US asks for Iran's, yes Iran's, Help

Last week in my Tactics vs. Strategy article I covered the neo-conservative blogging community's desire to blame Iran for the Shia uprising. While my focus in that piece was to point out the numbskullery present in that accusation against the Iranians, I also want to point out now that this Iran baiting is a common theme among neo-con commentators.

The reasons for the repeated demonization of the Iran, however, has far more to do with the political goals of the neo-cons. I think most neo-cons in the intelligence loop of the Bush Administration, such as Wolfowitz, and Perle know very well that Iran is not directly involved in inciting uprisings in Iraq. They instead seek any rumor they can grab on to and then inflate it through propagandistic spin. Being secretly involved in the Shia uprising is one inflation. Claims that Iran is the terror capital of the world, or that they are on the doorstep of developing nuclear weapons are others.

As the following article on the schizophrenic US policy toward Iran on Znet describes, the real Iran policy goal of the neo-con community in the US appears to be a desire for military intervention in Iran. Now the article I provide a link to focuses on the very clear neo-con links to extreme right-wing Israeli policy, which currently holds sway in Israel under Sharon. The article also describes the belief of interviewee (specifically Sasan Fayazmanesh a professor of Economics at California State University, Fresno) that the reason neo-cons want military intervention in Iran is to eliminate an enemy of Israel. I think this is in part true, but it also fails to mention what appears to be an unabiding belief on the part of neo-conservative commentators in the value of what they frequently refer to as "hard power". I've commented on this phenomenon in the past as well.

What I want to point out, however, is that today multiple news reports are stating that the Americans have formally requested Iran talk to al-Sadr, who is purported to be the leader of the Shia uprising.

See this Guardian article containing the following quote, "The development came as an official Iranian delegation arrived in Baghdad to mediate between US officials and Mr Sadr, who is wanted by coalition authorities in connection with the murder of a rival Shia cleric last year."

See this BBC article containing the following quote, "An Iranian foreign ministry delegation has arrived in Baghdad in a bid to help resolve the crisis over Mr Sadr. 'It is our position that to the extent that Iraq's neighbours can help calm the situation and help achieve a stable transition, those efforts would be welcome,' an unnamed US official told AFP news agency in Washington.

See also this lengthy Aljazeera article.

If we are to believe the neo-con's accusations against Iran, it makes next to no sense to ask Iran to act as a go-between. Neo-cons claim Iran's goal is to incite the uprising to harm the US efforts in Iraq, yet the US is willing to use them to try and influence a peaceable solution to the current stand-off? It is also interesting to note just how little play Iran's efforts are getting in the western press.

What this points to, in my opinion, is repeated efforts on the part of neo-conservative commentators to convince themselves, as much as anyone else, on the efficacy of their policies by whatever means necessary. Outright lies attached to remote possibilities put forward as the illusion of truth are their order of the day. Sadly the myopia all this lying creates appears to affect the neo-cons themselves as much as anyone. They put forward clearly flawed policies whose only appeal is the simplicity of force. A simplicity I guess a simpleton like George W. Bush can understand and act upon.