If McChrystal Wasn’t a General, the Right Would Call Him a Rank Iran Appeaser
More from Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s remarks in London to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. I strongly urge you to check out his remarks in full. Here he gets a question about “Iran’s significance for the Afghan equation.” McChrystal’s reply:
Iran, of course, being, you know, in such proximity to Afghanistan and having significant influence inside Afghanistan, is a big player. They, in my view, they have a lot of very positive influence inside Afghanistan, some of it cultural, some of it financial, just things that any neighbor would have to try to build the stability. I think that if Iran takes a very mature look at a stable Afghanistan and support the government of Afghanistan, then we’ll be — we’ll be in good shape. If they were to choose not to do that, and they were to choose to support insurgents, I think that would be a significant miscalculation.
I can’t wait for the braying conservative outcry against McChrystal’s craven appeasement of the butchers of Tehran or whatever. For what it’s worth, McChrystal sounds unconvinced that Iran actually is supporting Afghan insurgents, while Michael Vickers, an assistant secretary of defense, yesterday testified that Iranian “meddling there [in Afghanistan] is somewhat less than they’ve done in Iraq, but they do support Sunni groups; strange alliances, but they do, in fact.”