Iraqi mullah with Iran ties to visit U.S.

Mullah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a top Iraqi Shiite leader with close ties to Iran, will meet with President Bush next week, the White House confirmed Friday. Mullah leads the powerful Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, a rival group to the political movement led by firebrand Shiite mullah Muqtada al-Sadr.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the meeting was set for Monday.

"President Bush looks forward to an exchange of views and a discussion of important issues facing Iraq today," Johndroe said.

Also, a senior administration official said Bush will meet with a Sunni leader -- Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi -- in January at the White House.

The visits come against a backdrop of deadly Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare in Iraq that has led some observers to say a civil war has engulfed the country.

Bush returned from a summit Thursday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan focusing on the deteriorating security situation.

Al-Hakim and Bush will discuss the political crisis in Iraq, said mullah's aide, Haitham Husseini.

Up ahead, killings and chaos. Might that go on in Iraq for decades? We're going to tell you what one military official says about it. He thinks it actually could.

And the season's first major snowstorm out west. We're going to tell you if it affects your area. Stay with us.

BLITZER: A top U.S. military intelligence officer has a very sobering assessment of the cycle of violence in Iraq, which is killing thousands of civilians each month. He now says the carnage could actually go on for decades. Spoke exclusively to our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

She's at the U.S. Central Command headquarters at an undisclosed location in the Middle East -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, as we continue to travel throughout this region with General John Abizaid, an inside look at the latest intelligence assessment on Iraq. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STARR (voice-over): As the Bush administration struggles to find a way out of Iraq, the top U.S. military intelligence officer for the region says sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia now run so deep, it could take generations for the country to become peaceful.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN CUSTER, U.S. ARMY: We're in a self-sustaining cycle of violence is the way I put it. There are demographics within Baghdad that both sides are trying to change, Sunni, Shia. There are death squads on both sides.

STARR: Army Brigadier General John Custer is the senior intelligence officer for General John Abizaid at the U.S. Central Command. He gave CNN a rare interview as Abizaid travels throughout the region. Custer says the violence is at the core of what he calls a revenge society that now is Iraq.

CUSTER: The Shia are trying to move Sunnis out of mixed neighborhoods to turn some neighborhoods into more Shia-based neighborhoods. The Sunnis are resisting, the Sunnis are then coming back at the Shia.

STARR: U.S. military intelligence believes Iran is playing a significant, but perhaps not decisive role in supporting Shia militias and death squads. Custer says the largest Shia militia, Muqtada al- Sadr's Madhi army, now has an Iranian controlled element inside Iraq. U.S. officials say members of the Madhi Army have trained both in Iran and Lebanon. Custer thinks Sadr's recent move to pull his crucial support from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may backfire.

CUSTER: He faces quite a strain there because the network of patronage that he acquires from that is a great deal of his power. So we question how long he can do that.

STARR: But it is the revenge society of Iraq that Custer is focused on. Iran, he says, is not the central issue.

CUSTER: If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict. It wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive.

STARR: But what is clear, General Custer believes, is that the Shia are now willing to spend years getting their revenge against the Sunnis -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara Starr with that exclusive report, terrific reporting. She's been doing an excellent job for us all week on the road. Let's check in with Lou Dobbs, he's standing by with a quick look at what's coming up right at the top of the hour -- Lou.

TODD: But this is a resolute president, who again today said he is committed to staying in Iraq to get the job done. And as one analyst says, Mr. Bush still has tremendous leverage with Iraq's leaders. Whatever semblance of stability there is in Iraq, this analyst says, is because of the American presence there -- Wolf.

BLITZER: He certainly showed no inclination to budge today at that news conference in Amman, Jordan.

Brian, thank you for that.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister al-Maliki tells ABC News Iraqi forces will be able to take over security for the country from U.S. troops by June of next year. He's made similar remarks before, but many U.S. officials question his assessment. President Bush did not make any mention of such a time line after his meeting with al-Maliki earlier today.

Meanwhile, we're also learning new details about what members of that Iraq Study Group will be recommending in their report, due out next Wednesday.

Our White House correspondent, Elaine Quijano, is joining us now with more -- Elaine.

ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Wolf, three sources close to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have confirmed to CNN that the recommendations next week are expected to include a call for a gradual U.S. troop pullback, but not a timetable when it comes to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUIJANO (voice-over): After a summit in Jordan with Iraq's prime minister, President Bush returned to Washington, preparing to hear next week from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on its recommendations for improving the situation in Iraq.

The group, led by former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, began its work nearly nine months ago. Sources close to the group say the 10 members side-stepped the thorny issue of setting a definite timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Instead, a source close to the deliberations says the consensus view is to recommend a U.S. troop reduction, described as "gradual but meaningful," with the reduction to begin relatively early next year. The group is also explode to recommend the plan be immediately communicated to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the panel wants the U.S. to focus more on training Iraqi troops and less on combat.

Ahead of the report, President Bush, in Jordan, sought to dispel the notion U.S. troops would be pulled out prematurely.

BUSH: I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done so long as the government wants us there.

QUIJANO: The Bush administration has downplayed any findings by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, saying it is one of several groups set up to study Iraq policy. And analysts say any expectations that the panel will produce an Iraq panacea are mistaken.

POLLACK: It was never likely that the Iraq Study Group was going to come up with novel solutions to the problems of Iraq. Quite frankly, we know what the different alternatives are in Iraq, and, really, there aren't any solutions, there are just choices.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUIJANO: Now, the White House has been quick to note that the administration itself is conducting its own reviews of Iraq policy. As for the timing of when President Bush might make a decision, the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said today aboard Air Force One that it would likely be weeks, not months, and that it was expected that it would happen when the president was comfortable -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And we're told, Elaine -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this report that's going to coming out next week is going to be about 100 pages. So, presumably, there could be some surprises in there. We don't necessarily know all the bottom line yet.

QUIJANO: That's exactly right. It should be pointed out, of course, that what we're hearing right now is perhaps not what's going to be the final version. But I have to emphasize that when it comes to this notion of a timetable, which was really the sticking point here -- there was a deep divide across partisan lines here about whether or not to set a timetable -- that, in fact, we have been assured by these sources that there is no inclusion, no talk of a definite timetable.

But what other surprises there might be, you're very correct, Wolf, we'll have to wait and see what comes out when that report is due out next week -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Elaine, for that.

So how do Iraq Study Group's recommendations that we're learning about differ from current U.S. policy?

Let's get some answers from our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as you correctly point out, we've only see a little bit, a hint of what's coming in this report next week. But already people are reading into it what they want to see.

And here at the Pentagon, that means that they see it as an endorsement, essentially, of what they're doing now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MCINTYRE (voice-over): So far, the few details that leaked out of the Iraq Study Group would seem to suggest no drastic change in strategy is coming.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I think the truth is we're all talking about withdrawal. The question is whether that withdrawal will be based upon security considerations or based upon domestic politics here in the United States.

MCINTYRE: A gradual pullout, or pullback of U.S. troops, with no set timetable and emphasizing training Iraqis over conducting combat operations sounds very similar to what U.S. commanders advocate.

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I think it's very, very clear that we've got to do more to speed the transition, to get the Iraqis in the front, because the Iraqis being in the front is the key to victory.

MCINTYRE: But the panel does seem to favor a subtle but important shift, according to sources, essentially putting the Iraqis on notice the U.S. commitment is not open-ended by recommending gradual but meaningful U.S. troop reductions beginning relatively early next year and moving U.S. troops off the front lines, out of the bull's eye, as one official put it.

In another page from the Pentagon's current plan, it will also call for setting clear benchmarks for Iraq to meet.

GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: How much of the Iraqis American forces are under the command and control of the Iraqi leadership? How much of the country has been turned over to provincial leadership?

These are all things that we can judge and measure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: We're told that nobody here at the Pentagon yet has gotten any inside word on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but already the U.S. military is preparing its own options so it can counter any suggestions that it thinks are unwise -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Does anyone at the Pentagon really think it's realistic what Nouri al-Maliki told ABC News today, that Iraqi security forces will be able to take charge from the United States by June of next year?

MCINTYRE: No. I mean that would be a very optimistic scenario. They would hope that by June of next year they would be able to have some significant turn over of areas of Iraq, particularly in some of the areas that aren't so hostile, to Iraqi control.

But the idea that the Iraqi forces could take over complete control in six months, people here don't think that's the case.

BLITZER: All right, Jamie, thanks very much. Let's go back to New York.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/30/sitroom.02.html

Opinion:

Iran already helping in Iraq — unfortunately
Article Last Updated:12/02/2006 05:38:26 AM PST

IT appears the Iran-Iraq war is back on, except this time Iran is stoking civil war within Iraq to its advantage.
Shiite militia strongman Muqtada al-Sadr would like you to think that the sectarian tension is caused by the U.S. military presence, and a whole cabal of progressives have bought into this. Meanwhile, his Mahdi Army is reportedly getting training from Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is also reportedly providing equipment such as explosives and triggers to the Shiite militias for roadside bombs.

Iran, meanwhile, is projecting the facade of wannabe peacemaker, luring Iraq into a sit-down to purportedly work out solutions. And some are convinced that Iran can play a meaningful role in stemming the sectarian conflict — including, maybe, the Iraq Study Group.

In reality, its like Munchausens syndrome by proxy, where the mother makes her child ill and hides her nefarious deeds behind a facade of caring. Iran is making Iraq ill, and simultaneously posing as the great caretaker who will heal the regions ills where the U.S. has failed.

Why would Iran want to lead Iraq toward a peaceful democracy when it is a militaristic theocracy? Why would it see al-Sadr and his ilk tamed, when it can help advance Irans goals of spreading Islamic fundamentalism, increasing regional domination, the destruction of Israel and cutting the West off at the knees in one fell swoop?

And the Islamic Republic knows if the U.S. shuns the ludicrous idea of Iran still hellbent on its nuclear program, by the way — having a pivotal role in shaping the new Iraq, America would be accused by progressives of not playing well with others, of holding onto control of Iraqi security for some sort of egotistical aims.
You are considered as accomplices in the crimes committed in Iraq and the bloods shed under the cover of financial and military support, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday in a speech aimed at U.S. and British heads of state. Therefore, you should stand trial in fair tribunals in the near future and be answerable. Lets experience leading a life with love and affection. Hollow rhetoric that seems swiped from an anti-war hippie-fest, cleverly used by Ahmadinejad to try to convince the progressives that he has benign intentions and the U.S. is wicked and reactionary.

And the same day, he offered to help the coalition put an end to the present situation (in Iraq).

Think of Iran doing in Iraq what Syria has done with Lebanon. Iran and Syria are both backers of Hezbollah, and there doesnt need to be occupation for the long arm of radicalism to strike at the reasonable leaders.

And Iraq isnt the only thing the regime wants its paws on. Two weeks ago, the UKs Daily Telegraph reported that intelligence services said Iran is training senior al-Qaida operatives to take over the terror organization. Its a particularly potent — and lethal — example of Sunnis and Shiites learning to get along.

Iran is reportedly pushing Saif al-Adel — an Egyptian on the FBIs Most Wanted Terrorists list — for the No. 3 job behind current al-Qaida mouthpiece Ayman al-Zawahri. In exchange for al-Qaida promotions that meet with their approval, Iran will provide training facilities and equipment, reported the Telegraph.

Its been said that if we pull out of Iraq now, the terrorists win. Its probably more accurate to say that if we pull out, Iran wins.

Unfortunately, the Shiite theocrats and terror-mongers feel like theyve already won. The Democrats victory in Congress is not just a U.S. domestic incident, said Ayatollah Khamenei on Nov. 10, but a victory for the Iranian nation at the current political juncture.

Bridget Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_4761203

Sadr and Assad Contain Iran
Dec 1, 2006

Scott Sullivan - Persian Journal

The bad news is that Iranian aggression against the Middle East is intensifying, largely with US acquiescence, as shown in Lebanon this week. Hezbollah, not known for making idle threats, has promised to bring down the Siniora government. These Hizbollah threats have drawn only pro forma US protests.

The good news is that Iran, despite its size, influence, and US support, does not and will never hold the balance of power in the Middle East. That role is already filled by the growing alliance between Iraq and Syria - to be more specific, between Muqtada al-Sadr and Bashar al-Assad.

The Sadr-Assad alliance, which represents the good news, is far preferable to the rise of Iranian imperialism for one simple reason. Iran represents Hitler and the politics of ethnic hatred, as shown by Ahmadinejad's often-stated admiration for Hitler. In contrast, Sadr and Assad represent the cause of multi-ethnic, multi-confessional states and the forces of progress. To be more specific, Iran wants to pull down the multi-ethnic states of Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria as the first steps in Iran's plan for regional conquest. Iraq, Lebanon and Syria obviously cannot permit this to happen.

As go the policies of Sadr and Assad, when they are coordinated, goes the policy of the region, with or without Iran. This is because when Iraq and Syria align on an issue with the Sunni states, who often vote as a bloc, especially in view of the Iranian threat, the Muslim stance for the Middle East as a whole is established.

The only possible offset in Iran's hands to this unfavorable reality is for Iran to play the "Israel Card." Thus, it is to Iran's great advantage to stir the pot in the PA and Lebanon as a way of rallying Arab support and coercing Iraq and Syria. So this week we see the Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon.

However, Iran is making a big mistake by failing to recognize that the same Lebanon crisis that helps coerce Iraq and Syria also puts diplomatic leverage into Iraqi and Syrian hands. The Iraqis and Syrians, in the middle position between Iran and the US, and who are not wholly-owned Iranian subsidiaries like Hezbollah, are courted by all sides.

When the issues are Iraq and Lebanon, as is the case today, Syria is in an especially strong position. Iran cannot take either one over Syria's objections. Assad has clearly decided to first defend Iraq. This makes good sense given the overwhelming importance of securing Iraq as the key to Middle East stability, as is even reflected in US policy, which has downplayed Lebanon.

In short, as Lebanon's problems intensify, the US would be prudent to stay the course of stabilizing Iraq, including continued cooperation with Maliki and Sadr. By doing otherwise, the US would only undermine efforts by Sadr and Assad to contain Iran.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_19231.shtml

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.