in 2001.

 

[Superlative]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This has been the plan for a few weeks now.

And now that the Sunnis have the backing of the US, they feel they can threaten anyone.

A smart, clever president, who was able to recognize nuance in geopolitical world affairs might be able to exploit the differences between persian and arab

Bush does in fact know the difference. And he is exploiting the differences. Hence the funding of the Sunni's.


The US will leave, when the risks outweigh the rewards.
The reward being, US political control of the region, and its resources.

The risks, Lives and Money.

If and when the violence becomes too much of a risk, the US will retreat to bases, and escalate the training and arming of the Sunni's.(al Qaeda)

Sunni's (al Qaeda) will probably be dubbed something fantastic, like "Holy Warriors"

Iran will be coordinating training and funding and Shiite's.
All the while mumbling nuclear threats, which is ok, cause the US (No longer being spread out and tied down) will then have the availability of its full force to bring to bear if events call for it.

but there are other enemies

Iraq’s neighbor Turkey had massed 140,000 troops near his country’s northern border and urged it to resolve differences with dialogue, not through force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iraq.html?hp

The little al Qaedians (Sunni's) will have all the help they need and more from the US, and if theyre lucky, some Sunni buds from Saudi Arabia.

This is all necessary in order to maintain the consistant and ideal levels of contained, controlled chaos, (CCC Im trademarking that.)and to maximize sectarian blood shed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html

The US will just sit back, and watch while everyone explodes.

Sprinkling in some foregn aid, in the form of guns, rice and water.

The fight will rage on forever.

The US will stay a stones throw away in case there is a violent movement coordinated against Israel, other allies, or any other countries that house US military bases.

The US knows full well this occupation is a lost cause, and is doubly aware that it could, in actuality go on forever.

They remember the Afghanistan battle with Russia, they were the ones training and funding the little guys (Mujahadeen) then.

The warring factions in the region will never stop fighting, and this is key.

As long as the US funds the minority in the battle, in world view, it is politically acceptable.

And any cost will gladly be looked upon as a future political investment in the region.

The Shiite wont win, the US wont allow it, (its a nice way to fight and destabilize Iran without actually engaging them directly)

America will pour arms into that region until its nothing but a crater so deep you can dig for oil with a spoon.(then you can guess who gets the contracts to rebuild)

The US will (if necessary) instigate violent attacks if there are lulls in the battle.

This is important to remember.

Thats why they are funding the Sunni's (al Qaeda) and not the Shiite.(Iran)

Wearing down and destabilizing the powerful majority in the region is a solid tactic, and a good way for the US to avoid a battle with Iran in the future.

It wont end until events occur that call for the US to intervene, meaning the Sunni's gain the upper hand.

This Gives the US political gains, because the future Sunni representatives, will already be good buds with America.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=582835#post582835

 

[Toro]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Does that mean al-Qaeda is now America's friend? Or America's friend is Iran?

 

[dilloduck]

This has been the plan for a few weeks now.

And now that the Sunnis have the backing of the US, they feel they can threaten anyone.



Bush does in fact know the difference. And he is exploiting the differences. Hence the funding of the Sunni's.


The US will leave, when the risks outweigh the rewards.
The reward being, US political control of the region, and its resources.

The risks, Lives and Money.

If and when the violence becomes too much of a risk, the US will retreat to bases, and escalate the training and arming of the Sunni's.(al Qaeda)

Sunni's (al Qaeda) will probably be dubbed something fantastic, like "Holy Warriors"

Iran will be coordinating training and funding and Shiite's.
All the while mumbling nuclear threats, which is ok, cause the US (No longer being spread out and tied down) will then have the availability of its full force to bring to bear if events call for it.

but there are other enemies
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iraq.html?hp

The little al Qaedians (Sunni's) will have all the help they need and more from the US, and if theyre lucky, some Sunni buds from Saudi Arabia.

This is all necessary in order to maintain the consistant and ideal levels of contained, controlled chaos, (CCC Im trademarking that.)and to maximize sectarian blood shed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html

The US will just sit back, and watch while everyone explodes.

Sprinkling in some foregn aid, in the form of guns, rice and water.

The fight will rage on forever.

The US will stay a stones throw away in case there is a violent movement coordinated against Israel, other allies, or any other countries that house US military bases.

The US knows full well this occupation is a lost cause, and is doubly aware that it could, in actuality go on forever.

They remember the Afghanistan battle with Russia, they were the ones training and funding the little guys (Mujahadeen) then.

The warring factions in the region will never stop fighting, and this is key.

As long as the US funds the minority in the battle, in world view, it is politically acceptable.

And any cost will gladly be looked upon as a future political investment in the region.

The Shiite wont win, the US wont allow it, (its a nice way to fight and destabilize Iran without actually engaging them directly)

America will pour arms into that region until its nothing but a crater so deep you can dig for oil with a spoon.(then you can guess who gets the contracts to rebuild)

The US will (if necessary) instigate violent attacks if there are lulls in the battle.

This is important to remember.

Thats why they are funding the Sunni's (al Qaeda) and not the Shiite.(Iran)

Wearing down and destabilizing the powerful majority in the region is a solid tactic, and a good way for the US to avoid a battle with Iran in the future.

It wont end until events occur that call for the US to intervene, meaning the Sunni's gain the upper hand.

This Gives the US political gains, because the future Sunni representatives, will already be good buds with America.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=582835#post582835

A pretty good analysis except for the fact that you completely ignored the role of the Wahhabist ( Salafis )

 

[Superlative]

Does that mean al-Qaeda is now America's friend? Or America's friend is Iran?

Its confusing to say the least.

........To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

 

[hjmick]

Does that mean al-Qaeda is now America's friend? Or America's friend is Iran?

Or are al Qaeda and Iran friends? Or potential friends?

 

[dilloduck]

Its confusing to say the least.



http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

UNINTENDED ??? Is the author SURE that the ultimate goal here was not to face off with Iran?

 

[Superlative]

A pretty good analysis except for the fact that you completely ignored the role of the Wahhabist ( Salafis )

True, I guess I was lumping them in with Saudi Arabia. My bad.

 

[Superlative]

UNINTENDED ??? Is the author SURE that the ultimate goal here was not to face off with Iran?

Im sure the author can only assume the intentions of the government.

But the out come is still the same, US pulls back, and funds the Sunni's against Iran.

 

[dilloduck]

Im sure the author can only assume the intentions of the government.

But the out come is still the same, US pulls back, and funds the Sunni's against Iran.

There's no way that the US didn't know that attacking Iraq would eventually mean a showdown with Iran. Iraq was step 1.

 

[hjmick]

There's no way that the US didn't know that attacking Iraq would eventually mean a showdown with Iran. Iraq was step 1.

Step 1? Hell, as far as I'm concerned a state of war with Iran has existed since November 4, 1979. Despite the signing of the Algiers Accords, which strongly favored the Iranians and did little to nothing to address the violation of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Tehran, save freeing the hostages.

 

[DeadCanDance]

There's no way that the US didn't know that attacking Iraq would eventually mean a showdown with Iran. Iraq was step 1.

Great plan Bush! Remove the one secular arab dictator powerful enough to stand up to Iran, turn his country into a seething caldron dominated by iranian-influenced shia militias, and weaken and degrade the US Army making it less capable of taking on iran.

That's our Bush!

 

[dilloduck]

Great plan Bush! Remove the one secular arab dictator powerful enough to stand up to Iran, turn his country into a seething caldron dominated by iranian-influenced shia militias, and weaken and degrade the US Army making it less capable of taking on iran.

That's our Bush!

We're not talking about a stalemate anymore. Iran is the ultimate terrorist state and ultimate target.

 

[Superlative]

We're not talking about a stalemate anymore. Iran is the ultimate terrorist state and ultimate target.

Who's ultimate target exactly?

And why are there far less things expoloding there, if they are the "ultimate terrorist state"?

 

[dilloduck]

Who's ultimate target exactly?

And why are there far less things expoloding there, if they are the "ultimate terrorist state"?

It should be the worlds' target.

Because they train em, arm them, finance them and ship them all over the world---Why would they be so stupid as to blow up their own country ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

One thing that's troubled me about neocons and Bush-fans, is the tendency they have to lump all muslims into one group. To create a false impression that we face one monolithic enemy.

For those who don't know already: Al Qaeda and its associated groups are an extremist sunni movement. Their blood enemies are the shia, and particularly the persians. The persians (shia) and the arabs (sunni) are blood enemies going back hundreds of years. The likelyhood of Iran actively supporting al qaeda is about the same as Hugo Chavez supporting George Bush. They are natural enemies.

A smart, clever president, who was able to recognize nuance in geopolitical world affairs might be able to exploit the differences between persian and arab. But, alas we have a president (and his supporters) who fail to recognize any nuance, and simply think that somehow Iran, al qaeda, and bin ladin are all part of the same group:

So from a purely pragmatic perspective, Bush Co. should embrace Iran as an ally in the 'war on terruh', rather like they did with Pakistan. But you're correct, no one in the Bush administration is capable of appreciating the nuance. Their vision is far too narrow.

 

[CSM]

So from a purely pragmatic perspective, Bush Co. should embrace Iran as an ally in the 'war on terruh', rather like they did with Pakistan. But you're correct, no one in the Bush administration is capable of appreciating the nuance. Their vision is far too narrow.

Obviously, Bush cannot embrace Iran as an ally. You would then accuse him and the administration of propping up a terrorist state.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Obviously, Bush cannot embrace Iran as an ally. You would then accuse him and the administration of propping up a terrorist state.

Incorrect.

Iran was of some assistance to us, in our attack on the sunni extremist Taliban in afghanistan. The persian shia, and the sunni extremists are natural enemies, as I said. I don't recall anybody saying bush should have turned down iranian assistance. I was quite glad for it actually. In a prudent and realpolitik way, it serves our interests. And it serves theirs too - they are oppossed to sunni arab extremism too.