The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Saturday, October 23, 2010


As a consequence of the latest Wikileaks release of hundreds of thousands of classified military documents, the mainstream media continues to emphasize civilian deaths during the Iraq war, as if fighting a war in which our enemy purposely embeds itself within the civilian population is possible without unfortunate and tragic collateral deaths.

There is, however, a more important story arising from the documents—the active and deadly participation of Iran. Iran’s complicity in thousands of deaths inside Iraq has been well-recognized over these many years, but had been dismissed as “Bush-era propoganda" by many on the Left. Now, Iran’s duplicitous behavior is somehow gaining more credence because the accusation is bolstered by a far-Left, anti-war website.

Wired reports:
No one would accuse WikiLeaks of being pro-war. Not when the transparency group titled its single most famous leak “Collateral Murder.” Not when its founder, Julian Assange, said that its trove of reports from the Afghan conflict suggested evidence for thousands of American “war crimes.”

So it’s more than a little ironic that, with its newest document dump from the Iraq campaign, WikiLeaks may have just bolstered one of the Bush administration’s most controversial claims about the Iraq war: that Iran supplied many of the Iraq insurgency’s deadliest weapons and worked hand-in-glove with some of its most lethal militias.

The documents indicate that Iran was a major combatant in the Iraq war, as its elite Quds Force trained Iraqi Shiite insurgents and imported deadly weapons like the shape-charged Explosively Formed Projectile bombs into Iraq for use against civilians, Sunni militants and U.S. troops.

One report from 2006 claims “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons from Iran were smuggled into Iraq. Others indicate that Iran flooded Iraq with guns and rockets, including the Misagh-1 surface-to-air missile, .50 caliber rifles, rockets and much more.

As the New York Times observes, Iranian agents plotted to kidnap U.S. troops from out of their Humvees — something that occurred in Karbala in 2007, leaving five U.S. troops dead. (It’s still not totally clear if the Iranians were responsible.)

None of this is a surprise for those of us that view Iran as a significant problem in the Middle East and a vicious enemy of the United States. It should, however, inform the actions of the Obama administration in its dealing with this Islamist country. A country that purportedly exports “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons (a clear violation of international law) cannot be trusted and should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. It should not be appeased and cannot be negotiated with in good faith.

And yet, President Obama continues to suggest that Iran can be a “partner” if only it would tell us that it is abandoning it’s nuclear program. As I’ve said many times in this blog, that position gives new meaning to the word naïve.

Update: (10/23/10) As an example of the oikophobic coverage in Left leaning publications, consider this headline of the left-leaning Nation magazine— “WikiLeaks' Release on Iraq Arrives—Highlights Torture & Civilian Deaths.” Comically, Iran is mentioned in only one short sentence at the very end of the Nation’s lengthy article: “The Times reports includes one from Michael Gordon, who has pounded this drum for years, focusing on Iran's alleged aid for Iraq's militias.” Gee, that’s informative and complete. Can’t risk making a vicious Islamist government look bad. Wouldn’t be politically correct. No, there’s no agenda, is there?