Spencer Ackerman does a poor Persian:

Let’s say you’re Iran.

You look to your east and there are a bunch of U.S. troops. You look to your west and there are a bunch of U.S. troops. You send out peace feelers, but they’re rejected. Then you get pissed off and elect a Holocaust-denying asshole as your president. You get it through your head that the people who have encircled you and who for nearly 30 years have talked incessantly about overthrowing you (again) might have inadvertently given you a gift. What gift? The gift of thinking your best friends are actually their allies? Well, there’s that. But the real gift is tens of thousands of their troops that you can pay someone to attack. You might even try to kill U.S. troops at several steps removed — like the U.S. did the Soviets in Afghanistan not too long ago.

Facts are important things. It’s not yet proven that the Iranians truly are doing this. But it makes perfect sense to me that they would. Not only have we invaded and occupied two of their neighbors, we’re involved in a worldwide effort to stop them from achieving any form of nuclear technology, we step up patrols in the Persian Gulf and we even build military bases a stone’s throw from their border. In the hands of the dolts and warmongers who both staff this administration and have their designs on the next one, the U.S.-Iran War is a Gulf Of Tonkin incident just waiting to happen. A patriotic Iranian — certainly one who works for a bellicose Iranian president — would, most likely, try to kill U.S. troops while leaving no fingerprints.

First, let’s address the “backs against the wall” theory. The Iranian government supported anti-Taliban factions–such as Ishmael Khan and various Shi’a Hazaras–in Afghanistan, and their basic interests in the region were essentially parallel to our own in 2002 (despite the Supreme Leader’s rhetoric). They supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and in fact believed the Taliban to be an American/Sunni plot against them! Surely, it must trouble the Iranians to know that a hostile occupying force stands to their immediate east, but it hasn’t been any worse than dealing with the anti-Shiite factions that dominated Afghanistan prior to the invasion. Our “occupation” of Afghanistan has been half-assed at best, and if anything, has likely made some of the Sunni factions there rethink their rivalry with Iran. Iran applied a layered foreign policy in Afghanistan, wherein they supported dissidents, nationalists and even logical opponents (something we should keep in mind while addressing Iranian involvement in Iraq). In short, the United States handled some Iranian housekeeping in Afghanistan, and probably forced some of their Afghan enemies to come calling with hats in hand. Much like in Iraq, we’ve given the Iranians some regional leverage in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the United States has provided Iran with the friendliest Baghdad government in over 35 years; perhaps even the friendliest ever. They clearly had no love for Saddam after nearly a decade of war between the two nations. The dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of their people (by modest estimates) is now gone, and with the chaos in Iraq, Tehran now has a chance to exert the kind of regional influence once only dreamed of by Khomeini.

Secondly, there’s the “Iranian peace” fallacy. Of course Iran put out “feelers” in 2003. They didn’t want to be the next target in the region. But if we really want to judge America’s policy towards the Iranians over the last five years, it would make sense to look at the overtures we made in 2005 offering Iran WTO membership and normalized trade relations. All they had to do then is what they have to do now–comply with UN sanctions, halt uranium enrichment and come to the table. Instead, much like in 2005, they choose to remain defiant. Hey, more power to them, if they trust that that’s sound diplomacy. But let’s put an end to the “Iranians wanted dialogue” meme, because it’s an absolute fallacy. What they wanted then and what they want now are one in the same–their way.

And the idea that Iranians “got pissed off” and voted for Ahmadinejad as a result of American diplomacy is absolutely absurd. The Guardians Council picks the candidates, and only 12% of the electorate went out to the polls in 2005. The low turnout not withstanding, even the few who did vote for Ahmadinejad did so on economic grounds. His candidacy was based on domestic populism. He promised to lower inflation and make lives better. Economic conditions have only worsened for Iranians (unless you happen to be an old Quds buddy) under his watch, as their lunatic president has instead relied upon nuclear demagoguery to maintain national cohesion. We’ll see if this strategy pays off for him in 2009, but his election had little, if anything, to do with American policy at the time.

There are so many other holes in Ackerman’s Iranian victimization tripe, but my fingers are tired. Let me just say this: We do need to see more evidence to determine what kind of a role Hezbollah is playing in Iraq. However, the prospect of such a thing should not come as a surprise to anyone. They did it in Lebanon, they did it in Saudi Arabia, and they provided resources and information to every two-bit coup attempt in the region; from Bahrain, to Qatar and Kuwait. There is no Hezbollah without Iran. I feel like this should be common knowledge for the BDS crowd by now, but apparently it is not. I can appreciate a healthy skepticism towards this administration on this, but sometimes, you have to look at historical patterns and determine if their repeat is likely. Facts are important things.

Hezbollah training Iraqis? It’s pretty darn likely.

Cross posted at Independent Liberal