Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan…. A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context. Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Remind me again: who’s the rogue state here?

PINR is only willing to say that Iran is playing a role in the country, not to accuse them of supplying particular groups or particular weapons. Those are beyond their ‘open-source’ capacities. The point is that:

“Iran is likely supporting the various friendly Shi’a groups in Iraq. Most Iraqi Shi’a factions — such as S.C.I.R.I. and Moqtada al-Sadr’s group — are probably accepting assistance from Iran since, even if they wish to remain independent of Tehran, they are willing to accept assistance at least until they gain power. Other Shi’a groups — such as S.C.I.R.I., which runs the Badr Corps/Brigade — spent years in exile in Iran when Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist establishment was in power. Iran’s goal is to have one of these actors take and maintain power in Iraq, so that it can eliminate what has traditionally been a hostile Sunni Arab state.”

The second report is the truly interesting one. In the US, we’ve gotten so bogged down in questions of cowardice and bravery that we’ve stopped evaluating the goals of the continued occupation. Given the increasing likelihood of a strategic withdrawal, those interested in foreign policy must begin to evaluate the opportunities the region will supply without such a strong American presence. It’s not the WWII model, with complete capitulation and a long occupation: victory and defeat are rarely as absolute as we’ve begun to think of them. Instead, we’ll continue to attempt to balance Iranian influence in the region while furthering American interests in the oil available there. We can continue to do that from the safety of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

“The bottom line is that withdrawing the majority of U.S. forces from Iraq will not necessarily be a disaster for U.S. interests. The failure to achieve the original mission in Iraq has already occurred, and the United States has already suffered a significant loss of its interests. Withdrawing troops from the country may not make matters much worse. Instead, upon withdrawal the United States can begin to pursue operations more in line with its capabilities, using technology to eliminate potential Islamist threats and using its overt and covert elements to work toward a stable government in Baghdad.”

So long as we remain the occupying power, it will be impossible to differentiate freedom fighters from terrorists. When we leave, the only militants remaining will be sectarians and the hard-core jihadists. Nor will this spell an immediate victory for Iran… in truth, we may benefit Iranian interests more by remaining than by leaving, since we are distracted and bleeding capital, while they can sit back and manipulate events from relative safety.

The question PINR resolutely resists asking and answering is whether its ethical to leave Iraq now that we’ve destroyed the regime. I don’t relish the kind of ethnic cleansing and we may see; on the other hand, we don’t seem able to stop it and it continues even today, with almost 150,000 American troops caught up in the conflict. I hold out a little hope of a partition-type solution, but until there’s a Commander-in-Chief in office who’s willing to consider that possibility, the options are stay and perpetuate the violence or go and observe it from afar. In such a situation, it’s clear our responsibility is to reduce the solidarity that militants are currently experiencing against the invading Western power. It’s always possible they’ll settle on a political solution themselves.

• WaPo has the US planning airstrikes on Iran. If this was Martin Sheen’s White House, I’d know the story was coming while Stealth bombers flew towards their targets, and that Monday’s news wouldn’t be about planning the strikes, but about their effects. I have this terrible feeling that an expanded war with Iran would look terrific from the administration’s point of view. It would cement our position in Iraq, bury both the NSA wiretap story and Libby’s finger-pointing, and bolster those flagging approval ratings. Is this too cynical?
• NYTimes Magazine has this story on El Salvador. A lot of people like to point out the absurd contradiction of prosecuting doctors who perform abortions but not the women who seek them. They should stop pointing to the contradiction, and start wondering whether the right doesn’t have farther reaching plans. I think the moment that hit me hardest was reading the phrase “forensic vagina inspectors” and knowing it was deadly serious. Don’t think it can’t happen here. Helps to put victimhood in perspective, too.
• This article in the Chicago Tribune made me laugh approvingly. What better way to point out the obvious: the difference between colonial genocide and cultural warfare is the difference between genetics and porn. In that battle, how can you not side with topless women and gay makeouts?
• To complete my continental sweep of the nation’s news, the LA Times has a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s practice of commemorating every California casualty of the war in Iraq. Sure he’s a bad governor who has eight Humvees and is probably contributing more to the peak oil crisis than the Califonia divison of the Postal Service. But he models some good behavior for our less heroic leaders….