Democrats, Iran Partner for Summer Offensive

 by Andrew Walden  

| View comments |  Print This Post

US Democrats and Iran have turned their attention toward turning American public opinion towards surrender.

With the Congressional reauthorization of funding for Iraqi operations just days old, Democrats, their media, and Iran are already beginning a summer offensive aimed at achieving Islamist victory in Iraq by the only means possible — turning American public opinion towards surrender. A May 25 AP article by Anne Flaherty explains the Democrat strategy:

In the months ahead, lawmakers will vote repeatedly on whether U.S. troops should stay and whether Bush has the authority to continue the war. The Democratic strategy is intended to ratchet up pressure on the President, as well as on moderate Republicans who have grown tired of defending Bush administration policy in a deeply unpopular war. ‘I feel a direction change in the air,’ said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.

Parallel to the Democrat strategy, the May 22 UK Guardian reports Iran is also planning a summer offensive.

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaeda elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaeda and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September."

The Democrats’ offensive is operating on exactly the same timetable.  AP’s Flaherty explains:

The most critical votes on the war are likely to be cast in September when the House and Senate debate war funding for 2008. The House plans to consider one measure that would end combat by July 2008 and another intended to repeal Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq.

The September votes likely will come after Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Congress whether Bush's troop buildup plan is working. Also due by September is an independent assessment of progress made by the Iraqi government.

"Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

Islam is best understood as a system for taking power.  With Islamist forces unable to score a military victory over US and allied troops, their fascist terror war for Islamic world domination is a bloody propaganda exercise designed to win the submission of US public opinion.  Islamists find their perfect partner in the Democrats, who have tied the electoral fortunes of their party to US failure in Iraq.  Radical Islamists differ from other Muslims in that they believe worldwide power is now within their reach.  The logic of the radicals’ position flows from the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.  The subsequent collapse of the USSR is seen as an act of Allah presaging the defeat by Islamists of the other superpower — the USA.

The attitude of individual Muslims on the question of whether the time for taking power is now can be seen in the results of polling on the acceptability of suicide attacks.  The results from a 2006 Pew survey released May 22 are directly proportional to the amount of power Islamists have over a country.

In the US, spearheading the War on Terror, 13% of Muslims say suicide attacks to defend Islam can be justified.  Among the under-30 crowd, 26% of young Muslims say suicide attacks can be justified including 2% who say suicide attacks can “often” be justified.

In the UK, America’s closest ally, about 24% of Muslims consider suicide attacks justifiable.  In France, which has allied itself to Islamic regimes and opposed the US-led liberation of Iraq, 35% of Muslims see suicide attacks as justifiable.  In countries ruled by Islam often over 50% consider suicide attacks justifiable.  In Nigeria, where northern Muslims are warring for power with the southern Christians, 69% say suicide attacks are justifiable. 

The variation between countries shows in sharp relief that as the West becomes weaker, as in France, more Muslims come to believe that the time to take power is now.  Conversely, in the US, spearheading the war against Islamist terror, the smallest percentage of Muslims express the belief that “the time is now.”  This is precisely the opposite of what Democrat propagandists tell Americans.  Terrorism is not an angry response to real or imagined grievances — it is a calculated response to real or imagined Western weakness.

Whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition values reason and faith, the Islamic tradition values power.  Under Islamic law suicide is forbidden, but the Islamic precept of Al-Takeyya, based on Surah 3: 28, holds that Muslims may violate other Islamic religious laws in the pursuit of power.  Shia Iran can provide aid to Sunni al-Qaeda — even as al-Qaeda bombs Shia targets in Iraq to foment Shia retaliation on Sunnis.  All the carnage is justified because it furthers Islamist power.  

The difference between Sunni and Shia boils down to a difference over which version of Islam will lead the way to power.  In many Muslim countries from Sudan to Pakistan — including Iraq — there is now warfare between Sunni and Shia as the possibility of taking power becomes real to more Muslims.  If one sect begins to have a clear edge over the other, the world will witness mass conversions.  Iranian religious leaders are already working to reclassify the Alawi sect of Iran’s Syrian ally so as to no longer call them heretics. 

As the possibility of Islamists taking power becomes more real, the fighting between Shia and Sunni intensifies.  Conversely, as the US ‘surge’ takes hold in Iraq, sectarian assassinations have dropped sharply and more Iraqis and Iraqi tribes are cooperating in the hunt for al-Qaeda.

These realities suggest a counter-strategy to defeat the Iran-Democrat summer offensive.  A strong US and allied stand against Iranian aggression in Iraq and against Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons would work to convince a larger percentage of Iranian and Iraqi Muslims that now is not the time to take power and they should accept American-led efforts to stabilize Iraq.

In 1981 Israel raided Saddam’s French-designed nuclear reactor at Osirak, ending Saddam’s program to build nuclear weapons. The US Navy on April 18, 1988 destroyed much of the Iranian Navy in “Operation Praying Mantis” during the Iran-Iraq war.  “Praying Mantis” was the largest US Naval surface engagement since WWII, but the US Navy’s smashing success and minimal casualties prevented it from receiving much media attention. 

Today there is a massive US Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf.  In Iraq, America is already at war with Iran.  Iran’s Democrat allies and their media are using the death toll from these attacks to influence US public opinion.  Will there be action?

If the US does not act, Democrats and Iran have an alternative proposal: hand over Iraq.  As Iranian ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, explained after a May 28 meeting with US Ambassador Ryan Crocker: Iran is ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure."  The AP article was wistfully titled: “US, Iran reach Iraq policy consensus.”

Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran in 2005 in an election partially boycotted by the opposition.  His campaign slogan, "It's possible and we can do it" was another way of saying, “the time to take power is now.”   On May 25 Ahmadinejad, speaking to Iranian supporters, repeated his pledge to “cut root of the Zionist regime from its stem.”  He based Iranian ability to resist US efforts to stop nuclear weapons development on Islam, saying "the Iranians are living in faith and unity under the leadership of Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and therefore the world powers will not be able to make life difficult for them."

Failure of this faith, demonstrated by US action against Iran, would shake the religious-ideological foundations of Ahmadinejad’s regime.  The opposition is already in place both within the government and amongst the Iranian public.  In spite of attacks by Islamic basiji goons, there are student protests and even a move within the Majlis (parliament) towards the Iranian equivalent of impeachment.  

With Ahmadinejad’s unpopularity, any increase in the price Iranians pay for his war on Iraq could force regime change in Iran.  Even if Ahmadinejad were not overthrown, he could be required to redeploy his loyalists back to Iran in order to defend his regime against domestic challengers.  With a reduced ability to draw American blood this summer, the Iranian-Democrat offensive might fizzle and Gen. Petraeus’ September report could show progress towards stabilizing Iraq. 

Will President Bush step up to meet the Iranian challenge?

Foreign Affairs, National Defense

Read more articles by Andrew Walden