Posted by: graemebird | May 12, 2009

Why Did Iran Murder Saddam?

He was going to die anyway. His case was on appeal. But Iran had him hanged prematurely and made sure everyone knew about it. People do things for a reason and regimes that are sufficiently eschatlogical-utopian are internally coherent as to strategy, since they are all a bunch of extremist lunes.

So what was the strategy and what does it mean?

Essentially it means that Iran was involved in 9/11 also. Or at least it ought to be taken as meaning that. It means that Iran was a co-conspirator with Saddam. Other evidence has emerged linking both Iraq and Iran to 9/11. As well in all likelihood at least one faction of the Saudi regime. But the murder of Saddam by Iran is just another matter which singles them out.

Saddam had denied any involvement in 9/11 right up to his death sentence being approved. But he knew all that time that he had a right to appeal. So did Iran. And it looks like they weren’t about to take the chance that he might try to cheat death by cutting a deal with the Americans.


Responses

  1. “Some light relief from Bird:

    Saddam was murdered by Iran to cover up their involvement in 9/11, presumably with the Kenyans…”

    It would be good if Jason occasionally came up with a reason for thinking otherwise. They not only killed him they indicted themselves with a mobilephone camera. Had everyone chanting Sadre Sadre Sadre or however you say that young fellows name. Saddam had to tell them to shut up it was getting out of hand. He accused them of being unmanly in order to get them to pipe down.

    You don’t just hijack someone illegally out of appeals court to kill him when others were going to do the job. There could have been an awesome gun battle with the Americans and for what?

    So they had to have a pretty good reason. Perhaps Jason thinks Saddam was going to get a really good lawyer on appeal. Johny Cochrane or someone reasonably decent. Then he’s beat the charges and come back full force and give Iran strife.

    We aren’t up to our eyeballs in good reasons for Iran to perform this killing.

  2. I figured it was more an American decision. Saddam was sentenced on November 5, on the eve of an American election which put the Democrats back in charge of the lower house, after a trial that had been drawn out for over two years. It might be regarded as the first manifestation of the Bush administration’s tactical and strategic rethink following the Democrats’ political revival, with the second manifestation being Rumsfeld’s resignation.

    Iran might run the militias, but the US was (and presumably still is) the biggest external influence on the Iraqi government, not Iran.

  3. It wasn’t an American decision. Sadres’ people just grabbed him out of the court. Sadre was Iranian forward defense. So it was an Iranian move. Not a conspiracy theorist in sight. You don’t need to go all Illuminati on me.

    Unless you are going to tell me that Sadre wasn’t on the Iranian payroll. Maybe you can make that case but its yours to make.

    By the way Mitchell. Why the hell are you still faking up a problem with CO2. I guess you really don’t give a shit about the evidence and never will right?

  4. Sadr himself has said that he shares the Iranian ideology (by which he means, an Islamic state), but that he disagrees with much of what Iran is doing in Iraq. And given a chance to execute Saddam, his movement would hardly need the additional incentive of Iranian money! Saddam was behind the assassination of his father, the grand ayatollah.

    Now we can get into the mechanics of how Saddam was transferred from American custody to Iraqi custody if you like, but surely the big picture is political. The transfer did not happen until the death sentence was pronounced. So we need instead to be looking at why the death sentence was issued when it was, rather than at some point in the preceding two years.

    As for CO2, if I felt a burning need to “audit” the science any further, I’d be going into the ice-age data. But the basic fact there is that in an ice age, the Earth gets much colder than the small Milankovitch reduction in solar radiation can directly produce. So I suppose, along with everyone else, that the orbital cooling is amplified by ocean uptake of CO2 and by ice-sheet formation, and that geographical limits on the spread of the ice sheets provide the lower bound on this process. Going further would mean getting seriously quantitative.

    My position on whether there’s a problem is that basically there isn’t, because nanotechnology will give us a means of capturing atmospheric carbon, but this needs to be demonstrated and I hope CCS research will contribute.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: