- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,471
- 136
Hancock was filling in for Rush this afternoon and said he believes Iran might be behind the Shi'a uprising in Iraq. While his facts were scarce (he's a conservative after all 
) it seems very plausible...in fact I think there is definately some truth in this. While al-Sadr (the radical Shi'ite cleric now under house arrest in Iraq) may have incited the recent surge in violence, where are all these shi'ites getting their guns? Where are they getting the money necessary to fund their operations and carry out attacks? Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein did a fairly good job of ensuring that the Shi'a "oppressed majority" would never have the weapons or the willpower needed to overthrow his sunni Baath regime. Well, he's gone, and that takes care of the willpower problem.
I'm not suggesting that the Iranian government is complicit with shi'a terrorists in Iraq--far from it. This is just another example of the ayatollahs starving for more power and authority than what they've enjoyed in Iran over the past few years. The Iranian population (especially students) have been leaning towards a more modern, progressive government and this has the ayatollahs scared. Right next door, however, is an oil-rich country with no functioning government and a poor, less-educated, starving population comprised mainly of Shi'ites.
So what can the U.S. do to ensure that powerful Iranian ayatollahs do not exert their influence in Iraq?? As Hancock pointed out on the air, the tactic of kidnapping and hostage taking with the threat of 'burning them alive' is somewhat 'Iranian in nature', and it has not appeared until now. Of course, Hancock's spin on the issue seems to echo the neo-conservative murmurs of "Iran is next", but like I said the whole government in Iran is not to blame.
) it seems very plausible...in fact I think there is definately some truth in this. While al-Sadr (the radical Shi'ite cleric now under house arrest in Iraq) may have incited the recent surge in violence, where are all these shi'ites getting their guns? Where are they getting the money necessary to fund their operations and carry out attacks? Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein did a fairly good job of ensuring that the Shi'a "oppressed majority" would never have the weapons or the willpower needed to overthrow his sunni Baath regime. Well, he's gone, and that takes care of the willpower problem. I'm not suggesting that the Iranian government is complicit with shi'a terrorists in Iraq--far from it. This is just another example of the ayatollahs starving for more power and authority than what they've enjoyed in Iran over the past few years. The Iranian population (especially students) have been leaning towards a more modern, progressive government and this has the ayatollahs scared. Right next door, however, is an oil-rich country with no functioning government and a poor, less-educated, starving population comprised mainly of Shi'ites.
So what can the U.S. do to ensure that powerful Iranian ayatollahs do not exert their influence in Iraq?? As Hancock pointed out on the air, the tactic of kidnapping and hostage taking with the threat of 'burning them alive' is somewhat 'Iranian in nature', and it has not appeared until now. Of course, Hancock's spin on the issue seems to echo the neo-conservative murmurs of "Iran is next", but like I said the whole government in Iran is not to blame.
Facebook
Twitter