After I stopped and took a step back from the Administration's unsupported claims that Iran is purposely aiding insurgent groups in killing US troops, it dawned on me: it should come as no shock at all that Iran is involved in the Iraqi civil war. Going forward, I will be unsurprised if and when the Administration actually finds solid evidence of this fact. It's a simple question of rational and justified self-interest. Let me spin you a comparative tale to help put us in Iran's shoes for this.
Imagine it's the height of the Cold War again. It's the 1970s. But we're in an alternate world. In this World, a moderate Communist government took power in Canada. In this World, the US is weaker and is itself the subject of a Soviet strategy of containment, rather than the reverse. The US did not develop atomic weapons this time. Though Canada had only loose ties to the USSR, and never took direct action against the US, relations between Canada and the US were very sour. Canada was kicked out of NATO, NORAD and the G7 during the McCarthy years and relations had never improved.
Also, Canada had been ruled by a dictatorial Francophone who hated Anglophones (English). His government gave all the best jobs to French-speakers and treated English Canadians largely with contempt. A revolt in Ontario in the 1960s was put down harshly and many Anglophones were killed indiscriminately by the mostly Francophone military. His views on America were similarly poor due to the largely WASP ancestry of the US, and there were even occasional incidents of gunfire on the great lakes between the Canadian and US navies.
Naturally, as a Communist state, Canada was not nearly so prosperous and stable as it is in our world. However, over time, Canada had begun normalizing diplomatic relations with France, due to the colonial and ethnic links which Canada had not totally forgotten. This upset the USSR, which tried to bully Canada routinely.
Finally, things came to a head when Canada refused to allow the USSR to locate missiles in the far north or allow Soviet ships to dock in its harbours for resupply. Using Pravda to kick up a propoganda campaign against Canada and Canadians, the Soviets constructed a case for war based on a minor firefight that had taken place over some disputed islands in the arctic ocean. Further, the Soviets claimed that the reason Canada had not allowed Soviet missiles, was because they had already accepted British missiles, aimed at Moscow. Naturally, this was absurd and was the result of a generally ignorant view of the European west, and ignored that Canada's Francophone leader hated the English, and would never accept British missiles on his soil. But to the Soviets, one European was the same as the next, and few in the Soviet government could tell the difference between a Francophone and Anglophone.
Over the top of the globe, the Red Army invaded. Canada stood little chance against them, and Ottawa was captured within weeks. With the Francophone dictator deposed, Anglophones at first rejoiced. Later though, they quickly came to resent the Soviet occupation. Naturally, no British missiles were found. Having profound cultural differences, the Canadians both English and French began separate resistance movements to Soviet occupation. Additionally, the loss of the oppressive French government had freed the Anglophones to begin reprisals against them. Being the majority, they had begun agitating for a greater share of the pie in the new Canada. Francophones naturally felt entitled to their entitlements, and actually didn't believe they were the minority, as the leader's government had always told the population that Francophones were the majority by cooking the census public figures.
Canada is a huge country, and with the Cold war very hot, the Soviets had spread their forces quite thin to try and keep control of it, while maintaining other force commitments abroad. Slowly, violence began to grow, and though at first it was primarily aimed at Soviet troops, over time the Francophones who had maintained a great deal of the former military's arms (because all the top Generals had been French, and most of the equipment cached in Quebec), began striking at the English. They began to try and ethnically cleanse Montreal. West Montreal's english population felt increasingly embattled. A counter resistance in solidarity started in Toronto. Francophone communities in eastern and Northern Ontario found themselves the target of violence. The country was falling into Civil War.
I think that covers all the essential elements of the Iraq war, and turns Canada into Iraq, the USSR into the US, and the US into Iran.
Now in this scenario, as the US, what kinds of things do you think are likely to happen?
- Many US civilians will be very sympathetic to the plight of their fellow British descendants in Canada. They have watched them suffer over the years under the horrible French monster.
- Given it's weak position to the USSR, America really doesn't need to have a disintegrated Canada on its northern front. The French dictator was bad enough, but at least he kept a lid on things. Given #1, American authorities are keenly aware that support groups for Canadians have formed in the US.
- France will naturally have some of the same inclinations towards the Francophone Canadians, and wealthy French citizens will donate money towards their groups to help fund their insurgency.
- Given their adversarial relationship, the US will be glad to see the Soviets bleed in Canada, but not so much that Canada becomes a thorn in their side. However, the US government knows the military supremacy of the Soviets is not something they want to provoke too much. Though the Soviets are overcommitted and probably couldn't mount an invasion of the US,
So in this scenario, is it likely the US government and citizenry would be actively involved at various levels helping insurgency groups in Canada? Of course. It is necessarily the case that the US would be funding Canadian terrorists with the aim of killing Soviet troops? Would that be a wise policy?
My answer is no, but that doesn't mean the US wouldn't want to get involved, or wouldn't feel they have to. Knowing large portions of the US population already feel solidarity with factions within Canada, having Canada degenerate into open civil war could be disastrous for the US. Already the limited French speaking areas of the US in Vermont and New Orleans have seen limited violence.
So when the Administration finds their smoking gun of Iranian involvement in Iraq, don't confuse that for causus belli. I can't say for sure Iran is not funding anti-US forces in Iraq, but I can say for sure they have sane and logical realist foreign and domestic policy reasons to be there. Can we really expect a sovereign nation to stand idly by while its neighbour disintegrates? Unfortunately, since Bush refuses to talk with the Iranians despite their overtures, we have no way of assessing their intentions realistically. My view is that Iran, while not a "good" country or a beacon of anything, is also not a belligerent country. Iran has never attacked anyone (openly, let's leave Israel out of this for now). Largely, Iran has only acted as a self-interested state, with no megalomaniacal tendencies. Iran is not trying to resurrect the Caliphate, and mostly is just trying to keep its theocratic regime in charge of an increasingly reform minded and increasingly secular population.
Thus far, the Administration has nothing but their own claims to support the case for war or strikes on Iran. In that sense, we've gotten "lucky" that so far they haven't managed to find any solid proof to show us. But they might capture an Iranian military officer in Iraq, or some such. This type of evidence will prove only what I assert above, Iran is just trying to protect its own interests and prevent Iraq's disintegration.