Some thoughts on Kirkuk and Iran

C-Low had a couple of excellent comments in this post, and I thought I'd reply to them here, as he brings up some things worth paying attention to. His comments were:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18931927-23109,00.html

“IRAN was ready to share its nuclear technology with other countries, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after talks with the visiting Sudanese president, state television reported.
"Iranian nuclear scientists can easily train other Islamic countries in uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel production," he was quoted as saying”

Iran Ayatollah Khamenei chief Mullah not only offers to share nuclear technology proliferation but offers such to SUDAN the very nation that just the other day Bin Laden requested all Jihadi’s to move to aid. Coincidence or organized effort?

A massive number of AQ organization leadership is safe in Iranian “house arrest” and the “my enemies enemy is my friend” logic plays between AQ and Iran more so than even most others.

On another issue what’s your take on this:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20060424.aspx

“Meanwhile, members of the pro-Iran Badr militia are showing up in the northern oil city of Kirkuk. That's odd, because Shia Arabs are a small minority up there,”

The above part specifically, I read somewhere else that even some Mahdi boys were yoked up in Kirkuk lately also which may explain partially that mysterious oil fire in Kirkuk. Maliki dropped out of the Saddam army because of the Iranian/Iraqi war. I wonder just how much of the Shia are going to side with Iran if/when we jump. I kinda thought the Badr had moved more to US by way of Sistani and their battling with Mehdi/Sadr but this report of them moving into Kirkuk makes me wonder if Iran is not pulling the strings.

I get the Turkey and even Iran moving troops to the border to fight their rebels at least on the Iran side those rebels I would imagine they are getting some assistance from US and maybe even assisting some SOF infiltration in the area. The Turkey side I would guess due to both some blowback from our support to the Iranian and Iraqi Kurds being diverted their way but also I would imagine they are at the sometime moving to reinforce their border with Iran in case we decide to act on Iran.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453851.0847222223.html

This article is interesting 250k sounds like more than just a rebel deterrence force I wonder what kind of mix that force is going to be and how much heavy mech force is in that?

Lot of activity on all side latley huh AQ messages, Iranian wildeyed statements, UN uselessness, toops moving here and thier, reports of this and that.

Here is another link with some more detail about the Sadr militia moves into Kirkuk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401560.html?nav=hcmodule

Sounds to me like Iran positioning itself to strike at oil facilities in as many places as they can. Fox just confirmed that the Iranian Mullah has threatened to hit oil facilities around the world.

Why don’t the media ever ask the obvious question "how can Iran expect to attack US interest all over the world if they don’t have long range navy/air/missile assets with worldwide range? And if the obvious answer is terrorist how can we allow a nation that considers terrorist as their main weapon of retaliatory choice to have Nukes? Is their any cost or risk of action today comparable to the cost or risk of action tomorrow against a belligerent Nuclear armed Iran think how many cities will it cost not how many lives?"

I had the same question when Iran had its little visit with Sudan's president, and started talking about nuclear technology. Mere coincidence that Osama put out his little rant this week and happened to specifically mention Sudan? It does seem a bit like a marketing campaign is going on.

I think I've mentioned before as well, it seems like Iran is trying to portray itself as a champion for all of Islam, for Sunnis as well as Shiites. Sunni nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are nervous about a nuclear Iran as well, and Iran seems to be saying, no, we're all Muslims, we're doing all this for you too. Don't know how well that will fly, but Iran has gone out of its way to pretend to care about the Palestinians. Iran has been running all over the Middle East for months meeting with various Arab states. And now Sudan? I think Iran is trying to round up a nice posse for itself.

I too think the fact the Badr militia might be drifting into Kirkuk might have something to do with Iran's troubles with the Kurds in the NW corner of Iran. There has been unrest there, (see here for instance) and Iran may be setting up a way to hit back against the Kurds in Iraq who may be providing shelter for Iranian rebels.

As for al-Sadr, his militia has stirred up trouble in Kirkuk in the past. In February, he went around on a little tour ( I think designed to bolster his image), and in an interview with Al Jazeera he said Kirkuk should belong to all Iraq, and all should benefit from it. To me, that's a polite way of saying the Kurds should think twice before trying to claim it. So, since Sadr is also friendly with Iran, he might also be a tool to cause trouble there.

EStripes had much the same article on Saturday as the WaPo article you mention.

It's hard to believe folks like Sadr are so concerned about the plight of the Sunnis living in Kirkuk. As you well point out, surely some power politics at work.