"http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_iran_08_17.asp"

I've long thought we should "Iran-ize" the war. Arab fear/hatred of Persians is ancient. It wouldn't be to hard to exploit it if we made a little effort to do so.

So why shouldn't we refer to al Sadr as an "Iranian agent" and his militia as Iranian-backed insurgents? It's basically true, so why shouldn't we say it?

And every time a mortar round or road-side bomb kills civilians, it would be referred to as Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Are we really so worried about offending people who are trying to kill us that we won't call a terrorist a terrorist?

Your forgetting that in most counties spies get executed.  Still either one's good.  The point ius to stress their Iranian ties.

 

Spies that spy for their own tribe are executed with little malice-the way a rabid dog is executed. Traitors are executed with great satisfaction. "Iranian agent" might imply to the uneducatd that he is an Iranian spying for Iran. Collaborator makes it more clear that he is an Iraqi working for Iran.