"Let's get some more now on our top story, President Bush authorizing U.S. military forces in Iraq to capture or kill Iranian agents in that country if there's intelligence showing they're planning to attack U.S. or coalition forces.
Let's get a little bit of analysis now what this means. Joining us, retired U.S. Army colonel Pat Lang, former chief of Mideast intelligence over at the Pentagon.
Pat, you know this area well. You studied it your whole life. You speak the language.
If the U.S. goes ahead, soldiers or Marines, and kill Iranians on the spot in Iraq, what are the Iranians do in retaliation?
COL. PAT LANG, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, I think Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. atomic agency, has it right. Everybody ought to calm down and take a step back and take a few deep breaths, because there's a kind of cycle of accelerated statements and heated developments that's going on now that tends to ratchet up the situation so much that it tends to push you in the direction of war. And something like that, in which we start to eliminate their people because we have information that we think might incriminate them is a very -- is a very dangerous escalating move.
BLITZER: Well, what would happen if the U.S. does kill these Iranians and the president has signed off on it?
LANG: Well, if he has signed off on it and intelligence is developed that indicates that what he says it's true, then they will in fact eliminate the people. The problem is, is that the Iranians will then have to make a decision as to how they're going to retaliate for that.
BLITZER: Well, how could they retaliate?
LANG: They could retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a big way.
BLITZER: How could they do that?
LANG: They have hundreds of thousands of people from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard corps already in Iraq. (This figure included "encouraged" emigrants to Iraq)
BLITZER: Hundreds of thousands?
LANG: Oh, yes. That's a well-established figure that's thought to be true across the community of people that look at this. And they're there as liaison personnel with the very Shia militias and things like that. And if they get sufficiently angry with us, they can start retaliating directly against our forces.
BLITZER: And in terms of in the past, Iranians, at least according to U.S. officials, have been accused of using terror organizations as sort of a cover for what they're plotting.
LANG: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the principal international sponsor of Islamic terrorism, both Sunni and Shia, ever since its foundation after the revolution against the Shah. They're very skilled at this. They've done it all over the world. And they would be -- that would be right in character with the way they do things to start using terrorism as an instrument of retaliation.
BLITZER: You're referring to Iran right now?
LANG: I'm referring to Iran, that's right. And they could do it anywhere in the world, not just in Iraq.
BLITZER: So, basically, there is potential here for what is a really bad situation getting increasingly worse?
LANG: Yes, there's a cycle of escalation going on right now between (us and them)-- certainly on our side. The Iranians, on their side, have kind of hunkered down and are acting stubborn about things in the way that people in the third world sometimes do when their ambitions are interfered with.
But I don't see any tendency to a de-escalation through negotiation on our part. Instead, we're just telling the Iranians, we want you to stop interfering in Iraq. And that's the end of the conversation.
BLITZER: There's been some suggestion that the president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, is in sort of shaky ground right now and that the supreme leader may be angry at what he's done and that others are clearly irritated.
What's your sense about his stability right now?
LANG: Well, the way the Iranian republic is set up, in fact, he is not the sole possessor of power in the same way the president of the United States is over the American armed forces. There are a lot of other actors in Iran, and a lot of them are very irritated with him, because he is, in fact, enabling a cycle of escalation against Iran which could be devastating if the United States decided to use its main strategic forces against the country.
BLITZER: I was told recently by a senior administration official that U.S. intelligence on actually what's happening inside of Iran right now, as far as his strength, Ahmadinejad is concerned, is not necessarily all that good.
LANG: No. I think probably if you go around the academic community and the think tank community in the United States, talk to people in New York and in California and here, academics who deal with Iran, you'll probably have a better, clearer idea of what is actually happening politically in Iran.
BLITZER: Is there, in your sense, bottom line, a desire on the part of the Iranians to engage directly with the United States in Iraq?
LANG: You mean in a combat sense?
BLITZER: Yes. In other words, to use -- the suggestion has been they're already supplying sophisticated improvised explosive devices, other military equipment, training to their friends in Iraq. But do you sense that the Iranians will get directly involved?
LANG: I don't think they'll do that if they think that their ambitions for their Shia co-religionists in Iraq are going to be fulfilled in the way that we have been going toward with a Shia government in Iraq and that kind of thing. On the other hand, if the situation of competition between the United States and Iran gets out of hand, then, in fact, it could get very hot, very fast.
BLITZER: The deployment of another 21,000 or so U.S. troops to the Baghdad area, to the Al Anbar Province -- you've studied Iraq for a long time -- is it going to make a difference?
LANG: Well, in the overall situation?
BLITZER: Yes.
LANG: I don't think it will because the force is too small in the Baghdad area and it will rely too heavily on Iraqi efficiency in carrying this out. And we're going to have a lot of people scattered in little penny packets all over the city, backed with Iraqi forces. I doubt if that's actually going to have the clearing effect in Baghdad that we expect it will have.
BLITZER: So what's going to happen over the next six months?
LANG: Over the next six months I think the United States government will come to the realization that Prime Minister Maliki cannot deliver on some of things that he has told them he's going to be able to do. And, therefore, we might well have a change of government in Iraq.
BLITZER: A change -- would that be good?
LANG: It probably would be another Shia led government which also cannot deliver on promises it might make the United States, because any government there that is Shia in character has to depend on the Shia parties and militias for its support. So they can't fight these people in the long run.
BLITZER: What the American public wants to know is, the vulnerability, what's going to happen to 160,000 or so American troops in Iraq over the next six months to a year?
LANG: Over the next year, I would say that we're going to have a situation which will not improve markedly, but we will still have approximately the same number of people in Iraq. And a year from now, say in the middle of '08, we will be facing a situation in which things will not have greatly improved but we'll still be there.
BLITZER: It will basically the same as what's happening right now, is that what you're saying?
LANG: I'm afraid that's true.
BLITZER: If you were still at the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and you were briefing the president or the secretary of defense right now, what would be your recommendation?
LANG: Well, intelligence people don't usually make recommendations. But, I will in this case.
I would say that what we need to have is a general, forceful, persistent round of negotiations throughout the region to settle as many interests as we can. Bring the temperature down enough so that we can all live with it without going to war some more. We don't need any more wars. Wars are really bad.
BLITZER: Colonel Pat Lang, retired U.S. Army intelligence.
Thanks very much more for coming in.
LANG: My pleasure"
Great post, I'm sorry I missed the interview. Your numbers re: Iranians in Iraq are striking. clearly they could pose a significant problem, if these encounters 'go hot'. Thanks again for your blog.
Posted by: Frank Durkee | 26 January 2007 at 11:04 PM
I'm becoming quite a fan of your site, Colonel Lang.
Tell me though, in your opinion, have we been killing Iranians for some time now on the pretense that they are Shiite Iraqi militiamen who picked a fight with U.S. personnel ?
Posted by: zenpundit | 26 January 2007 at 11:28 PM
I am speechless with admiration for Colonel Lang.
The Democrats received a mandate to end this war this past November. They must find the courage to act.
Colonel Lang, who has been at war, has the courage to state the truth. Where are the Democrats?
Where is the courage in the Democratic Party?
Posted by: arbogast | 27 January 2007 at 12:02 AM
Pat ... Joe Galloway's latest column ... The part about the bullhorns .....
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/galloway/16544116.htm
Posted by: COLORADO BOB | 27 January 2007 at 12:13 AM
Colonel,
Hundreds of thousands of Iranian intelligence and revolutionary guard in Iraq? That's the first I've heard anywhere near those figures. With all due respect I don't believe that. Can you cite some sources? The LA Times is reporting that the British in the south do not have any evidence of Iranian military assets in Iraq. So where are these thousands of Iranian troops? How can Persian speaking Iranians hide in Iraq? Sure a few hundreds or maybe even thousands could come in as pilgrims, but they can't bring much with them and they couldn't stay long without being discovered to some extent.
The U.S. military has pointed to no evidence of large numbers of Iranian assets in Iraq, or any Iranian assets for that matter. Only the introduction of shaped IEC's which allegedly originate in Iran, and a few captured Iranian's who are claimed to be revolutionary guards at the SCIRI office. I find it implausible that the 5 Iranian's arrested in Kurdish Erbil could be helping the Sunni insurgents (or the Shia militia's for that matter). There are no Sunni insurgents in Erbil, it's pretty much secured by the Kurdish forces. So attacking this alleged Iranian network in Iraq that is aiding the insurgents sounds trumped up as an excuse to put pressure on Iran.
Posted by: chew2 | 27 January 2007 at 12:25 AM
Hello Colonol Lang,
I appreciate your coming forth with this information and insight, given the current and growing seriousness of the situation in Iraq and the surrounding region, and have a couple of questions for you.
First, I'm kind of confused by your assertion that there are several hundred thousand Iranian agents and soldiers currently in Iraq. I know that Wolf asked you to confirm this and that you did, but this is an extremely high figure by any measure, let alone for that theater, and I wanted to make sure that this is what you're saying. If it is, why hasn't this been reported until now, at least widely, given how serious it is? This is simply an ASTOUNDING figure.
In your opinion, has the administration, with or without the help of the media, been trying to keep this information from the public, given how massive (and in my mind criminal) a failure this would constitute on the part of the administration and its war strategy if it was true? And if it is true, is there really any point in our remaining in Iraq any longer, since we'd have to at least double our forces there--which we do not have the ability to do--in order to take on such numbers militarily?
And second, I am also confused about your assertion that Iran "has been the principal international sponsor of Islamic terrorism, both Sunni and Shia, ever since its foundation after the revolution against the Shah". I'm sure that this is true with respect to Shiite terrorists, especially Hezbollah in Lebabon and some of the Shiite terrorists in Iraq. But I'm not aware that this has also been true of Sunni terrorists, e.g. Al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad. I don't doubt that Iran hasn't supported some Sunni terrorists over the years, but I was under the impression that Sunni terrorists' support and funding was coming primarily from Sunni countries and organizations, especially Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and not Iran. Are you saying that this is not true?
Posted by: kovie | 27 January 2007 at 12:53 AM
Colonel Lang,
I am glad to hear that you are out and about giving rational analysis where you have the opportunity.
I am not a fan of Wolf Blitzer, but I do think it is in our national interest to have your voice heard from whatever podium you can muster.
"War Is Bad"!!
Not doubt about it, please keep up the good work.
My question to you is:
What can we sorry citizens do in this developing situation??
As each day passes, I feel more like an average citizen of the the Nazi propaganda machine sitting by and waiting for my post war chance to say "but what could I do".
How do we stop this madness?
Regards,
David
Posted by: David E. Solomon | 27 January 2007 at 12:53 AM
The infiltration attack on the provincial ministry in Karbala, in which 4 US soldiers were kidnapped and killed last week, displayed a startling level of sophistication.
The insurgents got past the gate by driving black GMC Suburbans, wearing US uniforms, and speaking English. The guards waved them through. They stunned the soldiers with a grenade who were meeting with a government official in his office (possibly the governor), and kidnapped the soldiers, drove them 25 miles away, and killed them.
The intelligence required to pull that operation off had to be extremely good. It was an unprecedented, improbable, well-financed stunt. My first thought was, "Iranian retaliation."
Posted by: MarcLord | 27 January 2007 at 02:07 AM
I suspect the Iranian response you warn of is precisely the Iranian response which the Bush Administration hopes to elicit. Gleiwitz, only with
real Iranians taking the bait, not fake Iranians in Iranian uniform.
I hope the Iranian leadership chooses not to take the bait. But if they don't, the Bush administration will keep poking them ever harder with
ever-sharper sticks.
I remember reading somewhere that the ancient Persians invented chess. Is
that true? If it is, would that be such a point of pride to the present day Iranian leadership that the Iranian Leadership would just keep grinding its teeth
through all the dangling baits and sharp-stick-pokes to see who takes Cheney/bush's place at the chessboard?
Posted by: Different Clue | 27 January 2007 at 02:19 AM
Pat, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the Blitzer show. However, I do not see how there could be 200,000+ Iranian Republican Guards and Intelligence agents in Iraq. That's more Iranians in Iraq than Americans post-surge. How could there be that many Iranians without the US having more adversarial contact with them?
Bob
Posted by: bob randolph | 27 January 2007 at 05:31 AM
Qods force is not what is stirring the pot in Iraq, we have there a very Iraqi struggle, they are merely adding some spice like the increasingly active Saudis.
Tehran reaps short term defensive benefit from having the US land army mired in Iraq but in the longer game they want as big a slice of Iraq to be under the rule of their Shi'a brethren as possible. If Iraq implodes it will be a disaster for Tehran.
DC does not have the decades long attention span to carry this ill considered political project through. It is already an embarrassing failure eager to be forgotten. Tehran is the only viable longterm protector of the new Shi'a ruling elite and their Kurdish allies. The Iranians have little choice in this; it's in their vital interest.
We should deal with the reality that the Iranians are a substantial power in Iraq. This is not just because of their militaries decades old infiltration of the South; it is for the simple reasons of geography, sect and trade.
Having repeatedly failed to seize the diplomatic initiative DC power over Iran is in precipitous decline. When DC negotiates it will do this from a position of weakness. It would be wise to act while some leverage remains. As DC's grip slips on Baghdad it could be enough to limit Tehran's dominance in the region. It is worth considering that a deepening entanglement in Iraq may thwart advancing Persian imperialism just as it has the PNAC version.
Instead the POTUS has pointed an accusing finger at Tehran and attempted to intimidate them once again. Whether he recklessly courts it or not the danger is that an incident will trigger an escalation; typically how war start.
Tehran is ruled by cold calculating men who won't easily be drawn. In 98 after the Taliban (fat with Saudi funds) butchered thousands of Shi'a at Mazar-i-Sharif and lynched the staff of their consulate Tehran did not impetuously strike back. They carefully sought Clinton's permission to retaliate and eventually restrained themselves. However the Mullah's apparatus of power is not a monolithic machine like DC. There are elements including their windbag President that may see domestic advantage in war and have means to act independently.
Posted by: ali | 27 January 2007 at 06:43 AM
Great post. Dumb question: Why on earth don't we negotiate with Iran and Syria? I can't believe it's just truculence on the part of the administration. Is there some legitimate strategic reason behind this, such as fear of elevating Iran's status, etc.? Or is really just crackpot realism? Baffling.
Posted by: jr786 | 27 January 2007 at 08:01 AM
I only wish there would be someone there to make those recommendations, Col. Lang.
Al Jazeera ran a piece on the Mahdi Army this week which reported it at about 60,000 members also, for whatever that's worth.
I am disturbed by reports of an appalling attempt to exploit The Holocaust to justify pre-emptive attack on Iran by the U.S. as proxy for Israel:
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r
Posted by: Rider | 27 January 2007 at 08:12 AM
ir786
The Bush Administration sees these two countries as the main obstacles to revolutionary change in the Islamic World. It seeks their radical transformation or removal. It sees them as EVIL. Therefore it does not want to deal with evil except to arrange the surrender of evil. This has nothing to do with realism. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | 27 January 2007 at 08:12 AM
All
You are excessively literal in regard to my remark about hundreds of thousands of Iranian agents in Iraq. If I gave the impression that I mean Iranian SOLDIERS in every case then I was not sufficiently precise. What I mean is that the Iranians have pushed large cadres of IRGC across the border. These cadres are present with all the major militias on the Shia side as advisers, trainers, logistical helpers, communications staff, etc. In addition to that the Iranian government has "sponsored" the migration of literally hundreds of thousands of Iranians to Shia Iraq to shift the demographic balance there and create what the Israelis call "facts on the ground."
It would be a serious self deception to think that Iran has not been "interfering" with the development of history in Iraq. In that, the Bush Administration is correct. The question should be - why are they now making a fuss over it?
Incidentally, my postings are in the nature of editorials not reportage. I don't have to proove anything to anyone. If you are bothered by that, then, don't read it. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | 27 January 2007 at 08:25 AM
jr786,
first you have to understand the the Iranians are evil men. That is achieved through moral clarity. Evil men cannot be trusted. They lie. Always. Thus, there has to be regime change.
America is such a force of good, that talking with evil men will give them legitimacy, which is bad for regime change. THus there are no talks.
The basic idea that for evil men there is no approach other than regime change has remained unchanged in the Bush doctrine, reality be damned. And they stick to it, and do it by the book.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 27 January 2007 at 08:25 AM
Bob
They have been avoiding contact with US forces with the help of their "friends"
among the Shia. It is a big country, full of Shia and our intelligence is terrible. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | 27 January 2007 at 08:27 AM
Col. Do you have a reaction to General Odum's presentation to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? My sense is that he has hold of at least a good portion of what we need to think through and act on. I got the text from a post on Josh Marshalls blog. sory I can't do the appropriate computer stuff.
Posted by: Frank Durkee | 27 January 2007 at 08:31 AM
kovie
The Islamic Republic of Iraq has provided "material support" (in the language of US law) to a number of Sunni zealot (terrorist) groups in Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere.
In the struggle against the "kuffar" (unbelievers) they are quite willing to make common cause with the Sunni. The situation would be quite different if the interests of a twelver Shia group were involved. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | 27 January 2007 at 08:34 AM
zenpundit
I would think that IRGC men embedded with Shia militias would be difficult for American troops to identify as Iranian.
I have seen many occasions in which american troops were unable to identify different nationalities of Arabs and there are a lot of Iranians from the border country who speak Arabic quite well. pl
Posted by: W. Patrick Lang | 27 January 2007 at 08:36 AM
Along similar lines:
"The increasingly common arrangement for sick or wounded Iraqis to receive treatment in Iran is just one strand in a burgeoning relationship between these two Persian Gulf countries. Thousands of Iranian pilgrims visit the Shiite holy cities in southern Iraq each year. Iran exports electricity and refined oil products to Iraq, and Iraqi vendors sell Iranian-made cars, air coolers, plastics and the black flags, decorated with colorful script, that Shiites are flying this week to celebrate the religious holiday of Ashura. But when President Bush and top U.S. officials speak of Iran's role in Iraq, their focus is more limited. U.S. officials accuse Iranian security forces, particularly the al-Quds Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards, of funneling sophisticated explosives to Iraqi guerrillas."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502087_pf.html
This is a symbiotic relationship like the one Tehran has with Southern Lebanon and Hamas ruled Palestine but set to be far deeper.
That's soft power at work, insidious and multifaceted, not intimidated by carrier groups, not vulnerable to laser guided bombs.
Qods Force are just a nail in a very big stick.
No wonder the plump Saudis are terrified; Khomeni's morbid revolution could be snuggling up to the downtrodden Shi'a who live on top of the Ghawar field within a decade.
Posted by: ali | 27 January 2007 at 08:51 AM
Dear Col. Lang,
Welcome back, sir.
I subscribe to the Situation Room specifically to get a head's up when you are on. Wouldn't you know that yesterday I didn't read it. I'm sorry I missed it.
Wolf is at his best when you are on.
Not that the Decider is interested, but what would do you think are starting points that are mutually beneficial to the US and Iran if we were able to talk?
Pardon me if this overly naive but just for starters,I believe the taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, leading to a narco terrorist state would be something neither of us want. From what I've read, Iran fas a few million drug addicts already - that many junkies is a drain on any society. Thank you for posting this and kudos to you for the Athenaeum.
Posted by: taters | 27 January 2007 at 09:47 AM
Col. Lang and confusedponderer: Thanks. I'll just have to remain baffled since the Administration's Manichean world view is beyond my ken. Have we ever had a government that wore such an ideological straitjacket? Where did it come from? Where does it end?
Posted by: jr786 | 27 January 2007 at 09:54 AM
Inside the Shia death squads:
"If they pay we kill them anyway' - the kidnapper's story. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad meets the commander of a Shia death squad ."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1999916,00.html
Insightful article on what is really happening in Shiite Baghdad now, worth a read. They do admit receiving substantial aid from Iran, not because they are allied with Iran necessarily but because they all hate America so much they co-operate.
The Yorkshire Ranter quite handily debunks the "IED's from Iran" story the Bushies keep repeating:
"So how do you build an EFP anyway?"
http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/
Just heard a financial analyst on the radio here talking about a "confidential" ING Bank (one of the world's largest banks, Netherlands based) report sent this week to their "high net worth" customers (probably have at least $1M US$ equivalent minimum on deposit). This report apparently states (he was reading from it)that they have it from "reliable inside sources" (NATO?) that Israel and/or the USA intend to attack Iran within the next 60 days. They are predicting stock market declines, large spikes in oil/precious metals etc. The key quote was something like "Extent and duration of the damage is dependent on the amount of Iranian retaliation".
In other words, they (the neos) expect Iran to absorb the attacks and not retaliate much. Seems a classic neo-con strategy, and like all else they do, it depends on the other side taking it lying down. Given the many recent statements from various Iranian authorities promising "massive rataliation", somehow I don't see any sunny outcome here.
"Does SPR Increase Foretell Iran Strike?" Ashraf Laidi, Chief FX Analyst at CMC Markets NA
http://www.safehaven.com/article...rticle- 6764.htm
key quote: "the aggressive approach on beefing up SPR may reflect heightened possibility of a US military strike against Iran as early as March or April, at a time when US navy ships are piling up in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday, markets were filled with chatter of a Kuwait-based newspaper article reporting that the US will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, citing "reliable sources". According to the article, the strikes will be launched from US ships with Patriot missiles guarding all oil-producing countries in the region. The attacks would be planned in April, the last month of British PM Blair in office. The immediate result of such an attack is a protracted run up in oil prices, which could reach the $70 per barrel mark in less than a week."
Better start cleaning and stocking that fallout shelter.
Posted by: Got A Watch | 27 January 2007 at 10:06 AM
Col. Lang,
In response to a question about Ahmadinejad's political prospects you say:
LANG: No. I think probably if you go around the academic community and the think tank community in the United States, talk to people in New York and in California and here, academics who deal with Iran, you'll probably have a better, clearer idea of what is actually happening politically in Iran.
Do you mean the academic community would not agree with the intelligence estimate or that it would?
Posted by: Nindid | 27 January 2007 at 10:24 AM