Action - Reaction

The Washington Post is reporting that US forces have been authorized to capture or kill Iranian agents found operating inside Iraq. There is the usual cacophony of "unnamed" intelligence, defense and State Department who are "concerned" or "Skeptical" about the policy. But I have one question:

Why didn't we start sooner?

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

The presence of any Iranian agents offering any technical or military aid to the insurgents is an act of war. Period. I realize there are risks to a strategy like this. What are the risk of letting foreign military agents operate against us with impunity? I submit that they are unacceptably high. (The policy does not apply to diplomats or civilians.)

I noticed a couple of days ago that there were a number of media reports saying there was "scant" evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq. The stories I saw then listed the actual physical evidence that had been found. Scant does not mean none. Even a little evidence where there should not be any is a bad thing. My son tells me that the troops know - with certainty - when an arms shipment has arrived from Iran.

Iran is pushing very, very hard right now because the United States is showing enormous internal political disarray. We cannot allow them to operate freely against our troops in Iraq.

Other Links to this Post

1. Blogs of War — Friday, 26 January , 2007 @ 10:03 am

2. The Coffeespy » It’s All About Iran — Friday, 26 January , 2007 @ 10:49 am

3. Wake up America> — Friday, 26 January , 2007 @ 11:20 am