[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Page S738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN IRAQ
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last week, Clifford May, the president of the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, wrote in the National Review
that the U.S. should renew its focus on the Iranian regime's influence
in Iraq. He warned that the success of the surge in Iraq, which both
the President and Vice President opposed when they served in this body,
could be transformed into a ``bipartisan failure'' if we don't increase
pressure on the Iranian regime.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the article to which I just referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the National Review]
Who's Losing Iraq?
And could Iran be winning?
(By Clifford D. May)
``I am very optimistic about--about Iraq. I mean, this
could be one of the great achievements of this
administration.''
Vice President Joseph Biden's comments to CNN's Larry King
sparked a brouhaha for an obvious reason: When they were
senators, Biden and Barack Obama opposed the ``surge'' that
averted America's defeat in Iraq. It takes chutzpah for them
to now claim credit for the fruits of that strategy.
But a less obvious and more significant point is being
missed: Iraq may, in the end, turn out to be nobody's
achievement. It may turn out to be a military success
transformed by politicians and diplomats into a bipartisan
failure. Recent developments in Iraq are ominous. The Obama
administration is not addressing them effectively. And
conservative critics of the Obama administration are
strangely silent.
Robert Dreyfus is a journalist of the left with whom I
seldom agree; he writes for The Nation, a publication of the
far left that usually makes my eyes roll. But in his Nation
blog, Dreyfus correctly notes that as the campaign gets
underway for Iraq's March 7 elections, close to 500
candidates have been banned for alleged ties to the Baath
Party by the Justice and Accountability Council, ``an
unelected panel headed by an Iran-linked terrorist, Ali al-
Lami.''
Among those barred are ``the No. 2 and No. 3 candidates in
the main opposition bloc, the Iraqi Nationalist Movement,
which is led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi [a secular
Shia]. Already, two members of Allawi's party have been
assassinated while campaigning. . . . Allawi, who many
observers say had a credible chance of winning enough votes
to lead a governing coalition after the election, has
suspended his campaign. . . . Many Sunni leaders are talking
about a boycott.''
The most serious concern here is not that Iraqi democracy
is fledgling and flawed--we knew that. What's troubling is
the fact that Iran's militant jihadi rulers are apparently
manipulating the process--with impunity.
Most Iraqis do not want their country to be controlled by
Iran. Most do not want it to become an Iranian satrapy like
Syria, Iraq's neighbor to the west. Most Iraqis do not want
to live as Iranians have been living--under the thumb of
oppressive theocrats and thuggish Revolutionary Guards.
But Iraqis know that American troops--the ``strongest
tribe''--are leaving. The bullies in Tehran, by contrast, may
be staying right where they are. Iran's rulers can give you
money and weapons. Or they and their treacherous agents in
Iraq can have you eliminated.
The fact that Ali al-Lami is playing a central role in
determining who can and who cannot run for election is--or
should be--alarming. In 2008, he was detained by American
forces in connection with an Iranian-backed ``Special
Groups'' militia believed to have bombed a municipal
building, killing two State Department employees along with
six Iraqis. A ``senior U.S. military intelligence official''
told the Associated Press there were ``multiple and
corroborating reports'' pointing to al-Lami's involvement.
Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of al-Arabiya
television, writing in the international Arabic daily Asharq
Alawsat, recently called al-Lami ``the man to fear in Iraq. .
. . He shows his claws at anyone who dares oppose him and he
accuses his opponents of Baathism,'' including even Gen.
David Petraeus ``who has fought the Baathists the most and if
it weren't for him, al-Lami would not be able to reach his
home in one piece. Al-Lami accused Petraeus of Baathism
(nobody has ever spoken such nonsense) and said that if
General Petraeus was Iraqi he would have been charged under
the Debaathification law.''
In an interview with the Times (U.K.), Petraeus pointedly
noted that al-Lami's panel has been linked with Iran's
Revolutionary Guard. And on Tuesday, Gen. Ray Odierno, the
senior U.S. commander in Iraq, identified al-Lami as one of
two Iraqi politicians ``clearly . . . influenced by Iran.''
The ``surge'' implemented by Petraeus, Odierno, and their
troops was largely responsible for the defeat of al-Qaeda in
Iraq--the battlefield Osama bin Laden considered more
consequential than any other. But Iran's proxy militias
fought U.S. troops, too. And many Americans were killed by
explosive devices manufactured in Iran and sent to Iraq for
that purpose.
Yet Iran's contribution to the bloodshed in Iraq was
consistently downplayed. To highlight it would have led to
the question: ``So what are you going to do about it?'' And
the Bush administration did not want to do anything about
it--just as the Clinton administration did not want to do
anything about Iran's role in the slaughter of American
servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996, just as the Reagan
administration did not want to do anything about Iran's
dispatching of Hezbollah suicide-bombers to kill Americans in
Beirut in 1983, and just as the Carter administration did not
want to do anything about the seizure of the American Embassy
in Tehran in 1979.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of Iran's 1979
Islamic Revolution, concluded: ``America cannot do a damn
thing!'' The phrase has been repeated by Iranian rulers ever
since.
President Obama ought to break with this pattern of
fecklessness. He should show Iran that there are consequences
for facilitating the deaths of Americans, for sponsoring
terrorism, for building nuclear weapons, for ruthlessly
oppressing Iranians at home, and for undermining the election
process in Iraq. At the very least, Obama should slow down
the pace of American troop withdrawals in Iraq and impose
serious sanctions--the kind envisioned by the legislation
recently passed by both the House and the Senate.
But Biden said nothing about sanctions to Larry King.
Instead he told him (and any Iranians who might be
listening): ``You're going to see 90,000 American troops come
marching home by the end of the summer.'' The vice president
added: ``You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that
is actually moving toward a representative government. I
spent--I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two
months--three months. I know every one of the major players
in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've
been impressed how they have been deciding to use the
political process rather than guns to settle their
differences.''
True: Biden has been a frequent flier to Iraq, where he has
argued against the banning of candidates who displease
Tehran. Also true: He might as well have been talking to a
wall.
Iraq remains what it has been: a pivotal nation in the
heart of the Middle East. Biden may think he and his
administration have achieved something there. Obama may see
Iraq as a distraction from the war against ``the real enemy''
in Afghanistan. Conservatives may view Iraq as a success
Obama inherited from the Bush administration--and therefore
no longer their problem.
All these views are wrong. It would be a cruel irony--not
to mention a terrible defeat--if the sacrifices Americans
have made were, in the end, to produce an Iraq dominated by
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud
Ahmadinijad, enemies of Iraq, freedom, and democracy--enemies
sworn to bringing about a ``world without America.''
Why don't Biden and Obama recognize that? And why are their
critics not more vocal about the fact that they do not?
____________________