Iran’s Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated Weapons

‘Rational’ is the wrong metric.

‘Strategic’ is the only one that matters. Tehran is strategic, and moreso, restrained in the face of repeated provocation.

Look at it this way: the US response to Bin Laden’s Bait was destructive of its own strategic interests, costly in lives, ridiculously expensive, corrosive of its domestic politics, and irrational. But what matters is that it was not strategic.

1 Like

‘State sponsors of terrorism’ is not a good standard to judge rationality, or strategic vision; and, it condemns the US in its broad generalizations, since Washington has been funding Baluchi terrorists inside Iran for decades.

I disagree with your assertion that terrorism automatically equates to irrationality. In the case of Iran, it is “war by other means”. Asymmetrical warfare, which we in the U.S. can’t relate to because we are used to military dominance.

But our revolutionary forefathers may have understood.

1 Like

They are only “Iranian proxies” in that our lying assed government says they are.

Well, it is factual that Hizbollah, the Hazara and the Houthis are clients of Tehran’s patronage.

In the case of Hizbollah, Tehran doesn’t exactly give them orders, and when they’ve tried, Hizbollah has shown its willingness to thwomp the garrison state on its lonesome.

In terms of state proxies, Tehran really only has Azerbaijani and Armenian factions, kind of, in its orbit. And, not really. Tehran’s policy seems to be, ‘no closer to Tabriz than this, Turkey’.

If you’re responding to ‘Iranian proxies’ in Iraq, I think you’re closer to the mark. The area in question is the Shia urheim, and Tehran doesn’t exert direct control over many of the tribal and religious leaders there. But, Tehran does have proxies in southern Iraq, especially.

Obviously we both live on totally different planets. I see no reason to continue this conversation with your attempt to find moral equivalency between the U.S. and Iran. There is none.

So, that (moral equivalence) has simply not happened at all. But, geopolitics would be a senseless exercise in the analytics of strident belief, if we reduce it to moral stakeholding.

You are operating from a frame of reference where Iran is a viable stable country with stable leadership. I’m operating from exactly the opposite frame of reference. I am unwilling to operate in yours and I seriously doubt you would be willing to operate in mine. I don’t see any common ground for discussion so I’m going to move on.

…but they are a viable country with stable leadership.

I would be very interested in your counterpoint though.

1 Like

Do people even know the major political parties in Iraq are openly allied with Iran and have been since 2004?

No doubt many on the left feel as you do.

They are a state sponsor of terrorism. Nothing else matters. That’s my counterpoint.

‘Viable’ and ‘stable’ are your now very late additions.

Tehran is strategic.

That is not reason to slough off to a pout, is it?

This absolutely can be leveled at DC, though. Which makes your point, if your logic holds, that the US has equal moral standing with Iran. Odd.

Two options here. We can continue to talk past each other from within two vastly different frames of reference or we can agree to disagree and move on. I choose the latter.

We’re not ‘talking past each other’. You are adding a moral condition to geopolitics I find needless, but it rather clearly does not preclude dialogue.

To even hint that the U.S. is a state sponsor of terror is…

I can’t find the words to describe the level of disgust I feel.

We are done. :roll_eyes:

It’s a fact that the CIA is funding Baluchi terrorists.

It’s also a fact that US policy in the region has been disproportionate, deadly, costly, destabilizing, counterproductive and in many cases, useful to terrorists. There’s a discussion to be had about whether this qualifies as state terror.

What I find odd, personally, is the need to valorize US conduct, especially since Korea. The US has engaged in military and proxy action that has caused tremendous suffering, and with little gain. This is and ought to be subject to domestic criticism, without the moral scolding that seeks to stifle reflection about foreign policy choices.


So because we funded them in the past let’s use it as a reason to fund them now, heck of an idea! I love giving money to countries who wish us dead! Great strategy!

By dunking money to Iran we are funding terror indirectly.