IRAN OCCUPIES IRAQ--WHILE THE UNITED STATES SITS PRETTY AND LOSES TROOPS

That Iran can wage war in Iraq--forcing the administration to make difficult choices in the absence of compelling support at home--is borne out by the fact that it now practically occupies Iraq. SPC suspects that Iran now has thousands of Arabic-speaking operatives in that country. For it would be unthinkable for Iran, from a balance of power perspective, not to be present in a neighboring country which is experiencing such a power vacuum--English-speaking American occupation notwithstanding. The United States is aware of the Iranian presence, and has taken to periodically arresting Iranian "reporters." But it is unclear whether the U.S. appreciates the magnitude of this presence--relatively peaceful for now, but ready to break the peace should Iran or Syria be attacked. (The U.S. appreciates the potential for trouble from Iran, not its actual extensive presence in Iraq.)

Moreover, the United States doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that it cannot win an unconventional war--Special Forces or not. It cannot, for instance, commit massacres and assassinations, directly or by proxy, a la Israel in Lebanon (e.g., Sabra and Shatila, Qana), or a la Syria in Lebanon (e.g. Damour, Bhamdoun). To do so would lose it even the veneer of support it now has from the weak and tired Sunni Arab governments, who themselves are hostage each to its demographic time-bomb--in numbers and in anger at the American-Israeli suppression of Sunnis in Palestine and Iraq and, eventually, for the loss of Iraq to Shiite Iran. It is worrisome to read news about the United States forming a special Iraqi unit to go after the guerrillas. This is a prescription for massacres; the Israelis and the Syrians did it in Lebanon, to the tune of thousands of massacred civilians. Proxy forces are uncontrollable; they bring with them a thirst for blood, the like of which one finds only in serial killers.

November 2003