Iran and Statements by General Casey

From day one, the insurgents among the Sunni, who had no interest in giving up their power, had arms caches all over Iraq that they began to recover after the initial American invasion. It is not surprising that the Shiite majority, growing restless with the inability of the United States to quell the insurgency, would look for sources of weapons to protect themselves. The arming of average Iraqis is, after all, one of the consequences of a poorly planned war. It is likely that one of the sources of arms for Shiites has been Iran.

Our top commander in Iraq has now put Iran back in the news. Either the Bush Administration is sending a message or the chance of war with Iran just went up a notch or two. Laura Rozen of War and Piece points to a story in The Washington Post:

...the criticism of Tehran by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was the most direct and explicit so far. Speaking at a Pentagon news conference before an array of reporters and television cameras, the general listed Iranian influence as one of the four major problems he faces in Iraq.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, IED technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq, the training being conducted in Iran and in some cases probably in Lebanon through their surrogates," Casey said, using the military abbreviation for "improvised explosive devices," or roadside bombs. The Iranians are "using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq, both against us and against the Iraqi people."

Immediately, I have questions about Casey's statements. First, assuming the US and its coalition partners still have some legitimacy for their presence in Iraq (such as cleaning up Bush's mess), is Iran the only country that has people who do not belong there? Second, what percentage of Shiites are defined as 'extremist'? Third, what percentage of Shiites are not protected by militias? Fourth, the Iraqi constitution defines something close to an Islamic republic; is the Iraqi government extremist? Fifth, who are these surrogates that Gen. Casey speaks of? And finally, is Bush looking for an excuse to undermine the Shiite majority and therefore the Iraqi government? I don't know the answers but for four years, it's been difficult to get a straight answer out of the Bush Administration.

Laura Rozen has her own comments on Gen. Casey's statements:

Beyond the substance of the claims, what do you think is the rationale for making this statement now? As opposed to two months ago, or six months ago? It's the top news on the BBC. And if it's own sort of diplomatic message, what does it mean that it was delivered by Casey, the top US military commander in Iraq?

Update: Why now? A colleague and friend writes, "... I can think of only a couple of explanations for the timing, both related. The first is that Casey is coming under pressure from the WH to help prepare the propaganda battlefield for an air attack against Iran. The second is that the Iranians have ordered the militias under their influence in Iraq to start engaging the US as a warning of what will come if we do bomb Iran."

A third possibility is simply a warning to Iran not to take advantage while the US pushes for negotiations. But a fourth possibility is more worrisome: the message by Gen. Casey may not be from the White House but from the Pentagon, and the office of the vice president. It's possible this is the beginning of the pushback by Cheney and Rumsfeld against Condi Rice's diplomatic efforts with Iran.