Exploding the myth of Iranian and Syrian interest in a stable Iraq

Jeb Babbin:

In the midst of about three hours of Pentagon briefings Tuesday a few seemingly disjointed facts emerged. Each is a major data point that exposes the vacuity of the Baker-Hamilton ISG's recommendation to negotiate with Syria and Iran.

There is simply no evidence to support the ISG's assertion that both Iran and Syria have an interest in a stable and peaceful Iraq that is not torn apart by sectarian violence. As I wrote earlier this week, each of those nations - Syria, by running a jihadi welcome wagon to help terrorists coming from all over the world to transit through Syria into Iraq and Iran by funding, arming and providing every other support of Shia terrorist organizations in Iraq - have demonstrated convincingly that they want an unstable Iraq to fall prey to their proxy forces. In the briefings Tuesday, a few interesting facts emerged.

In Iraq last December, I learned that the deadliest type of "IED" (improvised explosive device) that is the insurgents' most effective weapon against our troops is a very sophisticated bomb. It compares to the 2002-vintage crude roadside bomb in the same way a Porsche compares to a Model-A Ford. It's called the "explosively-formed penetrator" ("EFP" in the inevitable Pentagon acronym.) A shaped explosive charge compresses a projectile and launches it with enough force to penetrate the armor of any vehicle, even a tank. It's made in only one place: Iran.

In one of the Tuesday briefings, I asked one of the senior military leaders presenting it whether there had been a measurable change in the numbers of EFPs coming into Iraq in 2006. He said there had been a "significant increase" in the number. Iran is clearly raising the pressure on us to leave Iraq by doing its best to increase American casualties.

How are these EFPs coming into Iraq? Again, to quote the briefer: "Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has established smuggling routes to transport men and supplies into Iraq." Who is using them to kill and wound Americans and other coalition troops? "Iran's Revolutionary Guard has a network in Iraq headed by Abu Mustapha al-Sheibani to commit violence against Coalition forces." That doesn't sound like a nation that has any interest in democracy and stability in Iraq.

Syria is just as bad. For about three years, the Pentagon leaders - and their subordinates - have been using the term "actively unhelpful" as a euphemism for Syrian intervention in Iraq. This time, the military briefers were much more blunt. They said that Syria's opposition to resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict was both clear and strong. Syria's interference in Lebanon, its refusal to do anything to stop the flow of insurgents, money and weapons into Iraq through its territory and Syria's intentions to dominate its neighbors were all major problems. These facts were all known to the Baker-Hamilton ISG. How they could determine that Syria and Iran had an interest in a stable, peaceful and self-governing Iraq is mind-boggling.

...

Al-Queda wants to create a new Islamic caliphate dominated by Sunni Muslims. Iran wants a new caliphate, but under a Shia caliph. Though both want to remove our influence from the Middle East and the world and both want to destroy Israel, they cannot both succeed: there can be only one caliph. There is an opportunity to split this enemy, but that opportunity hasn't ripened....

...

There is more. What the ISG has failed to do is explain why Syria and Iran are not currently acting in their interest. I believe that Iran and Syria believe they are acting in their interest by destabilizing Iraq and hindering US policy in Iraq, otherwise they would not be doing what they are doing. They both also think that it is in their interest to destroy Israel. They will both try to undermine any attempt to reach an accord between Israel and the Palestinians. Now that we know what their interest are, we should see that it is in our interest to destroy both regimes.