What McCain Gaffe?
- 03.19.2008 - 1:50 PMWhen the MSM gets fixated on a certain idea it is almost impossible to dislodge it, regardless of the evidence. One of those ideas is that Sunni and Shiite extremists don’t cooperate with one another or with secular Arab regimes.
Thus, last week, we saw a spate of reports claiming that a government-funded think tank had found no links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The report actually finds considerable evidence of Saddam’s links to a number of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and its constituent organizations. This was noted by commentators such as Steve Hayes in the Weekly Standard but ignored by the MSM.
This week, the MSM is claiming that John McCain made a big gaffe by alleging links between Iran and Al Qaeda. To quote the lead of today’s Washington Post article:
Sen. John McCain, in the midst of a trip to the Middle East that he hoped would help burnish his foreign policy expertise, incorrectly asserted Tuesday that Iran is training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq, confusing the Sunni insurgent group with the Shiite extremists who U.S. officials believe are supported by their religious brethren in the neighboring country.
Actually it’s the authors of this Post article who are guilty of making incorrect assertions. There is copious evidence of Iran supplying and otherwise assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda central). The 9/11 Commission itself noted a number of links between Iran and Al Qaeda. That evidence is summarized here. A sample from the Commission report: “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”
For more recent evidence of Iranian activity, take a look at this American Enterprise Institute report by Danielle Pletka, Fred Kagan and Kim Kagan. There is an entire section on pages 22-23 on “Iranian Support for Al Qaeda.” Relying solely on press accounts and coalition forces briefings, the authors write:
A supply of arms flowed from Iran into al Qaeda strongholds in Salman Pak and Arab Jabour, presumably from the Iranian border to the south and east. From there, al Qaeda transported the munitions to Baghdad. Iranian arms became an important part of al Qaeda’s arsenal. In May 2007, both [Major General Rick] Lynch and Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, briefed on the use of EFPs by Sunni extremists south of Baghdad.
This and other bits of evidence have been cited on a number of blogs—for instance, weeklystandard.com and powerline. It has even been noted in the past by the MSM. In fact, last year the Washington Post, the very newspaper now so contemptuous of McCain’s statement, ran this article which states: “Citing testimony from detainees in U.S. custody, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Iranian intelligence operatives were backing the Sunni militants inside Iraq while at the same time training Shiite extremists in Iran.”
But don’t expect the facts to get in the way of a good story.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 19th, 2008 at 5:01 PM
“commentators such as Steve Hayes”
“Danielle Pletka, Fred Kagan and Kim Kagan”
“weeklystandard.com and powerline. ”
hahaha good one, bro. great parody topic
March 19th, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Yes, Lester, because the Post — which seems to have missed that Iran supports Sunni terrorist group Hamas — is so much more authoritative. At the very least, the aforementioned disclose their political stances.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I’m not sure why people argue that Iran wouldn’t support Sunni extremists who are attacking their enemies (US/Israel etc)? I mean if the Iranian regime is funding these people and contacting them then they also happen to know whose these people are and where they are located - which makes it difficult (and dangerous) for them if they ever try to turn on them.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Facts are stubborn things. If people want to criticize McCain’s statement they need to cite facts, not their own passions. I missed the part where the 9/11 Commission Report, that backs McCain up on his statement, is now irrelevant as a form of evidence.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:56 AM
Yes, let’s ignore the fact that the Iraqi franchise of al-Qaeda is probably the most virulently anti-Shiite organization in the world, responsible for killing vast numbers of Shi’i civilians as well as major Shi’ite religious figures in Iraq since 2004, and routinely castigates both Iran and Iraqi Shi’i as Persian majus and rafidhi heretics in both word and deed.
AQI is far more sectarian and anti-Shiite than al-Qaeda as a whole, and is a primary driver of sectarian violence in Iraq - you would think even a neoconservative could see this.
AQI is also not the only organization that operates in Arab Jubour or Salman Pak - both areas are contested by several Sunni as well as Shi’ite militias.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:58 AM
obviously mcain will retract the statement when he’s next asked about it.
as for the list I cited, I was under the impression that this blog was a place for contemporary jewish/ conservative thought, not old propaganda.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:12 PM
[…] foreign policy adviser Max Boot defended McCain’s misstatement, asking “What gaffe?“: There is copious evidence of Iran supplying and otherwise assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq and […]
March 21st, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Mr. Boot makes a good point. The 9/11 Commission did indeed point to Iranian cooperation with al Qaeda, in facilitating the transport of whom it was thought ended up being part of the 9/11 operation. The 9/11 Commission did say, however, that it was unclear whether the AQ member’s transit through Iran was aided by the Iranian government, or whether they simply used smugglers to get them across. As such, it called for a more thorough investigation.
After 9/11 Iran provided the US support in taking out the Taliban (including allowing us to send teams to rescue pilots shot down, if it ever happened), whom Iran had been working against since before it registered in our national security concerns, by supporting the Northern Alliance, along with India. In fact, Iran benefited from both of our invasions following 9/11. To its east, we got rid of the Taliban, to its West, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
As for Iran aiding the insurgency in Iraq. Yes, it did so, but there’s a reason why. Mainly, it sought to keep the US busy in Iraq and prevent it from replaying the march to war to Iran as it had done against Iraq. Mainly, Iran supported Shiite militias against the US, but at times found it convenient to support Sunnis to increase chaos in the country. This was at a period when President Bush and his administration continuously engaged in saber-rattling and insinuating a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Apart from that, due to the very complex nature of the insurgency in Iraq, there were many Shiites who made their living by supplying weapons to the Sunni insurgents, who early on flushed with cash paid above market value for them. This meant that weapons given by Iran to Shiite militias, ended up in the hands of Sunni insurgents because these bought them from Shiites in the black market. Hence, many times it there was no direct link between Sunni insurgents and Iran, only black market ties between Sunni and Shiite smugglers who did it not for Iran, but to make a quick buck.
As some have noted here, Iran and the US have many of the same interests in the region, from a defeat of the radical sunni jihadist movement, which threatens Iran as much as it threatens us (particularly AQI which is far more sectarian than AQ central) and the destabilizing of the myriad of Sunni despots in the region who refuse to open themselves to more accountable, democratic governance and insist on using the mosque as a means of letting their people express their dissatisfaction which ends up radicalizing religious institutions as the only viable opposition against the state, which in the final analysis is one of the main roots of jihadist ideology. We also want a stable Afghanistan, with a reduced opium trade which is currently killing thousands of Iranians who look to the drug as a means of escape.
Iran, it is true has a lot of internal problems, but is far more democratic than the majority of its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the rest of the Persian Gulf Kingdoms and even our friend King Abdullah’s Jordan. The people want change, and it is obvious, but like any population they do not want it imposed from the outside. Recent events have showed that when Iran is left without the US to attack rhetorically, its people begin to focus on the mistakes and corruption of their own government. The Iranian elections proved that recently, where although many conservatives won due to the exclusion of most of the moderates and reformers, these are also opposed to many of Ahmedinejad’s internal policies and it is unlikely, unless he can turn the economy around, that he will win reelection next year.
In conclusion, and getting back to topic, while true that Iran has backed some Sunni insurgents, there was a reasons for their doing so, stemming from their desire to prevent the US from setting its sights on Iran as is next target. Additionally, in many instances it wasn’t Iran supplying weapons to Iraq’s Sunni insurgents, but rather Shiite smugglers who trafficked these weapons to Sunni areas using their tribal networks as a means to getting by American soldiers and Shiite militias. We have many interests that we share with Iran, and it is about high time we realized it and used these as a means of bringing them back into the fold to aid our own goals in the Middle East.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Additionally, I don’t think there is evidence now that Iran has aided Sunni groups in recent months, particularly after the Samarra bombing which was a turning point in Iraq’s slide into Civil War. In fact, Iran has actually seemed to aid our efforts to get Shiite militias to achieve a truce in order to lessen violence in the country. As such, Sen. McCain alluding to Iranian aid to Iraq’s Sunnis was a gaffe since he was talking about the present and not the past as he himself has recognized by noting his misstatement.