Iran, US Share Afghan Goals

[SWJED]

4 May Christian Science Monitor - Iran, US Share Afghan Goals (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p06s02-wosc.html).

The smooth blacktop roads and 24-hour electricity of Herat set this Afghan commercial capital apart as a model of stability in a country still struggling to get on its feet. Much of the wealth in this western city, with its tree-lined streets and handsome shops, is credited to the largesse of Iran.

The Shiite republic, one of Afghanistan's greatest trading partners, has a visible hand here, building roads and schools, and keeping shops afloat with electricity and goods. What's more, these projects represent only a fraction of the $204 million Iran has spent in aid, ranking it among the top donors to post-conflict Afghanistan.

Even though the US and Iran are locked in an international struggle over Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the long-time foes have worked together well in Afghanistan, a place where they have common ground. Pushing Iran against the wall through sanctions or war could deal a setback to the recovery here, the first battlefield in the war on terror, some observers say.

"The disagreements we have with the international community do not have a place in Afghanistan," says Mohammad Reza Bahrami, Iran's Ambassador to Afghanistan. "Our understanding for Afghanistan is that it can be a good model for cooperation among the international community."

Iranian influence is certainly nothing new in Afghanistan. The two countries share centuries of history, thousands of miles of porous borders, and a common language. Nearly 2,000 people commute across the border every day.

But as tensions rise between Tehran and Washington, some speculate that Iran could use its leverage in Afghanistan to cause problems for the US.

"They do have the capacity to cause trouble here. If they were to perceive that the government is siding with the West ... or they felt that the US military based in Afghanistan could be damaging to the internal situation in Iran ... we could expect problems here," cautioned one Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue...

[GorTex6]

But as tensions rise between Tehran and Washington, some speculate that Iran could use its leverage in Afghanistan to cause problems for the US.

Or the other way around? Maybe this is why the Taliban is not considered a terror organization (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html)? We don't "officially" support terrorists? :D A bureaucratic shortcut from seeking approval? They were after all put in place through Packistani ISI with funding from CIA and Saudi businessmen; the Taliban were to be security puppets for the Unocal Afghan pipeline consortium then later scapegoated for the 9/11 attacks. Keep in mind that 9/11 mobilized us to put troops in the region, and that Iran has been successful in thwarting our other pipeline plans in Central Asia. Why do we have permanent bases planted on China's front and back doorstep? Could this be our GWOT? To hammer China? Brilliant!
Iran's support of the Karzai government stems in part from its antipathy toward the Taliban regime, which killed nine Iranian diplomats in 1998.
Considering the Shia Iranians and the Sunni Taliban hate each other, I would expect to see the two clashing again in the future, stirring up trouble between the Sunni and Shia in Iran and rousing groups like Mujahadeen E Khalq (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/) (ie "terrorists" :D) to action :cool:

[GorTex6]

Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gat hering_0413.html)
The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.



PKK/PEJAK (http://www.thenewanatolian.com/opinion-5998.html)
Today we see that the Americans have increased the stakes in the war with Tehran by creating trouble for Iran in its own Kurdistan territory. Turkish intelligence sources claim the Americans have prodded a wing of terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) holed up in the Kandil Mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan to turn against Tehran and create disturbances inside Iran through a Kurdish militant organization called PEJAK. There were bloody incidents in Iran near the border areas neighboring Iraq a few months ago. Iran clamped down on PEJAK militants, killing many. Then there was a lull. The Americans allegedly prodded PEJAK again and Turkish sources speculated that the U.S. told the PKK that if it wants to remain in the Kurdish mountains it has to stir up trouble inside Iran. PEJAK organized new disturbances inside Iran, near the border regions, killing 15 Iranian soldiers. Iran hit back with rocket attacks and military incursions into northern Iraq in the areas where PEJAK militants are reportedly holed up.


We don't directly support terrorist (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_denies_reports_that_U.S._0503.html) :D
Earlier today at the White House Press Briefing, Scott McClellan, the outgoing press secretary, denied reports that the U.S. is employing terrorist groups for special operations in Iran, RAW STORY has found.

When asked if U.S. policy has been changed with respect to three different terrorist organizations that have reportedly been active recently against Iran "based on the notion that an enemy of our enemy is our friend," McClellan insisted that it hadn't.

"Our policies haven't changed on those organizations," said McClellan. "They remain the same."

"And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations," McClellan added.

[tequila]

Interesting Boston Globe article on Iranian influence in western Afghanistan.

Amid Tensions, U.S. & Iran give lift to Afghan city (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/04/23/amid_tensions_us_iran_both_give_lift_to_afghanista n_city?mode=PF).

When the US government wanted to show its friendship here after the Taliban fell, it brought fuel to run the generators at the local hospital. When neighboring Iran wanted to show its friendship, it brought electricity to the entire city.

Today, Herat -- just 75 miles from the Iranian border -- is the only place in Afghanistan with power 24 hours a day, impeccably paved highways, and plans for a railroad. Even US officials acknowledge that this stunning progress occurred mostly thanks to Iran.

...

Recent events underscore both the risks and opportunities: Iran recently offered to take over the training of Afghanistan's counternarcotics ministry, and US officials have told the Afghan government that they do not object. Last month, Iran signed an agreement with Afghanistan's education ministry to train hundreds of Afghan teachers and develop the curriculum, a task that has put Iranian officials in face-to-face meetings with USAID contractors.

But increasingly, Afghan officials have also begun to accuse Iran of supporting groups that undermine the Afghan government and oppose the presence of US troops.

Two weeks ago, President Hamid Karzai accused embassies of "some of the neighboring countries" of funding a new opposition bloc in Parliament, mostly composed of former warlords who oppose his rule. Political analysts in Kabul said the uncharacteristically blunt statement was a reference to interference from both Pakistan and Iran.

While Pakistan has been the neighbor most frequently accused of supporting militants, Iran has become an increasing target of Afghan suspicion.

A former general from the Northern Alliance, an armed group that fought against the Taliban, said Iran has been training disgruntled, unemployed former Northern Alliance fighters in the Iranian city of Mashad and sending them back to Afghanistan "to make propaganda against the Americans and the government."

The general, who asked that his name not be used because he fears for his security, said Iran is also rebuilding a group of Afghan fighters known as Sepah-e-Mohammad -- "Soldiers of Mohammad" in Farsi. He said the group was established to fight the Taliban, but that it could one day turn against US troops.

...

Yet Iran has pledged $560 million in assistance to Afghanistan, spending more than half of it on highways, electricity lines, and a fiber-optic cable that have helped Herat blossom. By comparison, the United States has spent more than $10 billion for the country, including funding a highway to link Herat and Kabul. But little of that aid is visible in Herat.

Instead, the city is blanketed with reminders of Iran's deep cultural, political, and economic ties. On a main street lined with small stores, nearly every shopkeeper and customer interviewed had once lived in Iran as a refugee.

Many women here don black veils customary in Iran -- not blue burqas. Sometimes they wear sneakers and jeans underneath. Like women in Iran, they flock to the market and to school, enjoying more freedoms than women in much of Afghanistan who are expected to stay home ...

[tequila]

Iranian Arms to Taliban may be retaliation for U.S. policy (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington//17296108.htm)- McClatchy, 29 May.


As NATO troops in Afghanistan have begun intercepting sophisticated Iranian arms bound for the Taliban, U.S., NATO and Afghan officials are growing more concerned about Iranian policy in Afghanistan.



It's long been conventional wisdom that Iran's Shiite Muslim rulers would do nothing to destabilize Afghan President Hamid Karzai's shaky government or aid the Taliban, Sunni Muslim militants against whom Iran nearly went to war with in 1998. The Taliban obtains the lion's share of its weapons and other aid from the proceeds of opium trafficking and from Sunni supporters in Pakistan and Arab nations.


The recent seizures of Iranian arms by British troops in Afghanistan's war-torn southern Helmand province are challenging that assumption, however.


"Iran appears to be playing a very small role, but it appears to be increasing," said Seth Jones, an expert at the RAND Corp., a research center that's close to the Pentagon.

The intercepted weapons include the first so-called explosively formed penetrator bombs, devices that spit molten copper plugs that can penetrate the armor of American tanks, troop carriers and Humvees, said U.S. officials who requested anonymity because the matter is classified ...


Possibly of relevance: Secret War against Iran (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2533&highlight=jundullah)

[tequila]

Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html) - ABC News, 6 June.

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.
"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.
"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling ..."

[AdmiralAdama]

Iran is attempting to attack American allies in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Very troubling.

[Steve Blair]

But not especially surprising. After all, they got to watch the US and the USSR go at it in a similar way for 40+ years. We need to consider what the rest of the world might have learned from watching the Cold War and war by proxy for all that time.

[AdmiralAdama]

The only reason why we needed to fight terrible proxy wars during the Cold War was that the threat of global armageddon was hanging over us. do we really want to consider Iran as "untouchable" as the USSR during the Cold War? What benefit do we get from allowing such a safe haven and supply lines for insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention its dark hand in Lebanon and Gaza?

But not especially surprising. After all, they got to watch the US and the USSR go at it in a similar way for 40+ years. We need to consider what the rest of the world might have learned from watching the Cold War and war by proxy for all that time.

[Steve Blair]

The only reason why we needed to fight terrible proxy wars during the Cold War was that the threat of global armageddon was hanging over us. do we really want to consider Iran as "untouchable" as the USSR during the Cold War? What benefit do we get from allowing such a safe haven and supply lines for insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention its dark hand in Lebanon and Gaza?
Do not put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post, I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised that others would learn some techniques from the Cold War. Nowhere do I say that Iran is "untouchable." I'd suggest toning down on the rhetoric and looking at what's actually being said.

The Cold War (ideology and other matters aside) provided many second-tier powers with a good look at ways to wage conflict against a major power. They had ample opportunity to see what worked, and what didn't. That these powers (state and otherwise) had so much time to study these methods unhindered makes our task much more difficult.

[AdmiralAdama]

Not trying to put words in your mouth -- just trying to question the metaphor of our situation with Iran with our situation with USSR

[Steve Blair]

It's not a metaphor. It's an observation that many other countries and non-state actors could and obviously did learn some techniques from the Cold War and its associated proxy wars.

[SWJED]

14 June NY Times - Iran May Know of Weapons for Taliban, Gates Contends (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/world/middleeast/14gates.html?ref=world) by Thom Shanker.

The flow of illicit weapons from Iran to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan has reached such large quantities that it suggests that the shipments are taking place with the knowledge of the government in Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday.

Mr. Gates said he had seen new intelligence analysis over the past couple of weeks “that makes it pretty clear there’s a fairly substantial flow of weapons” from Iran across its border to assist insurgents in Afghanistan.

Commenting on potential Iranian government involvement in the arms flow, Mr. Gates said, “I haven’t seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we’re seeing, it is difficult to believe that it’s associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it’s taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”...

[SteveMetz]

Not trying to put words in your mouth -- just trying to question the metaphor of our situation with Iran with our situation with USSR


I'm with Steve Blair on this. The United States has a tendency to assume that when we arm insurgents and build nuclear weapons it's legitimate, but it's not when other nations do it. After all, we have a stated policy of supporting groups which want to overthrow the Iranian regime. I'm not opposing this policy--that regime is evil and dangerous. But we need to stop whining when Tehran arms our enemies and just get down to making them pay a strategic price for it.

[Tom Odom]

I'm with Steve Blair on this. The United States has a tendency to assume that when we arm insurgents and build nuclear weapons it's legitimate, but it's not when other nations do it. After all, we have a stated policy of supporting groups which want to overthrow the Iranian regime. I'm not opposing this policy--that regime is evil and dangerous. But we need to stop whining when Tehran arms our enemies and just get down to making them pay a strategic price for it.

Agreed. I would also say that the use of proxies in warfare is not limited to the Cold War. We--the US--were French proxies when it was convenient for France and so it has gone throughout history. Proxy war is really an off shoot or 1st cousin of coalition warfare in that you are fighting together, you are letting someone else take on your enemies.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. I would also say that the use of proxies in warfare is not limited to the Cold War. We--the US--were French proxies when it was convenient for France and so it has gone throughout history. Proxy war is really an off shoot or 1st cousin of coalition warfare in that you are fighting together, you are letting someone else take on your enemies.

Best

Tom

Agreed, Tom. Proxy warfare has been with us for centuries, and will continue to wait in the wings. I used the Cold War as an example because of both its length and the fact that it's a very recent example. It provides a really good look at a prolonged proxy war where the two powers never really "met on the battlefield" but waged a determined war just the same. It also played out during a time of increasing media coverage and wide dissemination of techniques and tactics, making its lessons more accessible and possibly appearing more relevant than some older examples.

[Jedburgh]

It's not a metaphor. It's an observation that many other countries and non-state actors could and obviously did learn some techniques from the Cold War and its associated proxy wars.
A well-known Cold War episode that directly involved Iran is something that I'm sure still has some influence.

I'm speaking of the 70's, when the Agency funneled millions of dollars of weapons and other supplies through Iran to support a Kurdish uprising against Saddam. The intent was never to enable the Kurds to win, but simply to put enough pressure on the Iraqi regime to force them to make territorial concessions regarding the Shatt al-Arab. Once Iraq and Iran signed, then ratified, the Algiers accord delineating the border in Iran's favor, the Kurds were completely cut-off by the US and Iran.

It was in response to criticism of first encouraging to revolt, then abandoning the Iraqi Kurds to slaughter that created tens of thousands of refugees, that Kissinger made the famous statement, "covert action should not be confused with missionary work".

In many ways, this episode is a close analogy to today. The Iranians find the situation upon their borders threatening, but they are not capable of directly intervening to restructure the situation to their liking. However, in their use of proxies, they do not care about the true success or failure of the groups they are supporting: the intent is to mold the political situations in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be exploited to their benefit.

To effectively counter this, we need to clearly understand their both their perception of the threat they face and what is their desired end state (to be accomplished through their covert activities). Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that we cater to their perceptions or desires - they are bad guys, after all. But to efficiently mitigate this threat we need to leverage it from their side - not our image of what's going on.

[Merv Benson]

Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Her proxies have caused the death of more Americans than anyone besides al Qaeda, since that time. It is something the regimes admits in private and occasionally in public. While it has been clandestine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could make that war even more deadly.

Iran's current activity appears to be that of helping our enemies with logistical support. Attacking that logistical support has resulted in the capture of some Iranians in Iraq and may do so in Afghanistan. Iran has responded to that capture with a bogus hostage try against the Brits and the current arrest of Americans visiting Iran.

The only reason Iran has not used more effective means in its war with the US is it fears a US response. I'm not sure why they fear such a response since we seem to be going out of our way to even acknowledge Iranian responsibility for the logistical assistance to our enemies. I guess both sides fear the consequences that might flow from that acknowledgment. We have come along way from the original announcement of the Bush doctrine on states that support terrorism.

[goesh]

Iran's nervousness can only increase as they strive to obtain nuclear weapons, because if upon obtaining that capability they are ever militarily punished for their proxy actions, they run a risk of total obliteration should they use a nuke(s) in retaliation. Should they ever respond in a non-nuke way to any punitive attacks for their proxy actions, they know they will lose their nuke facilities as a precautionary measure in the second round of retaliation. The only logical thing to do is slip a few billion under the table to Israel and have them take out Iran's nuclear capability now. After all, Israel is already the villain over there and that is exactly what villains do.

[Granite_State]

Iran's nervousness can only increase as they strive to obtain nuclear weapons, because if upon obtaining that capability they are ever militarily punished for their proxy actions, they run a risk of total obliteration should they use a nuke(s) in retaliation. Should they ever respond in a non-nuke way to any punitive attacks for their proxy actions, they know they will lose their nuke facilities as a precautionary measure in the second round of retaliation. The only logical thing to do is slip a few billion under the table to Israel and have them take out Iran's nuclear capability now. After all, Israel is already the villain over there and that is exactly what villains do.

That's if we're making the assumption that Israel CAN take out Iran's nuclear capability now.

[Mooks]

Just to add a bit of colour on the debate, here's an blogging heads video with Jeremy Shapiro of the Brookings Institute (http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=309) on the situation in Afghanistan. About 3/4ths of the way through he starts discussing Iran's influence after traveling to Herat. He suggest that some in NATO believe it more to be more akin to large scale smuggling, than a direct attempt by the Iranian government to destabilize the situation.

Normally I'd be a bit suspicious about this single argument, but there has been a bit of evidence lately that Tehran is in the grips of a minipower struggle, with different elements pushing different policies. Steve Clemons of the Washington Note had this interesting article about what happened behind the scenes with the 15 British Sailors. (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002205.php) Given the convoluted power structure that currently exists, it might be possible that some elements of the Iranian government might be turning a blind eye to shipments.

Moreover its somewhat difficult to believe that on one hand Iran is embracing the Taliban, while making very disquieting noises about the Baluch issue in Pakistan. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0418/p04s02-wosc.htm)

[Armchairguy]

I wonder if the political will exists to take on the Iranians. I can see it now the media will be asking if the proof of Iranian involvement is similar to the Iraqi WMD proof and the public will lap it up, followed by the inevitable "I told you it's all about oil" from the left. It doesn't help when Hamid Karzai says Iran is Afghanistans good friend and wouldn't do such a thing. The consequences militarily suck pretty badly as well. I'm sure we have enough bombs to make life miserable in Iran, but can we handle another war at this point? Seems we're stretched pretty thin already and the Iranians know it.

[Pragmatic Thinker]

We conduct our own "dirty little wars" throughout the globe. We arm rebel groups, we finance media outlets that will broadcast anti-government sentiment, and we payroll politicians in opposing parties that would be "pro-US", and when we get caught doing it we wrap it around the flag and market it as a "pro-democracy" necessity to help those oppressed. However, when someone like Iran does the same thing to us in Afghanistan and Iraq we call it "interfering" and "acts of terrorism", when the reality is we can't have it both ways. We can't do it and then tell others it is wrong...that is absolutely poor leadership. No military leader will tell his troops not to drink and drive on a Saturday night, yet turn around and do it himself and then use his rank and authority to bypass any punishment or at least not do it and expect those he would wish to lead will believe he has any legitimacy. I would like to see Secretary Gates do more than drop in on Afghanistan with his pre-drafted agendas to spread the anti-Iran message and do the usual ass grab with Musharraf and gang in regards to the FATA and the Taliban sanctuaries provided by both. I am sure he was bedazzled by lots of PowerPoint and staff briefs that show how our men and women are taking it to the Taliban and that Pakistan's recent (yet another) attempt to offensively "clean out" the border regions will lead to more "success" and will give the Karazai government more time and room to grow.

I just returned from a trip to that part of the world, and my bottom line assessment is that the Taliban are fully in engaged Phase II (possibly moving into Phase III) of their insurgency against what I will comically call the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They have shadow governments throughout Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz Provinces. They are conducting offensive operations against military bases with the near term goal of over-running one in an effort to embarrass us and our Afghan counterparts (possibly the tipping point into Phase III), however some will argue Phase III is already here but not in a conventional sense we as westerners are used to...a discussion for a different thread. Anyway, the Taliban are successfully conducting thier insurgency for a few reasons, 1) they don't mass their forces inside well fortified base camps which are IMHO are greater source of revenue for the military industrial complex rather than a military necessity which runs counter-productive to a successful counter-insurgency strategy; 2) the Taliban don't have 10-15 staff officers for everyone "trigger puller" living in these same base camps demanding they attend no less than two VTCs daily, nor give them requirement to get their PowerPoint CONOP slides approved from half-way across the country before they push a 20 man element out to do some killing I mean "shaping operations"; 3) their logistics train isn't tied to a third country who continually provides sanctuary to their enemy; and 4) they're not afraid to use the media to "sell" their war to their Arab benefactors and other potential Muslim sympathizers while they paint the US and its Afghan puppets as "evil" and "anti-Muslim"...I could go on and on, but won't...

Bottom line, the Iranians bringing arms into Afghanistan and providing them to the Taliban should be the least of the Secretary of Defense's worries in regards to the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. Instead of the usual "ass and cake party" as my Australian friends so elloquently describe these VIP visits, I would much rather see Secretary Gates take some of those geniuses in his staff and put them to work on developing a military strategy that will ensure we win this counter-insurgency fight against the Taliban. The single point of failure in winning or losing won't be where the Taliban get their weapons from but whether they (Taliban) retain legitimacy among the population of Afghanistan, and on the flip side of that de-legitimize our efforts and those of our "puppet" Karazai government and military. We will continue to lose the IO and physical fight in Afghanistan because our culture does not recognize the roots of any problem. We simply attack the limbs and the leaves, and in the end the tap root remains protected in the soil only to grow again. Blaming Iran isn't going to win the fights in Iraq and Aghanistan, but rather success will come from within if we develop strategies that legitimize the existing governments in place. Those who would advocate "limited" attacks against Iran as a form of punishment are correctly assuming that "spanking" them is going to change their behavior. It will only inflame the already rampant anti-US sentiment in the Middle East and reinforce our enemy's IO message that we hate Islam and want to rule the world.

[Van]

Why are people surprised that Iran is acting against U.S. interests?

In 1953, U.S. action installed an anti-Communist dictator (anti-Communist is not the same as pro-democracy). The Iranian popular understanding (right or wrong) was that the U.S. installed a puppet dictator. In 1978, the religious party in Iran staged a revolution, and deposed the Shah, and for the past 30+ years, their war cry has been "Death to U.S. and its Allies!" Anyone who did well under the Shah or thought well of the U.S. has either left, been killed, or has spent 30 years keeping thier opinions out of the public light. Oh yeah, the U.S. threw resources at the Iraqis for a decade of Iraqi war on Iran. (Yes, this is the simplified version, I've left out the British and Russian part of the story but we're discussing popular thought not rational thought.)

To them, the U.S. is the country that installs tyrants, supports Iran's enemies, and now has them surrounded (roughly two thirds of Iran's land borders currently have U.S. soldiers on the far side, and from two directions). If, in 1980, the Soviet Union had the presense in Canada and Mexico that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have done a lot more than just ship arms across borders.

Don't get me wrong, Ahm-a-nut-job and the rest of the current Iranian regime are a repressive, religious oligarchy that desparately need to be replaced. But, given their perceptions of the situation, their actions are understandable. Ahmadinejad and many others in Iran have a vision of Greater Iran based on Persia's political and cultural heritage, encompassing what Persia held at the height of its power, much like Milosevic's vision of a Greater Serbia. The problem with this vision is that folks in Greece, Turkey, and many other places will take exception, and although at its peak, Persia was remarkably sophisticated and advanced for its time, it was still a tyranny and it was over two thousand years ago.

Strategically, Iran is providing sanctuary to anyone in the region that they see opposing U.S. interests. Regarding the Taliban, the way to beat insurgents always starts by denying them sanctuary. An obvious countermeasure is to return the favor and provide sanctuary for any insurgents in Iran...