[Peace-discuss] Calm before storm?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[On a day when Dem Rep. Murtha suggests "The surge is working" (I know, 
I know), Lind proposes a worst-case scenario for the development of 
Bush's war.  Plausible?  --CGE]

	November 29, 2007
	In the Fox’s Lair
	by William S. Lind

One reason parts of Iraq have quieted down, at least for a while, has 
received widespread attention: the Sunni split from al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's 
own tactics alienated its base, which is usually a fatal political 
mistake, and for once we were wise enough not to get in the way of an 
enemy who was making a blunder.

But there has been little comment on an equally important reason for 
improved stability in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr's stand-down order to his 
Mahdi Army militia. Just as it seemed we were headed straight for a war 
with the Shi'ites, they sheered away. We now appear to be doing the 
same; at least the papers here no longer report daily raids and air 
strikes on Shi'ite areas. That too suggests we may have learned something.

But it does not explain the Mahdi Army's quiescence. I have no secret 
agent in the Desert Fox's lair, so I cannot report what Mr. al-Sadr is 
thinking. I doubt he is afraid of a confrontation with the U.S. 
military. Fighting the Americans is more likely to strengthen than 
weaken his hold on his own movement. So what gives?

The Sunday, November 18 New York Times made passing mention of a 
possible clue. It suggested that the Mahdi Army and some other Shi'ites 
have backed away from confronting the U.S. because Iran asked them to.

If that is true, it bumps the same question up a level. Why are the 
Iranians asking their allies in Iraq to give us a break? I doubt it is 
out of charity, or fear, although elements within Iran that do not want 
a war with the United States seem to be gaining political strength.

Here's a hypothesis. What if the Iranians had determined, rightly or 
wrongly (and I suspect rightly), that the Bush administration has 
already decided to attack Iran before the end of its term? Two actions 
would seem logical on their part. First, try to maneuver the Americans 
into the worst possible position on the moral level by denying them 
pretexts for an attack. Telling their allied Shi'ite militias in Iraq to 
cool it would be part of that, as would reducing the flow of Iranian 
arms to Iraqi insurgents and improving cooperation with the 
international community on the nuclear issue. We see evidence of the 
latter two actions as well as the first.

Second, they would tell their allies in Iraq to keep their powder dry. 
Back off for now, train, build up stocks of weapons and explosives and 
work out plans for what they will do as their part of the Iranian 
counter-attack. Counter-attack there will certainly be, on the ground 
against our forces in Iraq, in one form or another. In almost all 
possible counter-attack scenarios, it would be highly valuable to Iran 
if the Mahdi Army and other Shi'ite militias could cut the Americans' 
supply lines running up from Kuwait and slow down their movements so 
that they could not mass their widely dispersed forces. In John Boyd's 
phrase, it would be a classic Cheng-Chi operation.

Again, I cannot say this is what lies behind the Mahdi Army's 
stand-down; Zeppelin reconnaissance over Iran has been inconclusive. But 
it is consistent with three probabilities: that the Bush administration 
has decided to bomb Iran, that the Iranians plan in response to roll up 
our army in Iraq and that Muqtada al-Sadr and other Iraqi Shi'ite 
leaders coordinate their actions closely with Tehran.

In past wars, quiet periods at the front have often preceded a "big 
push" by one side or both. Such may prove to be the case in Iraq as 
well, at least as far as Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are 
concerned. If so, in view of the situations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and 
Lebanon and the almost certain failure of the Tea Lady's Annapolis 
initiative, 2008 may see the Islamic world in flames from the Himalayas 
to the Mediterranean. To paraphrase Horace Greeley, buy gold, young man, 
buy gold.

  Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=11975