Can You See This Coming?

This article really bothers me. It just says more than I think I wanted to hear, and I'm no fan of the present administration, but it simply confirms so many of my suspicions. I have the FOXNews link, because, as everyone knows, FOXNews is fair and balanced, and we know that because FOXNews tells us that. Here is the link and a couple of quotes from the article and my comments in red and blue through the article.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288600,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq
The leader of an Al Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq within two months, according to an audiotape.

. . . The surge of American troops that was introduced in January, supposedly just now implemented a few weeks ago, to go to September "within two months" . . . Just what part does America play in this upcoming situation, and what part has the present administration already planned for?

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the group Islamic State in Iraq , said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.
"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," he said in the 50-minute audiotape released Sunday. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.
Iraq's Shiite-led government is backed by the U.S. but closely allied to Iran. The United States accuses Iran of arming and financing Shiite militias in Iraq — charges Tehran denies.

If the new government is Shiite-led, then how will the Shiites have the strength to contend with the insurgents warring with Iran? And how will the Shiites manage this "war expansion," when they already can't manage to manage their own country? Will Iran be sure to only war with the Sunnis?

Al-Baghdadi criticized Kurdish leaders for their alliance with Shiites in Iraq's government and accused them encouraging unsavory morals.
"The leaders of apostasy ... have impeded the march of Islam in Muslim Kurdistan and helped communism and secularism to spread. ... They insulted the religious scholars ... encouraged vices and women without veils," he said.

Is this what Saddam was up against and maintaining, until his murder? In America, new Afghanistan, and even newer Iraq, this so called apostacy is called DEMOCRACY!
Doesn't it just seem an incredible coincidence that the prevailing political group in Iraq has the strength to rules those that would threaten Iran, but not the strength to defend their own purpose in their own country, and remain a faction of sorts? And isn't it an interesting coincidence that we in America will get some sort of progress report in September regarding the so called "surge?"
I'm wondering, by now, if "the threat" has to be fulfilled within the same two months that we will be staying the "surge" course, just where the direction will overlap and who will truly be accountable?
Will it be the Sunnis that attack Iran and then, America, the world's morality monitor will simply have to orchestrate and arbitrate that situation, also? Or if the Sunnis go to war in Iran will that end the insurgency in Iraq? Surely if the Sunni insurgents go to Iran to fight, our soldiers can come home. They'll be fighting even farther "over there . . ."
Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture