The Cheney-ites play their card. From the NYT …
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.
The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity under rules set by his agency, and discussed Iranâs role in response to questions from a reporter.
The interview occurred at a time of intense debate over whether the United States should enlist Iranâs help in stabilizing Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, directed by James A. Baker III, a former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic lawmaker, is expected to call for direct talks with Tehran.
The claim about Hezbollahâs role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.
Is it true? Is Hezbollah training the Mahdi Army? I have no idea. And regrettably, under current management, the fact that senior intelligence officials or senior administration officials say it, really doesn’t mean much one way or another. It certainly wouldn’t be particularly shocking if one radical Shia para-military (actually not that ‘para’) backed by Iran had ties to Iraqi Shia in the south who also have close ties to Iran.
Everybody’s enemy’s enemy is a friend. We do know the Israelis are knee-deep in Iraqi Kurdistan, right?
The truth or falsity of this new intel from the same sources of the reliably bogus intel of recent years, though, seems of secondary interest to the debate that’s getting set up. It’s a recipe and the argument for staying in Iraq permanently. We can’t get out because getting out means coming to an accomodation with Iran and Syria who’ve already been meddling in Iraq.
If we’re trying to overthrow the Iranian government — which we’ve said we are — is it greatly surprising that they’re either having or allowing their proxies to help train the Iraqi militia which is helping pin us down in Iraq?
That doesn’t mean it’s good or bad, only that it’s hardly unexpected. And it brings us back to the key question: what’s our goal in Iraq. Not what it may or may not have been three years ago. But what is it right now? Is being in Iraq making us more or less secure? Do we want to stay there indefinitely or do we want to began the process of leaving in such a way as to leave as stable and safe a situation as possible? Those are the key questions. Letting a purported connection between Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army drive our thinking is just another way of saying we want to stay forever because if we don’t Iran will have won.
The Times quotes former NSC official Flynt Leverett saying: âThat sound to me a little bit strained. I have a hard time thinking it is a really significant piece of what we are seeing play out on the ground with the various Shiite militia forces.â
I think he has it just right.
