Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 3 of 5   <       >

Not to Be Trusted

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

In last week's congressional testimony, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker focused on " special groups" -- Iranian-backed militias -- as the greatest long-term threat to Iraqi democracy.

As David Ignatius wrote in his Washington Post opinion column: "The language that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker used yesterday to describe the Iranian role in Iraq was extreme -- and telling. They spoke of Tehran's 'nefarious activities,' its 'malign influence' and how it posed 'the greatest long-term threat to the viability' of the Baghdad government.

"Iran was the heart of the matter during Senate testimony on the war. With al-Qaeda on the run in Iraq, the Iranian threat has become the rationale for the mission, and also the explanation for our shortcomings. The Iranians are the reason we're bogged down in Iraq, and also the reason we can't pull out our troops. The mullahs in Tehran loom over the Iraq battlefield like a giant Catch-22."

A rare voice of skepticism about these claims came on Sunday from Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "[I]n this hearing on Iraq, Iran kept being mentioned. The fact that the Iranians are intruding. A proxy war is being fought. In other words, it was almost as if we were justifying our continued presence in Iraq with the fact that we may be in a conflict with Iran, and furthermore, the al Qaeda, wherever they may be. It's a very confusing picture to say the least."

Nothing to Worry About

Even as Bush and his top aides step up their anti-Iran rhetoric, when reporters ask whether military action may be in the offing, the president responds with mockery.

Here's Bush speaking with ABC News's Martha Raddatz on Friday:

Raddatz: "[A]bout Iran. And are you concerned that they are infiltrating more into Iraq, clearly the Basra operation?"

Bush: "Yes, I think -- you know, I don't know about more infiltration, but infiltration, yes, I'm concerned about it and have been for quite a while. And my message yesterday was Iran has a choice. And if they choose to be a good neighbor, then, you know, we'll help the Iraqis solidify that relationship.

"However, if they -- you know, if they choose to infiltrate and send equipment, then we'll deal with them. And we'll get -- we're learning more about their habits and learning more about their routes. And make no mistake about it: We'll protect our troops and civilians and Iraqis."

Raddatz: "How do you deal with Iran? What is our strategy towards Iran?"

Bush: "On this issue, on the Iraqi issue or on the nuclear weapons issue?"

Raddatz: "Both, both."


<          3           >


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive