Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Democrat infighting and Iran's antics: Which will be a bigger factor?

These last few weeks, Senator John Mccain has had the opportunity to prove to voters that he is the best choice for president. Indeed, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been destroying one another in the civil war that is threatening to split the Democratic Apart, Mccain has been traveling overseas, pledging support to our allies, and actively raising money on the campaign trail. Recent Gallup Polls have placed Mccain several points ahead of both Obama and Clinton, especially on Iraq. All the while, he has been facing very little resistance as the left and the democratic party focus their fury on one another.

Still, there are outside forces that can threaten the outcome of the election more than Jeremiah Wright's tirades, Bill Richardson being labeled "Judas", and Bill Clinton being compared to Joseph McCarthy, all of which the democrats have inflicted on themselves with a ferocity that rivals the attacks on President Bush. There are far more threatening challenges out there, and one of them could very well be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the BBC:

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix

Isn't that just lovely? Once again, now that Iraq has set itself on the right track, Iran has decided that it does not like that idea. As disturbing as it is to suggest, Iran does have the ability to influence the US Presidential election by activating one, perhaps two, Mahdi Army splinter cells in places like Baghdad and southern Iraq. On Friday, the cease-fire declared by Muqtada Al-Sadr was threatened as Iraqi security forces and Shiite militiamen battle it out in the southern city of Basra. If you watch the morning news, you will likely get the impression that the fighting is nothing more than internal instability among Iraq's factions, which could be precisely what the Mullahs in Tehran and their surrogate fighters want.

The idea of a terrorist-state influencing who the leader of the free world will be is enough to unnerve any good American. But why would the Iranians want to do that? Well, for one thing, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for a withdrawal from Iraq and face-to-face meeting with Iran's leaders. They have also labeled Bush's policies as the main reason for Iran's actions across the Middle East, even though Iran has been destabilizing the region with a vast network of terror cells for decades, long before President Bush ever stepped into the Oval Office. With that, an Obama or Clinton administration with a perceived weakness on foreign policy would give Iran the opportunity to dominate the region and increase its standing on the world stage.

Replenishing a shortage of villains:

So what do the terrorists do when they're infrastructure has been destroyed and the people of Iraq have turned against them? Basically, they import some more terrorists, and Iran, Syria, and other countries export death to Iraq's cities. As I write this, I can't help but think of it as a hotline...1-800-Henchmen (remember, DieHard last year?). Well, I think that sums it up pretty good. It's almost humorous to picture Mookie Al-Sadr and the other insurgent groups getting on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his puppet masters in Tehran to order more thugs, criminals, and murderers over the border. The truth is, that might not be that far off from how it works.

The difference though, is that this is very real. It not only threatens the innocent people caught in the middle of this in Iraq and elsewhere, but the broader world as well. Unfortunately, America and our allies overseas are divided like never before, and the people who want to make the world a more dangerous place are working overtime to exploit that.


Average American said...

I think we may have invaded the wrong country first. Iran has been a thorn in our side for 30 years. Some day, once Iraq is a stabil democracy, the Iranian population will take matters into their own hands. I little help from special operations and ,voila, another democracy. A pie in the sky dream--yes--but not impossible.

C.H. said...

I agree with you,

I think that the best way for the Mad Mullahs in Tehran to be defeated is for the Iranian people to simply rise up against them. I recently read that 70% of Iran's population is made up of young people born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and many are looking for freedom.

Remember what happened in Iraq's Anbar Province, where the people rose up against AQ and routed them from the region?

Andy said...

In my opinion, Iran is the "head of the snake" and it must be confronted one way or another. I would prefer to see the Iranian people break Khamenei's reign of terror themselves, but the international community should leave all options on the table with this threat.