Jim Devine wrote:
Robert Scott Gassler wrote:
Since when did Bush listen to intelligence?
if the NYT and others of the "multilateralist" wing of the capitalist
foreign policy establishment trumpet this report enough, maybe it
will allow the Condi Rice faction more power in inside-the-Bushway
debates.
I strongly suspect that the release of the report simply follows
developments that have been unfolding for some time:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraqiran1dec01,0,1911301.story?coll=la-home-center
In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran
Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed
to talk. It could be each side needs the other.
By Tina Susman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
BAGHDAD — Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely
displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and
insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases.
Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed
doubtful at best.
In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military
and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from
sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating
massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have
agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over
security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.
The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had
been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them
had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their
release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.
When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It
said only that they no longer posed a threat.
Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change,
including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation
that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that
better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.
"I do think that the military and civilian leadership in Washington has
by and large come to the realization that it's going to be impossible to
stabilize Iraq without Iran's positive contribution or cooperation,"
said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington.
Iraq also has served both Iran and the U.S. as a proxy battlefield for
their dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, and it may serve both sides
now in tamping down the tensions.
Washington hard-liners have suggested that military force be used
against Iran over its refusal to drop its nuclear enrichment program,
and linking Iran to the violence in Iraq could bolster their case for
military action. Analysts say the U.S. shift reflects the increased
assertiveness of more moderate military and civilian forces concerned
about a possible backlash from Iran at a time when the U.S. military is
badly stretched. Meanwhile, analysts say Iran may be looking for ways to
avoid more international sanctions against its nuclear program.
Decline in attacks
Since October, when attacks on American forces in Iraq dropped
dramatically over previous months, U.S. commanders have been
acknowledging that Tehran appears to be keeping a promise made to Iraq's
government to control arms smuggling over the border. They are far from
lavishing praise on the Iranian leadership, but their comments are a
turnabout from the Iran-bashing of previous months.
The change has been echoed in the senior military leadership,
particularly by the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm.
Michael G. Mullen, and the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East,
Navy Adm. William J. Fallon.
Both four-star admirals have given interviews in recent weeks in which
they downplayed suggestions that the United States was preparing to
strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Their comments were noteworthy
because they came at the same time the White House, particularly Vice
President Dick Cheney, had been delivering bellicose warnings against
Tehran.
In an interview Nov. 12 with the Financial Times, Fallon described such
rhetoric as "not particularly helpful."
Mullen has been more circumspect in public, but Pentagon officials
familiar with his thinking say he is concerned about provoking extremist
elements within the Iranian regime, which could make things worse in Iraq.
"You're just expanding the violence in the region instead of controlling
it, essentially opening another front in the war," one military officer
said, describing Mullen's thinking.
The military still remains wary of Iran's involvement in Iraq. Last
Saturday, a military spokesman, Navy Rear Adm. Greg Smith, alleged that
rogue militiamen backed by Iran were responsible for a market bombing in
Baghdad a day earlier that killed as many as 15 people.
But Smith emphasized that he was not blaming Iran's government for the
market blast. Rather, he said that people arrested in connection with it
were members of a cell historically backed by Iranian elements.
At a Baghdad briefing Nov. 15, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Simmons told
reporters there was no recent evidence that the roadside bombs that
caused most American deaths were still crossing Iran's border.
"We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians
have made appear to be holding up," he said.
The change followed a subtle altering in past months of U.S. attitudes
toward another Iraqi figure with links to Iran, anti-U.S. Shiite Muslim
cleric Muqtada Sadr. American military leaders have given Sadr tacit
praise for reining in his Mahdi Army militia since February, when an
additional 28,500 U.S. forces began arriving in Iraq to try to quell the
violence.
U.S. officials had long accused Sadr's militia of enjoying Iranian
support. Lately, they have said most Sadr loyalists are adhering to a
cease-fire the cleric called in August and say only rogue elements
operating out of Sadr's control are causing problems.
Analysts say the changes are the most hopeful signs of improved
U.S.-Iranian relations since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 and
reflect a realization in Washington that both Iran and Sadr are powerful
presences here to stay.
Sadjadpour and others say the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld has helped alter attitudes in the Pentagon. A senior Pentagon
official suggested that Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, was
seeking to moderate public rhetoric after concluding that a strike on
Iranian nuclear sites could be counterproductive.
Gates has not publicly echoed the comments of Mullen and Fallon. But
unlike Rumsfeld, who was frequently accused of muzzling senior military
leaders, he has not rebuked them for their softer tone on Iran, a signal
he is sympathetic to their stance.
Akin to earlier tack
Gary Sick, an aide to President Carter during the 1979 Iranian
revolution and U.S. hostage crisis, compared the turnaround to the U.S.
military's decision early this year to recruit former insurgents and
their supporters into the Iraqi security forces, rather than try to
eliminate them. The campaign is credited with greatly reducing violence
in many parts of the country.
"The bottom line is, saying these people are enemies and we have to kill
them is not a solution to our problems," said Sick, now a researcher at
Columbia University.
There also is the possibility that the standoff over Iran's nuclear
enrichment program has had the unintended result of forcing the two
sides to deal more civilly with each other.
Tehran denies the U.S. allegations that it has meddled in Iraq and says
such accusations are designed to build support for an American strike on
its nuclear enrichment facilities.
Despite Iran's public show of defiance, though, Sick said he believed it
had been badly jolted by two sanctions resolutions passed this year by
the U.N. Security Council over the nuclear issue. The United States is
pushing for a third resolution.
"They found those very troublesome and want to avoid another round,"
Sick said of the sanctions, which have affected Iranian officials'
assets, freedom to travel and the country's ability to obtain technology
and funds for its nuclear program. "It could . . . mean that they are
interested in working out a more reasonable relationship with the United
States in Iraq."
At the same time, the United States has to accept that Russia and China
will keep trying to block further sanctions, said Sadjadpour. That has
reminded Washington that Iran is a force to be reckoned with, either on
nuclear or Iraqi issues, he said.
Both agreed that Iran wanted to bolster its image in Iraq and the region
to heighten its influence not just among Shiites, but among all Muslims.
It could start by convincing the United States it is not sowing trouble
in Iraq.
Whether Washington will ever be convinced is impossible to say, they
said, but there are hints it is more open to persuasion than before.
"I'm very, very cautiously optimistic," Sick said. "I think we've all
been wrong enough times, but there are some interesting, tantalizing
signs that maybe something is going on that could lead to change."
