« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

General Petraeus: Iran ‘helping Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan’

For years now, Iran has been training and equipping militants and terrorists in Iraq, despite the abject refusal of Western press to report on it and the U.S. and other governments to do anything about it.

Now, Iran is providing “small-level” assistance to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, as well, according to General David Petraeus, commanding general of United States Central Command (CentCom).

Despite being on speaking terms with the Taliban beginning in 1999, Iran assisted in the U.S.-led overthrow of the terrorist regime in 2001, and has no real interest in seeing the fanatical Sunni organization take over Afghanistan in its entirety once again.

However, much like in Iraq, where it was an ancillary bonus effect of their efforts to shape the resulting state into one which would be friendly to (if not controlled by) Tehran, Iran’s efforts in Afghanistan are designed “to make the life of those who are trying to help the Afghan people difficult,” as Petraeus put it.

President Obama is already reportedly having second thoughts about making good on his earlier plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to bolster the stretched-thin 33,000 U.S. troops currently working to stabilize the country and battling al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists based there and in northwestern Pakistan. Despite his apparent nature of being averse to decision-making, Obama is in a position where he must decide what the strategy in Afghanistan will be going forward, rather than simply allowing military men and women stationed there, and the Afghan civilians risking their lives to work with them, to tread water in an increasingly worse situation.

Further, unlike his predecessor, President Obama must decide that the ongoing efforts by Iran to impede the U.S. mission in Iraq and Afghanistan — not to mention Tehran’s participation in actions that result in the deaths of Iraqi and Afghan civilians and of U.S. servicemembers — will not be tolerated, whatever must be done to enforce that decision.

Unfortunately, both the president and his administration appear to be too enamored of what they see as the potential for an improved relationship with Tehran to seriously deal with the Islamic Republic’s subversive activities. President Obama is currently considering rewarding the Iranian regime with direct dialogue — and, reportedly, the reopening of a U.S. embassy in Tehran.

The level of naivete being displayed by administration officials with regard to Iran and other very real threats would be staggering if it were not such a well-known hallmark of modern liberalism. “This could be real!” one of Obama’s “top diplomats” told the New York Times about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that he welcomed talks with Washington based on “mutual respect.”

Unfortunately, the fact that Iran’s altered tone is an effort to engage what it sees as a weak U.S. executive who is willing to operate from a position of weakness seems lost on President Obama and his advisors — as does the fact that talks, and talking about talks, simply provides Tehran more of the one resource more valuable to their pursuit of nuclear weapons capability than any other: time.

Further, the ongoing unwillingness of the U.S. government to acknowledge (let alone act against) the active involvement of Iranian forces on the part of our battlefield enemies continues to convey a message of fear and weakness from Washington to Tehran and other enemies of our nation and our allies — and that, above all, is the one message we cannot afford to send to anybody.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    in order to build a decent road from the sea to Afghanistan.

  • Cheetah772

    As you know, Pakistan in news this morning just announced it’s making arrangements with Islamic militants to enforce parts of Pakistani frontier with Sharia law. In other words, Pakistan is caving in to Islamic fundamentalists.

    This is not good news for us. However, it is great news for Iran.

    With Iran on one side, and Pakistan on other side, Afghanistan is totally screwed. It will make US strategic plans a bit more difficult to execute. In all, it’ll be interesting to see what happens next.

    • Praveen

      to acquiring nuclear weapons and be done with all internation pressure and do what it deems fit. Iran is cleverly trying to magnify problems for US forces and keep the spotlight away.

      Remember Iranians invented chess. They are playing their pieces beautifully (however disgusting that might be for others).

      Another problem area is Pakistan. Pakistan is surely falling apart. Government is rapidly losing control over its own territories. And fundamentalist forces are gaining strength.

      Here is a link from dawn:
      http://dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/nwfp/pakistan-sufi-mohammad-sign-sharia-deal-malakand–qs

      Messy days are ahead.

    • IJB

      There is already news that Obama is slowing down the plans to implement an Afghanistan “surge”. (The story tries to pawn that off on Sec. Gates, but I don’t buy it, unless Gates already knows that Obama and the Dems plan a pullout anyway.)

      The far Left never wanted to go into Afghanistan in the first place, and they’ve wanted out ever since.

      Combined with the fact that Afghanistan is a very complex and resource- and time-consuming nut to crack, and the handwriting is one the wall:

      As I’ve been saying since Obama’s election, the U.S. and NATO will be out of Afghanistan within 3 years. You heard it here first.

      • skorrent1

        Been hollering that the “bad war” in Iraq has kept us from winning the “good war” against UBL and the Taliban? Now you’re suggesting that the war in Afghanistan is a “bad war”, too?

        Ah, well. “Each of Obama’s statements comes with an expiration date.”

        • IJB

          They only played the “Good War/Bad War” card to look “tough” to independents and moderates.

          But I don’t think they ever had any intention of actually following through in Afghanistan.

          They’ll pull out of Afghanistan as soon as they can manage it.

  • izoneguy

    It would not surprise me if Russia did not also have a hand in this.
    So you think Obama will bring this up in face to face talks???

  • Finrod

    Someone needs to point out to Obama that we *have* an embassy in Iran, it’s just occupied by Iran and has been for 30 years.

    Furthermore, I find it completely and utterly appalling that the poll on the page you linked to with this story currently has 30 votes on whether we should re-open our embassy in Iran, 25 of which are yes and a pitiful 3 no. Was everyone responding under the age of 30? Yeesh.

    • 6eorge Jetson
      • 6eorge Jetson

        “Take them back! Please! I beg of you!”

        • izoneguy

          Wow, why don’t we just paint a target on the embassy?

          Maybe the embassy “staff” will really be a CIA assination squad?

          This Obama is brilliant!!!

          • sdan

            same country that took hostages right? Is Obama trying to follow in Carter’s footsteps completely? Target on the embassy? More like a target on anybody who gets sent there. Do you think Obama will make Rush and Sean ambassador’s to Iran?

  • DONTREADONME

    should work out just find, because as we all know America’s image has been completely righted. Iran will most likely now stop its tactics and embrace a diplomatic approach to the Great Satan, I mean America. They will abandon their nuclear ambitions through just gravitas of Mr. Obama.

  • Scope

    Obama promised the anti-war people he would have the US out of Iraq before yesterday, that ain’t happening. Obama has the audacity to think he knows more than Gen. Petreaus, and will determine what troop levels are needed in Afghanistan. He seems to have forgotten about Russia and the influence they have in Afghanistan, once again. What is the new Sec. of State Clinton doing at this time, she is making ugly faces, and probably cackling at North Korea, and telling them they need to be nice. Seems like Clinton has alot of Globe running to do in order to give any country any confidence in the new administration. We did have some friends during the Bush admin., seems they’ve all run away. I think Biden was right about the new admin. being challenged, but, I don’t think he had any clue about how many challenges he would face with his weakness.

  • JHancock

    it looks like we’re headed to WW3 with the Islamic world. The good news is that WW2 pulled us out of the Great Depression, and also lead to a whole new wave of family centered social conservatism for the next 3 or 4 election cycles-this eventually paved the way for fiscial conservatism to take root…at least until the 60′s

    • kweiss01

      is that the US thrived during and post WWII because its natural competitor in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors – Europe – was devastated. It took Europe a bit more time to recover, while they built up our export sectors. If we’re the ones taking a pummelling, we won’t enjoy much from the economic “stimulus.”

      It’s a meme of the Left that it was increased expenditures by the US government during WWII which brought us out of the Depression. But the Depression ended in 1939 – we joined the war in 1941, and our defense spending didn’t dramatically increase until 1942. However, manufacturing employment increased dramatically in 1939 and continued to increase because the Europeans were paying for our products. True, any remaining unemployment was “taken care of” when our guys were shipped off to fight. Still, that’s not something I’d like to replicate.

    • Praveen

      won’t take a tough stance. All this tough talk is catering to centrist folks. This guy is so left to the center he is never going to displaease his lefty friends/organizations.

    • USNJIMRET

      if, like a piece of legislation in Congress, the declaration of war can have an amendment or two?
      I can think of a few domestic terrorists that need termination with extreme prejudice.
      Just wonderin’

  • Scope

    And of course now we have the one who said it would take “a willing suspension of disbelief” during Gen Petreaus’s drilling during the Iraq War to decide the foreign policy of the country. Hillary freakin’ Clinton is surely now advising Obama on our position in Afghanistan, and everywhere.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-16-obama-afghanistan_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

    This more than incompetent president is going to make the big decision if we send the troops necessay in Afghanistan to beat the Tali-ban. Notice in the article above that the only one with any successful plan for Iraq is not mentioned. I hear Obama will only send half of the troops determined that are needed. I’m having a Donald Rumsfield “do it on the cheap” moment. Then again, the Hillary and Obama still think they can “talk” to everyone around the world to be nice to the US. It is getting more and more dangerous for the US every day, and don’t think for a moment that the rest of the world doesn’t see it.

  • bk

     

  • Alberta

    The Shah may have been an autocrat, but he was OUR autocrat, dammit!