No, I'm not making this up. This is extraordinary.
The ambassador's name is Dr. Hamid Al-Bayati.
He has a colorful history.
Back in 2003, he was the UK representative of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shiite political party.
SCIRI has strong ties to Iran. It has political and military wings similar to Hezbollah and the IRA. Its military wing is the Badr Brigade, which fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was based in Iran until the fall of Saddam Hussein. The Badr brigade is one of the paramilitary organizations operating in present-day Iraq. It has fought both against insurgents and against coalition (particularly British) forces, making it - in Bush terms - a terrorist organization.
Not surprisingly, Dr. Al-Bayati supports Hezbollah - here in this May 2003 interview.
Q: So you believe quite strongly then that the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist entity is unfair?
A: This is an American distinction.
Now note - I'm not talking about some Iranian conspiracy here. I'm talking about the very center of the Iraqi Shiite government, the very establishment having strong ties to Iran-based terror organizations and expressing vocal support for Hezbollah.
The Bush administration is trying to blame Iran for stability issues in Iraq.
This obviously misses the point.
The Iraqi government is intentionally aligned with Iran! Iraq doesn't consider Iran to be an enemy. Iraq sees Iran as an ally!
It is enough to make one's head spin.
So let's review and then try to figure out where to go next.
We have facilitated the installation of a government in Iraq whose majority party (SCIRI) has strong ties to Iran, contains its own terrorist army which has fought coalition forces, and which supports Hezbollah.
George W. Bush, John McCain, and others tell us that Iran is our enemy, that Iran is deliberately trying to screw things up in Iraq, that Iran is to blame for all their outside interference. Well, this clearly misses the point.
Who are the Badrists fighting now? Moqtada al-Sadr. If we cut off Iranian support for the Badrists, that will support the rise of al-Sadr, who - compared to his Iranian counterparts - is far more dangerous.
And what would likely happen if we were to take aggressive action against Iran? Well, we'd instantly alienate the majority of the ruling coalition in Iraq, turning Iraq against us not only politically, but also transforming the largest paramilitary organization in the country into an enemy again. Not to mention the Shiite-dominated regular army isn't likely to be very happy about it either.
American troops shot in the backs by Iraqis they were training last week? Absolutely. Guaranteed.
You want a real mess on your hands? Go ahead, invade Iran.