July 2, 2007

Hezbollah Operative Further Proof Of Iranian Involvement

The announcement yesterday of an arrest in March of a high-ranking Hezbollah terrorist in Iraq gives more credence to the accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's insurgencies. The US caught Ali Moussa Dadouk in southern Iraq after he masterminded a Karbala attack that killed five American soldiers -- and Dadouk fingered the Iranians for much more:

Iran's elite Quds force helped militants carry out a January attack in Karbala that killed five Americans, a U.S. general said Monday. U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner also accused Tehran of using the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah as a "proxy" to arm Shiite militants in Iraq.

The claims were an escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran is fueling Iraq's violence, which Tehran has denied, and were the first time the U.S. military has said Hezbollah has a direct role.

A senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative, Ali Mussa Dakdouk, was captured March 20 in southern Iraq, Bergner said. Dakdouk served for 24 years in Hezbollah and was "working in Iraq as a surrogate for the Iranian Quds Force," Bergner said.

The general also said that Dakdouk was a liaison between the Iranians and a breakaway Shiite group led by Qais al-Kazaali, a former spokesman for cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Bergner said al-Kazaali's group carried out the January attack against a provincial government building in Karbala and that the Iranians assisted in preparations. Al-Khazaali and his brother Ali al-Khazaali were captured with Dakdouk.

It turns out that Dadouk and the Quds forces took a page from the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge. They used stolen American fatigues to send a dozen terrorists into the government compound in January, allowing them to pass through checkpoints so they could launch their attack. They killed one US soldier outright and abducted four others, who were later killed.

How were they able to do that? The Quds operatives have extensive intel about American installations in Iraq -- a not terribly surprising development, considering the alliances they have with Iraqis in the area. The intel includes detailed information about the personnel, shift changes, duty assignments, and so on. Quds shared the information with the terrorists, using Dadouk as an intermediary.

Dadouk got himself captured with an intel trove of his own. He had detailed instructions on attacking convoys, instructional material for other techniques that he shared with his insurgency clients, and diaries of his meetings with them. Al-Khazaali had plans for eleven different attacks on American forces. They comprise part of the 18 high-level Iranian special agents the US has captured since February, but are lucky not to have been among the three killed.

Hezbollah is known as a client of Iran, a terrorist group that receives direction from Teheran via Damascus. Hezbollah so far has refused to comment on Dadouk's status with their group, but after playing deaf and dumb for a month to American intelligence, Dadouk has himself confirmed his status as a high-ranking member. That clearly shows that Iran has violated any claims to neutrality in this conflict. The US and the UN need to deliver consequences to Iran for their acts of war -- not invasion certainly, but some clear consequences that will make the mullahcracy think twice about its meddling in Iraq.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (7)

Posted by The Yell | July 2, 2007 7:19 AM

"The US and the UN need to deliver consequences to Iran for their acts of war -- not invasion certainly, but some clear consequences that will make the mullahcracy think twice about its meddling in Iraq."


"The Western democracies and the League need to deliver consequences to Germany for their acts of war -- not invasion certainly, but some clear consequences that will make the Fuhrer think twice about his meddling in Czechoslovakia."

Open war--which the UN will never declare for the rest of its existence-- is the only thing we haven't thrown at Iran this decade.

Posted by docjim505 | July 2, 2007 8:02 AM

Cap'n Ed wrote:

The US and the UN need to deliver consequences to Iran for their acts of war -- not invasion certainly, but some clear consequences that will make the mullahcracy think twice about its meddling in Iraq.

Nothing says "Don't f*** with me, buddy!" better than a wing of B-52s.

Unless it's a Trident-class submarine.

Posted by David M | July 2, 2007 10:03 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/02/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by NahnCee | July 2, 2007 11:04 AM

This guy was captured in "late March", and the Iranians took the British sailors hostage on March 24. Prisoner swap, any one?

Looks like 15 British sea-persons aren't worth one AQ bomb-builder - which I agree with - and besides, it's the wrong country if America had him.

I wonder if stolen British uniforms would be enough to get a suicide bomber into a mess-hall.

Posted by Okonkolo | July 2, 2007 12:02 PM

thoughtful post [hat tip]

Posted by courtneyme109 | July 2, 2007 3:06 PM

This proves that Iraq is a quagmire all right - but rather for the Mullahs than the Great Satan. Iraq is sucking them dry! Consider - Iran has wasted over a billion dollars in Iraq - funding every doofus with an AK47 - Badr Corps, Mahdi Army, Sciri and their new best buds, Al Qaeda. And they have NOTHING to show for it - not one theocracy, not one caliphate, not even an Iranian leaning super shia majority in the gov. Iraq has become a giant sucking killing machine - grinding up Syrian and Iranian proxies and wanna be jihadis, leaving them on the side of the road for a stranger to bury.

Now, the mullahs call in favors from their minions in Lebanon.

Posted by patrick neid | July 2, 2007 4:51 PM

-i know i'm repeating myself.

are we in a war against terrorism? are we in a war against the states that sponsor it?
if, as the president has stated we are, then why are the terror leaders of iran, syria, sudan, hamas, hezzbollah and al sadr to name a few still alive? correct me if i’m wrong---these are the terrorists and these are the states.

apparently john edwards must be right--is that even possible?--that we are not in a war on terror. it must be a bumper sticker affair akin to those other famous bumper crusades. you know, “free tibet” and “save darfur”. by my reasoning these folks should all be dead now, not sipping lattes and on shopping excursions while being feted by the UN. the fact that they are not speaks volumes. i won't even mention our politicos looking for photo ops.

the only thing we have to do, and sooner or later we will do it, is admit we are in a war. tell me, if during world war II we knew where hitler or any of his generals were would we have tried to kill them? come on now a little louder i can't hear you. yes, that's right, we would have.

well, we know where the terror leaders/generals of this war on terror live and sleep every night. the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan are very easy to find--yet we let them plan everyday how to kill more of us in their attempt to return the world to the 7th century. so please stop with this crap about massive air strikes, millions of dead and dying and all these other hobgoblins that are trotted out to prevent us from killing these monstrous bastards. what's it going to take--israel becoming a glass factory? 9/11 certainly was not enough.

these articles can be very informative--but boring. how much anecdotal evidence do we need over the last thirty years to conclude that there are loosely united groups centered in the middle east that mean to bring us down. they are funded and directed by the countries listed above. let's stop acting surprised when this info shows up. this "i'm shocked, i'm shocked" routine is getting old. the leadership in syria and iran should have been gone two years ago along with al sadr. now look at the mess we are in.

and finally, all these monsters have to be "cruise missiled" without any warning on the same night.