And the Iraqi government is allied with Iran. The statement calling the Iranian Army terrorists opened our eyes to the fact that we are not "going" to war with Iran, but already are in a war with Iran. The war in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran.
Military from Iraq, say openly, "the real problem is Iran". Does this suggest that perhaps the Administration is right, that we should bomb Iran? No. Our proxy war in no way benefits America and we enter a war with Iran with no exit strategy, an incredibly weakened army and dependent on an Iranian ally, the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki. The August 19th edition of the Chicago Tribune Alireza Jafarzadeh writes, in this article
On the surface, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Tehran on Aug. 8 to talk with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was another effort to enlist Iran's help in bringing security to Iraq. The real purpose, however, was quite different. Al-Maliki's trip helped smooth the way for the Iranian clerics to install a sister Islamic republic in Iraq.
Of course, Alireza Jafarzadeh (he has been the spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran) may just be a neo-con shill. Obviously, the unstated goals of this article is undermining Al-Maliki (the chosen goat for the failed "Surge") and to pump up support for a war with Iran (nothing like killing two birds with one stone). But the question is what he saying untrue? I believe that much of this article and this administration's rhetoric about Iran actually has a large degree of truth.
Does this mean that we should attack Iran? Of course not, but by baiting us to equate the exaggerated Iraq claims with the new claims about Iran, the neo-con right can attempt to discredit us. In this manner anti-war critics can be seen as untrustworthy both about Iran and Iraq and the neo-cons can push forward on the true intention of war with Iran.
The fact of the matter is that Iran is not a good place. Their president is a nut, they support terrorism, and they are attempting to get WMDs. In fact the argument against war with Iran, must be made on its merits. Iran is a country with 3 times the population of Iraq and is a country 4 times the size. The impression is that a war with Iran would be as "easy" as the initial invasion of Iraq. This is patently false. What happens when Iran with the support of the elected government in Iraq marches into Iraq after we bomb them? This is not a war we can win with out total commitment (think draft and WWII type resourcing).
Just as with Iraq it is important to not just get caught up in dismissing the rhetoric (i.e "it's Al-Maliki's fault", "if only we did not have a provisional government", "we should not have disbanded the army"), but it is important to focus on the fact that this was not winnable from the beginning (Senator Obama's statement about the calls for Al-Maliki's ouster being a distraction were excellent). Same with Iran, we should not get caught up in refuting the statements about Iran being evil (it actually maybe), but focus on why a war is a terrible idea. This is not only important for the current administration, but for a future Democratic administration, which despite the campaign promises may find that the "Classified" information they get when they are President makes them believe they must at least continue the proxy war with Iran.