Upping The Ante
Those who are opposed to the surge are not going to like this:
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The “catch and release” policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran’s regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country’s nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.
“There were no costs for the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.”
Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.
But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq “has been quite striking.”
“Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism,” Hayden said.
The new “kill or capture” program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran’s commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.
The administration’s plans contain five “theaters of interest,” as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.
The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the “Blue Game Matrix” — a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran’s funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan.
In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
Good…it’s far past time to take off the kid’s gloves with Iran, and as for the ‘international community’, well, four questions:
1. Have the kidnapped Israeli soldiers been captured released, as mandated by the UN-sponsored ceasefire in Lebanon?
2. Has Hezbollah been disarmed, as mandated by the UN-sponsored ceasefire in Lebanon?
3. Are the UN sanctions against North Korea being enforced?
4. Have the multiple threats against Iran resulted in any serious consequences?
Of course, we know the answer to all four questions is a resounding no.
Now, we all know we lack the troops right now for direct confrontation with Iran…but that doesn’t mean we sit back and let Americans get killed without retaliation, nor should we just let Iran’s bomb program proceed without placing every obstacle at our disposal in its path.
We are at war with Iran, I think it’s fair to say, but it’s not a hot war…yet…

kid’s gloves? :p
I guess you mean ‘kid gloves’, much as it pains me to correct you (as in gloves made of kidskin, as in baby goats. I would guess they are very dainty gloves, and you would remove them to do heavy work, hence the expression?
Yes, sorry, I’ll correct that…
And I suspect you mean the Israeli soldiers remain captured or have not been released, correct?
Man, another blooper! Thanks, corrected that one, too…
In my view, this is an impeachable offense. Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. End of story.
But that’s the point of my last comment, Peter; it’s a cold war, not a hot one, and nothing has been (or will be) declared (at the moment, at least)…
And it is being fought within the confines of an approved military engagement.
Mark, I think that is a distinction without a difference —
Absent a declaration of war, the President does not have the right to kill or capture within another sovereign state. Forget the moral question — do we allow other countries to kill or capture Americans within our borders? by what right do we kill or capture foreign citizens? — the fact is that these are acts of war, regardless of whether it is hot or cold.
I think you’d have more of a point, Peter, if we were talking about Americans going into Iran and snatching Iranians there. But we’re talking about Iranians who are helping attacks on Americans in Iraq. How is this different from fighting non-Iraqis who have gone to Iraq to help Al Qaeda?
Dennis, you raise a very good point, and I think I ought to back off until more is known. What caught my eye was this line from the Post story:
“The administration’s plans contain five “theaters of interest,” as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.”
I made the assumption that one of those theaters was inside Iran, but this may be unwarranted. I couldn’t find anything in the Times about it — presumably WaPo had an exclusive. It will be interesting to see how this develops.