U.S. losing credibility over Iran

In the early days of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boldly warned Syria -- and especially Iran -- against intervening. He threatened the U.S. would hold them accountable.

It turned out to be another in the series of Bush administration big talk that time exposed as hollow.

In the sixth year of war, Iran loomed as the elephant in the congressional chambers where America's top commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified last week. In an address a day later, President George W. Bush made the same points.

The testimony and the presidential remarks focused on the numbers of American troops that remain committed on the battlefield, likely for the rest of this year or much of it.

However, hovering in the background was what had long been plain. It's no secret that Iran has been deeply involved in Iraq. In fact, it has not one but two dogs in the fight, supporting at various times and occasions either one or the other of the Shiite factions that came to blows last month in Basra and Baghdad. Perhaps even mentoring both at the same time.

Tehran supports the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council in its efforts to create an autonomous Shiite entity in southern Iraq, adjacent to Iran, where much of the country's oil reserves are located. Muqtada al-Sadr heads the most effective Shiite militia, and opposes a separate region. His militia was assaulted by the largely Shiite Iraqi army in Basra.

When the Iraqi army, on the orders of Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, attacked in Basra ostensibly to bring the Sadrist militia and others under control, they were fought off.

A truce was arranged by parties negotiating in -- where else? -- Iran, where al-Sadr had gone, as he has in the past when he felt himself threatened, although on the surface he opposed Iranian hegemonic ambitions.

Ambassador Crocker put his finger on what is going on, saying that Iran is pushing the "Lebanonization" of Iraq, by supporting militias and other proxies to do its bidding, much as it has successfully accomplished in Lebanon.

Gen. Petraeus said Tehran was playing a "destructive role" by supplying sophisticated weaponry, including 107-mm rockets that were fired at the Green Zone where the U.S. embassy and military headquarters and the Iraqi government are located, while also fielding Iranian-trained "special groups" in the current fighting.

Endorsing Petraeus' troop level recommendations, Bush reiterated for the umpteenth time the warning for Iran not to do what it has been doing all along, training, supplying and funding the militants.

"America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners," he asserted. Just how the U.S. would do what it has not been able to do so far was left unexplained.

On the one hand, Tehran has been constant in demanding an American withdrawal. On the other hand, having much-stressed U.S. forces mired in Iraq would apparently benefit it to the degree that it impairs Washington's options.

Iran has to be feeling its oats. When the American president, or Cabinet officials, visited Iraq, they often came in the dark of night, were surrounded by secrecy and security, and were hustled from one safe precinct to another.

When Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad arrived recently, he moved comparatively freely through Baghdad to receive the honors of a state visit from a government that treats Tehran as a friendly neighbor. Left behind in the pages of history was the war Saddam's Iraq and Iran fought from 1980 to 1988, in which an estimated 1 million died.

Meanwhile, last week Amadinejad told the world that Iran would triple its number of nuclear centrifuges to the 9,000 necessary for uranium enrichment, which could in time make possible the production of nuclear weapons.