Ordinarily, I fight shy of the risky business of making predictions.
But now, in this space, I am ready to make a prediction about President Bush's State of the Union speech tonight, with what Mark Twain called the calm confidence of a Christian holding four aces.
Here it is: President Bush will not provide the American people with any evidence for his claim that Iran is behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.
National Security Adviser Steven Hadley today dodged the question today of whether President Bush would provide any evidence, saying "that issue has already been pretty well framed."
A Los Angeles Times report today suggests a more straightforward explanation.
He doesn't have any.
In his speech outlining the (supposedly) new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies," Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller report. But the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement.
The article notes that in addition to the lack of evidence, some of the claims of U.S. officials are disputed by private analysts and even other U.S. officials, such as the claim that the government of Iran is backing Sunni insurgents who are responsible for most attacks on U.S. forces.
"Few doubt that Iran is seeking to extend its influence in Iraq. But the groups in Iraq that have received the most Iranian support are not those that have led attacks against U.S. forces. Instead, they are nominal U.S. allies." ...
"Some U.S. officials have also suggested that Iran, a Shiite theocracy, has provided aid to the Sunni insurgents, who have led most of the attacks against U.S. forces. Private analysts and other U.S. officials doubt that... State Department and intelligence officials have privately expressed doubts that Iranians are helping Sunnis... Sunni insurgents in Diyala don't appear to need outside suppliers... Outside military analysts have questioned how many of these sorts of weapons actually come from Iran. The technology used to make them is simple and widely known in the Middle East, they note."
Pretty damning, eh? But actually, this kind of understates the case. The claim that Iran is supporting Sunni insurgents is highly implausible on its face. Sunni "insurgents" are slaughtering Shiites. The Iranian government sees itself as a protector of the Shiite community in Iraq. Why would it arm the enemies of those it claims to want to protect?
This would be like someone claiming that the U.S. government is supporting militias somewhere that are slaughtering Christians. It's not impossible. Stranger things have happened, and you could come up with a story. But the evidence threshold would be very, very high. And anyone who knows anything about Iran and Iraq knows that the evidence threshold for this is very, very high. Which is why, if they don't provide any evidence for this claim, one is led, by Occam's Razor, to a very simple explanation.
They are lying.
- Mark Weisbrot and Robert Naiman
Ask your Representative to Co-Sponsor the DeFazio and Jones "Iran War Powers" Resolutions Representative DeFazio (D) and Representive Jones (R) have introduced resolutions re-affirming that President Bush cannot attack Iran without Congressional authorization. So far 37 Members of Congress are on at least one of these resolutions. Ask your Representative to support them. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/warpowers.html
No comments:
Post a Comment