an E-mail:
Mr. Lowry:
There’s an interesting tidbit in the ISG report which no one seems to be mentioning. The report says:
“Iran has provided arms, financial support, and training for Shiite militias within Iraq, as well as political support for Shia parties. There are also reports that Iran has supplied improvised explosive devices to groups—including Sunni Arab insurgents—that attack U.S. forces.”
The disconnect here is fascinating. The ISG here states two facts: (A) that Iran is training and supporting Shia militias and (B) that Iran is probably arming Sunni insurgents, then seemingly skips over the fact that these groups are essentially fighting each other (or perhaps they assume that Iran is so naive as not to suspect that the Sunni insurgents they’re arming are fighting the Shia militias they’re training, which I doubt), and then fails to connect them. This should have been a red flag to the ISG that Iran’s goal is the destabilization of Iraq and the region, else why would they be arming both sides. Yet the ISG then states:
” Despite the well -known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.”
Just thought you’d be interested to know that the ISG report contains evidence so contrary to it’s working assumption re: Iranian intentions.