Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner?
Ed Morrissey

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared last week that he would fly to New York to personally address the UN Security Council before a vote to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for their uranium enrichment. Those travel plans have apparently been cancelled, with the Iranians complaining that the US did not issue visas in time for their trip:

Of course the cancellation couldn't possibly have anything to do with those kidnapped Brits, could it? Read the whole thing.

***

'A Triumph for Pelosi' 
The Democrats send their message on Iraq.
WSJ Opinion Journal

That's how the Associated Press described yesterday's vote by the House to demand a U.S. retreat from Iraq, and in the perverse calculus of Capitol Hill we suppose it was. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated she can pile on enough pork to bribe enough Democrats to cobble together a bare, partisan majority to "send a message" that has no chance of becoming law. Congratulations.

"Today is an historic day," Ms. Pelosi said on the House floor. "The new Congress will vote to end the war in Iraq." But of course the bill does nothing of the sort. If she truly wanted to end the war, the Speaker and her fellow Democrats could simply have used their power of the purse to refuse to fund it. But that would have meant taking some responsibility for what happens in Iraq, which is the last thing Democrats want to do. So they have passed a bill that funds the war while claiming it ends the war.

The bill's "benchmarks" and deadlines certainly have nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq, or assisting General David Petraeus's campaign to secure Baghdad. They are all about the war inside the Democratic Caucus. On the one hand, they appease the antiwar left by pretending to declare the war illegal if certain goals aren't met by Iraqis or U.S. forces. But on the other, they allow "moderates" from swing districts to claim they are nonetheless "supporting the troops." Acts of Congress don't get much more cynical than that.

This is not to say the vote won't do considerable harm. It will be noted by our enemies in Iraq and will encourage them to inflict more casualties to further sour American support. It will make it harder for Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to disarm Shiite militias, who can point to the vote and say the Americans will soon be leaving. And most disgraceful, it will send a message to U.S. troops that they can fight on--albeit without much chance of success and without Congressional support. ...

***

Parliament of fools 
Don Surber

The headline over the column by Tom Curry of MSNBC on Dec. 5, 2006, was clear: “Pelosi: ‘We will not cut off funding’ for Iraq”

Curry quoted her then:

“We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said.

The vote today was clear: Pelosi is cutting the funding for Iraq. Out by Sept. 1, 2008.

It was a partisan stab in the back of the 150,000 troops in Iraq.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”

The American people? Maybe the people of San Francisco who hate the military, but not those who still allow recruiting in their schools and would gladly welcome the USS Iowa.

Do not be alarmed. Today’s vote was a bone thrown to the boneheads at Kos and the rest of the Netroots crowd. I encourage Code Pink and the rest of the activists to celebrate — burn a soldier or two in effigy. Knock yourselves out.

Because the American people are watching. ...

If Pelosi wants to be commander-in-chief, let her run for president. Otherwise, today’s vote was a bayonet stabbed in the back of every American troop in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda, no doubt, is pleased with Pelosi’s work, for while it will never become law, this bill just sent the signal to our troops that they are expendable to Pelosi and company. ...

Also don't miss Austin Bay's and Greyhawk's related posts. 

***

Iran Attacked US Forces In September
Ed Morrissey

While the world wonders about the attack on and abduction of 15 British sailors by Iranian forces earlier this month, US News & World Report published the details of an attack by Iranian forces on Iraqi and American troops last September:

As the British government demanded the immediate release of 15 of its sailors whose boats were seized by Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf on Friday, U.S. News has learned that this is not the first showdown that coalition forces have had with the Iranian military.

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq. ...

The Coalition forces saw three Iranian soldiers in Iraqi territory. As they approached, two of them ran back across the border, but one remained in Iraq. The joint force started interrogating the Iranian, and that's when the attack commenced. A stronger contingent of Iranians materialized and threatened to attack the US/Iraqi patrol if they tried to leave. While the Iranian captain told them this, his forces started firing on the patrol with small arms and RPGs. ...

***

Iraqi VP: Pullout Would Cripple Security 
Ed Morrissey

Iraqi VP Tareq al-Hashemi responded to yesterday's vote in Congress by emphasizing that Iraqi security troops still need more time to avoid creating a security vacuum when the Americans leave. The BBC manages to editorialize in the middle of its report, too: ...

***

As always, don't miss Jules Crittenden's weekly Kharnival of the Iranities

***

PJM has a don't-miss roundup here.

***

Iran: Sailors 'Confess'
Ed Morrissey

Iran upped the stakes in their latest bout of brinksmanship today. Teheran announced that the 15 captured British sailors had undergone interrogation, and that at least some of them had "confessed" to violating Iranian waters:

An Iranian military official said on Saturday "confessions" and other evidence showed that British naval personnel who were detained in the Gulf had illegally entered Iranian waters.

Britain says the 15 sailors and marines were seized Friday in Iraqi waters and have demanded their immediate release. ...

Will the British and the US take any action for this provocation? If the Iranians do not immediately release the sailors, the US should start taking similar action against Iranian ships entering Iraqi waters, and perhaps event start positoning for a blockade. Given the stressed nature of the Iranian economy, that will certainly get Iran's attention, as well as the notice of its citizens. ...

***

U.N. Security Council Imposes New, Tougher Sanctions on Iran

UNITED NATIONS  —  The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose moderately tougher sanctions against Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

The sanctions — intended to show Tehran that defiance will leave it increasingly isolated — include banning Iranian arms exports and freezing the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. ...

***

Sailors held as bargaining chips for Iranians captured
by U.S. in Irbil? Update: New UN sanctions pass, 15-0
Allahpundit

Big news if true. The report comes from Asharq al-Awsat, which you’ll recall had scoop after scoop about the Iranian general who disappeared last month. The jury’s still out on that story, though, so take their credibility here with a grain of salt. With thanks to John of Verum Serum for the tip:

The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards’ operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

According to the official, Iran was worried that its detained people would leak sensitive intelligence information.

The fears about transparency are plausible: just yesterday I mentioned that attacks involving EFPs (which the Quds Force is suspected of supplying to Shiite militias) are way down over the past few months, and on Thursday came the bombshell about the roll-up of that “rogue” Mahdi Army network that’s allegedly on Iran’s payroll and connected to EFP trafficking. The same network is suspected of having carried out the Karbala raid on U.S. troops in late January, which may have been Iran’s first attempt to retaliate for our Irbil operation. If these “rogue” JAM guys (who probably aren’t rogue) are as deeply involved with Iran as the news stories have alleged, then yeah, no surprise that the mullahs would be alarmed by news of their detainment. The problem is, the timing’s a little off. The first arrests of the Mahdi Army network supposedly happened on Monday, March 19, a day after the emergency meeting described here. Maybe the reports about the dates are slightly off? Or maybe Iran got tipped off the day before the arrests that they were coming? Or maybe this is all garbage? I rehash, you decide! Although it’s worth noting as we go forward that there were rumors of an Iranian plan to kidnap western personnel earlier this week — on March 18, in fact, the very same day the emergency meeting supposedly went down. Eeeenteresting.

Assuming it has nothing to do with revenge for Irbil, then what’s it all about, Alfie? JPost again: ...

***

Iran To Violate The Geneva Convention
Ed Morrissey

Iran announced tonight that the 15 British sailors captured off the coast of Iraq would get indicted as spies. A website associated with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that the sailors are "insurgents" and that they would try to prove that the group deliberately entered Iranian waters with the intent to spy on the Islamic Republic:

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted. ...

The Iranians cannot try the men for espionage if they captured the sailors in uniform. Article 46 of the Geneva Convention states this clearly:

2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces. ...