But another threat from the east exists--Iran--as I worried about in June.
Time magazine (via Real Clear Politics) discusses the Iranian threat:
Since the start of the insurgency in Iraq, the most persistent danger to U.S. troops has come from the Sunni Arab insurgents and terrorists who roam the center and west of the country. But some U.S. officials are worried about a potentially greater challenge to order in Iraq and U.S. interests there: the growing influence of Iran. With an elected Shi'ite-dominated government in place in Baghdad and the U.S. preoccupied with quelling the Sunni-led insurgency, the Iranian regime has deepened its imprint on the political and social fabric of Iraq, buying influence in the new Iraqi government, running intelligence-gathering networks and funneling money and guns to Shi'ite militant groups--all with the aim of fostering a Shi'ite-run state friendly to Iran. In parts of southern Iraq, fundamentalist Shi'ite militias--some of them funded and armed by Iran--have imposed restrictions on the daily lives of Iraqis, banning alcohol and curbing the rights of women. Iraq's Shi'ite leaders, including Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, have tried to forge a strategic alliance with Tehran, even seeking to have Iranians recognized as a minority group under Iraq's proposed constitution. "We have to think anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Tehran," says a Western diplomat.
Remember that Syria and Iran are allies. As we press the Baathists the Iranians may try something either to win or to ease the pressure on their Syrian friends.
But I try not to worry overly about the Shias. They held firm in the Iran-Iraq War and I don't see them becoming Tehran's puppets. I think some analysts have a lingering mistrust of the Shias based on the hostage crisis and Sunni bias that paints Shias in a bad light.
But we do have another reason to knock the mullah regime down, now don't we?
