More blaming of Iran for the Basra incident, more or less along the lines I suggested it would take here.
Not that this makes me any sort of clairvoyant; the blaming of Iran started very soon after the incident, and Jim Henley noticed it before my first post dealing with Iran vis a vis Basra.
Nonetheless, reading this statement by me:
Also look to Michael Ledeen and the like portraying the police as all pawns of Iran (there is already a push afoot to blame all anti-coalition sentiment in the Shiite region on Iran, whereas the Iraqi parliamentary officials who took the Brit's side represent the legitimate voice of Basra (and for that matter, look to them acting as if the entire population of Basra except for a few "foreigners" support the Brits on this issue, and expect that the "legitimate voice" of Basra will be whatever the British say it is)).
- "More on Basra," Glaivester, Sept. 21, 2005
and then this from the London Sunday Telegraph, via theWashington Times:
While the majority of Iraq's Shi'ites are happy to settle for the secular constitution currently proposed, some of the more radical groups, particularly those with ties to Teheran, are insisting that Iraq adopt a more Islamist form of government.
- "Tehran Training Shi'ite Militants, British say"
One does get the feeling (well, I do, anyway) that I accurately captured the subtext with which the Basra incident was to be described. Again, I'm not claiming that this makes me clairvoyant, I'm just saying that the neoconservatives amongst the pro-warriors have become fairly predictable.
That is all.