Comments on: Possible Proof of Iranian Support for the Taliban

By: Realist Writer

Realist Writer — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:13:33 +0000

I find it hilarous how people automatically wonder WHY the Iranians are giving weapons to the Taliban…and not caring IF it is the Iranian government itself providing the weapons, or just Iranian smugglers.

Until you actually find this out, the entire discussion just appears to become nothing more than a hotbed of conspiracy theories…And conspiracy theories just don’t seem to go well with me.

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:43:03 +0000

A good point on rationality. Something my classmates at college never really got in my opinion was the phrase “Never mistake for malice what can be explained by stupidity”*. While stupidity is not the exact point, all current actors are humans and will have certain human inclinations.
On the weapons, that depends on what kind. If they are fairly modern or of a specialized type then it would be suspicious. Also you would expect more Russian and Chinese than Persian from the past thirty years.
*Paraphrased

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:39:07 +0000

We shouldn’t just see this in terms of Iran’s relations with Afghanistan. We should also try to see this in terms of Iran’s relations with the U.S, with the Taliban, with Pakistan, and with many other variables that defy easy identification. All of these (in theory) influence a leaders decisions.
If we assume that Iran is indeed shipping weapons to militant groups then here are some possible reasons.
1. Iran feels that the Afghan Taliban are more likely to win the war, and wants them to be more reliant on Iran for aid than Pakistan.
2. Iran is backing both sides in different ways in the knowledge that, regardless of who wins, either side will need to keep good ties to Iran in the future.
3. Iran may want to drag down the U.S in Afghanistan as it attempted* to in Iraq. It is entirely possible that Iran has divorced its policies on the Afghan government from its policies on how to use groups in proxy wars with the U.S.
4. Iran could be using this as a very secretive card in negotiations in the future, either increasing or decreasing aid as negotiations demand.
Please note that all of these are making assumptions. Guesswork is all I have at the moment.

*Whether it succeeded or not is subjective at this time.

By: DE Teodoru

DE Teodoru — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:35:16 +0000

BRAVO! You said it all….Now how do we make you Secretary of Defense?

I hope you’re young so I can die confident that a guy with brains will lead my grandkids in security policy!

By: Toryalay Shirzay

Toryalay Shirzay — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:01:57 +0000

Andy,afghanatheist, and Tim, your explanations are more plausible.It is true Iran has 2 deadly enemies fighting each other in Afghanistan and so being the ultra crafty players the Iranians are,they will try their best to keep the Taliban and the Americans busy killing each other.As their enemies are kept fighting each other,the Iranians buy valuble time to build their nuclear arms which if sufficiently built will be a much better deterrent than small allies here and there.

By: Fabius Maximus

Fabius Maximus — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:26:19 +0000

There is strong evidence of past Iranian support for the Shiite insugents in Iraq. There is evidence of past low-level Iran contact with the Sunni insurgents, and indications of low-level support. From memory, the hot stories of massive aid tended to pan out upon examination.

Does anyone know of any comprehensive study of this issue?

There have been frequent warnings during the past few years that Iran was providing MANPADS to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, an obvious step if they were seriously involved. That would be a game-changer, and obviously has not happened (yet) on any significant scale.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:04:49 +0000

My enemy’s enemy…

Interesting discussion but I am little confused. I think we should stop talking as if the Iranian regime was a 100% rational actor on the question of Afghanistan, US and the Taliban. Particularly when there are demonstrably significant other interest groups involved in the country. We should also recognise that, simplistically, Iran has two main “enemies” operating in Afghanistan at present – the US and the Taliban. In purely pragmatic terms, I can completely understand why they might like to see both parties being bloodied and bruised over the next five years or so. It seems their economic investments are still coming on apace in western Afghanistan, regardless.

Conversely, it also seems logical that UK and US governments, amongst others, should fire political “warning shots” with public statements that weapons/IEDs etc are coming over from Iran, without ratcheting tension up to the nth degree by directly accusing the Iranian regime of being responsible. They may actually not be.

So all the political actors are doing what all political actors usually do in a confrontation situation – they start to mark out their “red lines” of acceptable vs unacceptable behaviour. Hey, it might even be an attempt by US/UK to alert the Iranian regime to stuff they may not fully know about.

But surely “Persian” lettering on weapons doesn’t mean anything conclusive? It could represent a spectacularly stupid regime or a very clever info op or just a coincidental fact of life, given weapons have been bouncing back and forth across all borders in this region for 20-30 years…

By: Bobby

Bobby — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:54:57 +0000

Anan,

I pretty much agree with the gist (if not the actual wording) of everything in your comment, but I would note that you’re taking issue with something that Andy hasn’t actually said. Andy merely stated that Iran’s policy of providing material support to encourage violence in Iraq was designed to send a message to the US; this is correct. You have countered that the policy has backfired (quite badly, in fact) on Iran and has caused them to squander much of the influence they might otherwise enjoy right now; this is correct, as well.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:57:54 +0000

Well, after having watched Channel 4, I am as completely convinced as before that Iran is not trying to secure victory for the Taliban.

On the other hand some degree of high level complicity in supply to the Taliban does seem a little more likely.

I will make the same mistake as everyone else and compare to some other war. In the thirties Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both supplied different sides in the Spanish civil war with the express idea of preventing defeat for either side. Hitler wanted to keep Mussolini busy (who was more committed in his support of Francos Nationalists/Fascists). Stalin bargained the West would never allow a leftist victory, but didn’t want a nationalist victory either.

Perhaps the Iranians, like Hitler, want to keep the US too busy enough to make a campaign against Iran that much more difficult.

I thought the interview with the supposed ‘Taliban’ from the east was interesting. This guy claimed Iranian support was vital. Not what I would have expected a female journo to wear for that assignment. So far as that bit goes, C4 may well have got stung. Any trouble the Taliban can make for the Shia, they will.

By: anan

anan — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:00:49 +0000

DePetris,

I fear this very thing.

Khamenei may have lost control last summer, when 10 of the 12 grand Marjas in Quom, all the grand Marjas of Najaf and probably almost all the grand Marjas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (my suspicion is that the Lebanese Grand Marja may have stayed loyal to Khamenei, although I don’t know this) turned on Khamenei.

If a faction of the IRGC now rules Iran; then their actions are unpredictable. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might well be a puppet of this faction. Never since 1979, to my knowledge, has a sitting president publicly disagreed with the supreme leader of the Revolution the way Ahmadinejad has.

Lets see what channel 4 comes up with.