uruloki’s lair

There seems to be acouple different ways to look at the Iranian diplomat getting shot in Iraq.

First secretary Khalil Naimi was attacked while driving near the embassy. Correspondents have seen a bullet-ridden car with a body inside.

At this stage it is not clear who carried out the attack or whether the diplomat was specifically targeted.

Greyhawk files it under “not good,” while Lee of Right-Thinking thinks it’s the Islamofascists who did it. Now, I would happen to agree that it is not a good thing, but I’d like to know who it’s not good for. There are a couple scenarios here that could be happen, most of which I think can turn out for our benefit.

Scenarios
Number one, the most likely, is that someone on the Islamofascist side of the fence did whack the guy. This can get split into a couple of sub-scenarios though. Scenario A is al-Sadr and his boys , with scenario B being someone else on the Islamofascist side of things. However, I do not think it could be someone in the al-Sadr organization, since they are receiving major backing from the Iranians. Al-Sadr is the defacto figurehead for Iranian efforts to create another theocracy in the Middle East, and so he would not be looking to antagonize his bosses. In addition, the negotiation of a cease-fire by the Iranians would lead to a lot positive press for them, both in the Arab world and in the US State Department. Hopefully (for them), this would give them even more latitude with State and the EU when people pointed out how much they are actually screwing up the region. Scenario B is therefore more likely in this case. In this scenario, we have someone backed by another foreign power, potentially Syria, taking out the Iranian diplomat. They would do this because it is not in their interest to allow any other country influence in Iraq when it could be theirs. So, we are looking at a very Arab problem, such as that on the West Bank, where when they cannot take effective action against their enemy (Israel/US) they turn on each other.

A much less (infinitely?) likely scenario is one wherein an Iraqi group opposed to al-Sadr, but not the US, is responsible for the attack. Again, in this situation you have the desire to keep Iran out of the Iraqi government picture. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen any indications of any of these types of groups, mostly since you cannot undo two decades of mistrust in a year.

Additionally, we (Coalition forces) could have gotten the diplomat, but this is as unlikely as the previous scenario for two reasons. One is that the US government has a standing order against political assassinations, which this would fall under. If he had been a terrorist, different story, especially since it would not be an assassination but a expedited justice process for an enemy combatant. Reason number two is that regardless of what rational people think, most of the people that would have to be in the loop on a decision like this think Iran can be negotiated with. Therefore, we would not want to jeopardize our relationship with the Iranians.

Outcomes
As far as what could happen, overall I think this will have a positive effect for us. I think that the Iranians will either force al-Sadr to provide more protection for their operatives, solidifying the link, or reduce their support for him to let him know who’s in control. Potentially, this could also open some other people’s eyes to what the Iranians are trying to accomplish behind the scenes. I do not believe that we gave them “tacit approval” to negotiate for us, since we have already proven that we can back our negotiations up and we do not want them to have the influence they are looking for. So, overall positive for us, “not good” for them.

(My personal idea: he’s a bureaucrat (1000) and an enemy (500). 10500 pts. Now where’s that quad damage…)

Update: The Belmont Club covers everything much better.

Tags: Politics //