Iraq: The Pentagon has just extended the tour of 4,000 U.S. troops, expanding the total number in Iraq. But now the troops have a new, far tougher mission:
Instead of just putting down an insurgency, they also have to stop a civil war. Instead of fighting one amorphous enemy, they’re fighting many — jihadists, Shiite militias and often, even corrupt government forces themselves.
Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki told Congress that, if the U.S. loses in Iraq, it will be a monumental victory for worldwide terrorism, an event that could be tragic in its consequences.
What he failed to mention, however, is the corollary tragedy: Even if the U.S. prevails in Iraq, it could be a victory for Iran.
Reason: The U.S. has little more than a short-term alliance with the Shiite leaders of Iraq, based on convenience and expediency. In contrast, Iran has a long-term alliance with the Shiite leaders, based on decades of mutual suffering against Saddam ... long years of joint training exercises ... deeply shared religious beliefs ... and intimate contacts that continue to this very day.
Iran: When most Americans see the news of war between Lebanon and Israel, they still don’t make the connection to the looming conflict with Iran. But others do.
In Tehran this weekend, Iranian officials, former officials and analysts said a conflict with the West is now so likely they’re deathly afraid to even talk about it. Their interpretation: Israel’s war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is actually America’s first salvo in its coming war against Iran.
The view coming out of Washington this week is very similar, but in reverse: Hezbollah was created by Iran, financed by Iran and armed by Iran. Hezbollah is Iran’s front line. Ergo, Hezbollah’s incursion into Israel is Iran’s way of attacking the West.
Connect the dots, and you’ll see that, indirectly, Iran and U.S. are already at war.
