Anti-Iran Propaganda Effort Update

Our daily fix of news on the anti-Iran information operation requires an especially large shovel to cope with today's load.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq accused Iran on Monday of providing weapons, training and support to Iraqi militia and insurgent groups responsible for the country's continuing violence and instability.

At a news conference, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad criticized what he called Iran's "negative role" in Iraqi affairs, saying the country's diplomatic relationship with its neighbor was tainted by a policy "to work with militias, to work with extremist groups, to provide training and weapons." He added that there was evidence the Iranians provided "indirect help" to Sunni Arab insurgents who attack U.S. and Iraqi government troops.

The Iranian aid was part of a "comprehensive strategy" by a "player seeking regional preeminence," he said.

If that statement isn't the textbook definition of "the pot calling the kettle black" I don't know what is.

Khalilzad's remarks were unusually blunt. "I have said to Iraqis that we do not seek to impose our differences with Iran on them," Khalilzad said. "But we do not want Iranian interference in Iraq."

Does Khalilzad really expect that Iraq's next door neighbor, and fellow Shiites, will not want to have a say in what happens? Especially after fighting the bloody Iran/Iraq war through most of the 1980's?

He is not stupid. He is just "our man in Baghdad."

The info-op continues this morning on the op/ed page of the Washington Post, where an American Euro-weenie calls for Israel to be admitted to NATO to help protect them from the freedom-hatin' Iranians.

But the country most threatened by a future Iranian nuclear capability is, of course, Israel. It would be a mistake to dismiss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rantings about Israel as mere posturing or a bluff. One lesson from Sept. 11 is that we should not limit our strategic imagination or underestimate our enemies in the Middle East. When someone says he wants to wipe you off the map, he might just might mean it. If, then, the West decides that a military strike to deny Iran the nuclear option is too risky and instead opts for a policy of deterrence and long-term peaceful regime change, it must also take steps to ensure Israel's protection for that interim period.

Blah, blah, blah.

Any time someone brings up Sept. 11, you can basically ignore the rest of the person's argument.

Today's Iran hat trick concludes with a shot from the Boston Globe, quoting various "experts" on the desirability of imposing travel sanctions, and other measures, upon the Iranian leadership.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said such limited measures are attractive because they could find broad support on the Security Council, where Russia and China -- who have veto powers in the body -- have been reluctant to impose widespread economic embargoes.

''For specific sanctions -- freezing bank accounts of senior leaders, stopping international air carriers from serving Tehran -- I think we can gain consensus," Rubin wrote in an e-mail response to questions from the Globe. ''After all, China doesn't have flights [to Iran], so it's a nonissue for them."...

While countries debate possible sanctions, international pressure has already raised the cost of doing business with Tehran.

Zurich's UBS bank announced in January that it has asked its clients living in Iran to close their accounts because it was becoming too expensive to vouch for the origin of the funds.

Here's a brilliant idea:

If travel and banking sanctions are enacted and fail to change Iran's behavior, (a European diplomat) said, punishment could escalate over time to such tougher actions as a ban on investment in Iran's oil industry or even an oil embargo, which would raise gasoline prices worldwide.

That'll show 'em.

Bush and Cheney's friends in the oil business won't be shedding any tears, though.