In Karbala attacks, predictable suspects
First off, let me say clearly that the indications in the recent Karbala raid definitely shade towards the possibility of militants trained in Iran, but me saying it here, and the NYTimes headlining a story with it, when "Officials provided no direct evidence of a connection," are very different things.
Let's dig into the way the connection to Iran is made by the NYTimes. 4 suspects were detained after the raid.
So, the suspects have told investigators that the attack may be tied to Mahdi, but made no mention of Iran.
BUT, several Iraqi officials (surely not Sadr's Sciri rivals) have made allegations that Mahdi receives support from Iran. Therefore, in the NYTimes' representation, Iran ran this operation.
That's pretty slippery to run this storyline.
(Again, I certainly believe this is plausible, maybe even likely, but the facts aren't there to support this story the way it's written.)
Later: CNN is reporting "unnamed officials" saying, "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."
(For a "villain test," ask yourself this: Is there any other nation in the world against whom the press would reprint these allegations with no corroborating proof? The villainization is working.)
Later Still: Josh Marshall has a post talking about what the Iran/Gulf of Tonkin incident might look like.
And, "A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News."
It's building.....
Let's dig into the way the connection to Iran is made by the NYTimes. 4 suspects were detained after the raid.
The suspects have also told investigators that “a religious group in Najaf” was involved in the operation, the Iraqi said, in a clear reference to the Mahdi Army, the militia controlled by the breakaway Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr. If that information holds up, it would dovetail with assertions by several Iraqi officials that Iran is financing and training a small number of splinter groups from the Mahdi Army to carry out special operations and assassinations.
So, the suspects have told investigators that the attack may be tied to Mahdi, but made no mention of Iran.
BUT, several Iraqi officials (surely not Sadr's Sciri rivals) have made allegations that Mahdi receives support from Iran. Therefore, in the NYTimes' representation, Iran ran this operation.
That's pretty slippery to run this storyline.
(Again, I certainly believe this is plausible, maybe even likely, but the facts aren't there to support this story the way it's written.)
Later: CNN is reporting "unnamed officials" saying, "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."
(For a "villain test," ask yourself this: Is there any other nation in the world against whom the press would reprint these allegations with no corroborating proof? The villainization is working.)
Later Still: Josh Marshall has a post talking about what the Iran/Gulf of Tonkin incident might look like.
And, "A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News."
It's building.....
2 Comments:
Seems to me the "Army of Heaven" folks who were planning to raid Najaf and kill Sistani (or so we're told)make a nice fit with the Karbala raiders.
By Tom Gartner, at 11:23 PM
Or it could be Sunnis, or it could be Al Qaeda, or it could be a different Shia splinter group, or it could even be Hezbullah.
We don't know the evidence that is held, but on what's out there right now, it's a pretty big stretch to say Iran did it in the headline.
Mike
By mikevotes, at 8:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home