Posted on 04/10/2008 12:52:27 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
April 10, 2008 -- A GAMBLE that proved too costly.
That's how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse.
Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions:
* Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran.
* The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front.
* The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Excellent. Thanks.
I see some similarities between the Battle of Basra and Yorktown. Ahmahdinajad is Cornwallis, except that Cornwallis had the guts to be in country.
Man. That's good.
Charles Krauthammer wasn’t on Brit’s panel tonight. I guess he was off somewhere eating crow.
He thought the Iraqi governmant lost.
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.