Provoking Iran?

[Nbadan]

Dubya made it clear in his speech that he aims to get though with the Iranians and its links to the new Iraqi government, but by providing an additional 20,000 troops for Iraq, does this raise the spector of future diplomatic and other serious incidents involving Iran? So far, unfortunately, the answer is yes...

US north Iraqi raid angers Iran
Iraq map
US forces have stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident.


Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees.

The US military said it was still investigating, but that the building did not have diplomatic status.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to local media.

AFP news agency quoted Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as saying he did not know the nationality of the six but said they were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces".

"I can confirm for you through our forces there that this is not a consulate or a government building," he said.

However, Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq.

A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry described the raid as an attempt to sabotage Tehran's relations with Iraq. One Iranian MP said it showed America's cruelty and meanness.

The raid comes amid high Iran-US tension.

In a major speech on Wednesday, President George W Bush said the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, whom he accused of destabilising Iraq.

The US also accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies both charges.

Tehran counters that US military involvement in the Middle East endangers the whole region.

Pressure

A local TV station said Kurdish security forces had taken over the building after the Americans had left.

Irbil lies in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north, about 350km (220 miles) from the capital Baghdad. Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits.

Woman injured in Samarra bombing
Dozens of casualties resulted from a truck bombing in Samarra

One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.

It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed.

In December, US troops detained a number of Iranians in Iraq, including two with diplomatic immunity who were later released.

Thursday's raid came as US President George W Bush unveiled his new strategy in Iraq, which included increasing troop numbers and a commitment to stop Iranian support for "our enemies in Iraq".

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the raid could signal a ratcheting-up of pressure on the Iranians, in line with the rhetorical thrust of his speech.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm)

Glen Greenwald writes in his blog (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidents-intentions-towards-iran.html):


That makes unplanned -- or seemingly unplanned -- confrontations highly likely, whether through miscalculation, miscommunication, misperception, or affirmative deceit. Whatever else is true, given the stakes involved -- the unimaginable, impossible-to-overstate stakes -- and the fact that we are unquestionably moving forward on this confrontational path quite deliberately, this issue is receiving nowhere near the attention in our political discussions and media reports that it so urgently demands.

For all the pious talk about the need to be "seriously concerned" and give "thoughtful consideration" to what will happen if we leave Iraq, there is a very compelling -- and neglected -- need to ponder what will happen if we stay and if we escalate. And the need for "serious concern" and "thoughtful consideration" extends to consequences not just in Iraq but beyond.


This is the most serious action yet. Isn't it a definitive act of war for one country to storm the consulate of another, threaten to kill them if they do not surrender, and then detain six consulate officers?

[boutons_]

Shutting the Iranian Embassy and all it consulates in Iraq, in a surprise attack, escorting/deporting all the Embassy/consulate employees to the Iranian border, while confiscating/analizing all the their paperwork and computers, would be fully justified in light of the Iranians trashing the US Embassy in Tehran.

Of course, bogus Macho Man dubya is bluffing Iran, just as Saddam was bluffing Iran about his nuclear/WMD.

[xrayzebra]

The point of the above post seem to elude me. Could someone explain what
in the world the point is suppose to be?

[clambake]

It's about Bush, itching to pick another fight.

[DarkReign]

Political agenda knows no bounds. sigh....

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It's about Bush, itching to pick another fight.

So, if Iran is manufacturing and sending in road side bombs to blow up our soldiers and Iraqis, it's okay.

But if we detain a couple of people intel has tracked and identified as supporting the insurgency, we're trying to pick a fight?

Fun logic...

[clambake]

I was suggesting that he is flirting with the idea of SPREADING his failed campaign. He made that very clear with his speech.

[midgetonadonkey]

So, if Iran is manufacturing and sending in road side bombs to blow up our soldiers and Iraqis, it's okay.

But if we detain a couple of people intel has tracked and identified as supporting the insurgency, we're trying to pick a fight?

Fun logic...

I like logic.

[clambake]

Besides, you'd think in four years that controlling the border with Iran might be a good idea. Then again, I can't recall a good Bush idea.

[xrayzebra]

It's about Bush, itching to pick another fight.

Let me see if I have this correct. Iran is wanting to produce atomic
weapons, which most of the world is against.

Iran has inserted itself into Iraq affairs.

Iran supports ever terrorist organization in the ME. With money and
weapons and personnel.

But it is Bush who is itching to spread his "war". Okay. Now I understand.

Oh, and I think that Iran is also the one country who says it will
take out Israel, which is a legitimate government, is it not?

But you know those Bush folks. Damn war mongers. Not like the
peaceful Iranians.

[midgetonadonkey]

We should let the Iranians kill off all their enemies in the middle east and then when they are done we should invade Iran. Their defenses will be low because of all of the wars they just fought. After we defeat them we can fill the middle east with honest, hard working white people.

[clambake]

I think we can agree here, Ray. You must think I want us to lose. History repeats.

The US and Iran seem to have inserted themselves into Iraq affairs. The US was first. Iran has jumped on the opportunity to expand their influence in their region, a direct gift from Bush. Couldn't have happened without Bush. We are not virgins to capitalizing on the blunders of others.(Russia in Afghanistan) Wouldn't you be worried if a superpower made up reasons to destroy you?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Iran has jumped on the opportunity to expand their influence in their region

They did that after the world united in GWI to kick Saddam's ass.

[gtownspur]

YOu don't get it guys.

Iran is what is stabilizing the region right now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

YOu don't get it guys.

Iran is what is stabilizing the region right now.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

[gtownspur]

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.


Iran has no ties to 911

[midgetonadonkey]

YOu don't get it guys.

Iran is what is stabilizing the region right now.

The Middle East is stable?

[TDMVPDPOY]

i doubt the usa can win in a civil war......

the iraq situation now is out of control, pack up ur bags and leave like you did in vietnam? i was watchin a few news clips of Rice answering diplomatic issues in congress, doesnt she look like mike tyson hahahahah, anyway back to the subject, bush is creating a mess leaving for the next guy to clean up....

[Nbadan]

You think it's bad now, this il scare the shit out of you...


Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

Discourse (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/01/were_in_trouble.html)

[Nbadan]

The looming battle for Sadr city and the Iranian backed Muqtada Mehdi Army would mean the killing of thousands of unruly Shi'ites, mainly by Kurdish Iraqi forces and U.s. coalition troops...


The basic fact remains that Bush's escalation is designed to smash Muqtada's Mehdi Army. That can only mean, in practice, a mini-genocide of vast masses of unruly, extremely dispossessed Shi'ites: the coming battle of Sadr City, which the Pentagon has been itching to launch since the spring of 2004. The Pentagon is actually declaring war on no fewer than 2.2 million (poor) people. A sinister symmetry still applies: the Pentagon will attack dispossessed Shi'ite masses - just as the Israeli Defense Forces attacked dispossessed Shi'ite masses in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

There's more. Bush's escalation, according to his own speech, will ensure there will actually be two major battles on two different fronts: the battle of Sadr City, against Shi'ites, and the Great Battle of Baghdad, as the Sunni Arab muqawama (resistance) has been dubbing it. A tangential taste of this second front was provided this week by the day-long fight in Haifa Street between coalition and Iraqi forces against militants.

Muhammad al-Askari, the military adviser to Maliki, justified the bombing of Haifa Street as crucial to the killing of "50 terrorists". Anyone familiar with the Sunni Arab resistance knows they would never be dumb enough to concentrate 50 top fighters in a single Baghdad street in full view of US firepower. The battle of Haifa Street actually fits into Maliki's preferred developing pattern: systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunni areas by the heavily militia-infiltrated, and US-trained, Iraqi army.

Bush's escalation is also certain to incinerate the stars of counterinsurgency ace Lieutenant-General David Petraeus, currently spun as the new military messiah who will "save" Iraq for the US. After all, he is the co-author of the new US Army counterinsurgency field manual. But according to Petraeus' own doctrine, the Pentagon would need at least 120,000 combat troops to have a shot at winning the counterinsurgency game in Baghdad. The US currently has no more than 70,000 combat troops in the whole of Iraq. It controls not even a hectare of al-Anbar province - which is practically on the way to becoming an Islamic emirate. The US controls the Green Zone - and that's it. So in essence Bush's 21,500 extra men are doomed to total irrelevance - not to mention raising their odds of returning home in a body bag, courtesy of the upcoming resistance surge.

Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA12Ak05.html)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

YOu don't get it guys.

Iran is what is stabilizing the region right now.

They're such a stabilizing force that because of their nuclear ambitions several other mid-east countries are now looking into starting nuclear programs of their own.

Yay for stability.

:lol @ Dan, back to citing Asia Times for news.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You think it's bad now, this il scare the shit out of you...



Discourse (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/01/were_in_trouble.html)

We've been in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq for a while now, with Sadr's Shiite militia. The only scary thing is that it took us this long to fight back.

Thought this was interesting...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/REPOSITORY/701120382/1013/48HOURS


Last month, U.S. forces nabbed two senior Iranians - Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi and Col. Abu Amad Davari - in the first round of raids. Chirazi is the No. 3 in the al-Quds Brigade and the highest-ranking Iranian ever held by the United States

The al-Quds Brigade is behind groups like Hezbollah. Their #3 man was caught in Iraq instigating and organizing violence against our troops, and the US is the one who is instigating?

That's funny.

[boutons_]

dubya instigated the bogus invasion of Iraq, and botched it into a geopolitical disaster, which invited Iran to come into Iraq.

With Saddam still in power and Saddam and Iran mortally, eternally hating each other, there wouldn't be Iranian generals running around Iraq killing US military.

[DarkReign]

i doubt the usa can win in a civil war......

No offense, but that makes no sense at all. Any foreign country cannot "win" in another country's civil war.

[DarkReign]

dubya instigated the bogus invasion of Iraq, and botched it into a geopolitical disaster, which invited Iran to come into Iraq.

True.


With Saddam still in power and Saddam and Iran mortally, eternally hating each other, there wouldn't be Iranian generals running around Iraq killing US military.

Also true.

But it doesnt give Iran some sort of free pass. As long as the US military has a presence in Iraq they are required to defend their territory with extreme prejudice.

In all reality, Iran (I believe) wants no part of American might. Unlike fighting some vague enemy labeled "terrorism", Iran flies a flag, has borders and a uniform wearing military that could get the shit kicked out of it in record time if they fuck around too much.

[temujin]

No offense, but that makes no sense at all. Any foreign country cannot "win" in another country's civil war.

The US won in the italian Civil war in 43-45.
The US won in greek civil war after WW2.
OK. That was decide in Yalta.

Wars are often decided beforehand.

Such as this one.

[temujin]

dubya instigated the bogus invasion of Iraq, and botched it into a geopolitical disaster, which invited Iran to come into Iraq.

With Saddam still in power and Saddam and Iran mortally, eternally hating each other, there wouldn't be Iranian generals running around Iraq killing US military.

That's precisely the reason why he was put there in the first place.

[spurster]

Now Bush is channelling Nixon invading Cambodia?

[Nbadan]

Spinning war with Iran...

Bush Authorized Iranians' Arrest in Iraq, Rice Says
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: January 13, 2007


WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

“There has been a decision to go after these networks,” Ms. Rice said in an interview with The New York Times in her office on Friday afternoon, before leaving on a trip to the Middle East.

Ms. Rice said Mr. Bush had acted “after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity” among Iranians in Iraq, “and increasing lethality in what they were producing.” She was referring to what American military officials say is evidence that many of the most sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.’s, being used against American troops were made in Iran.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/world/middleeast/13strategy.html?hp&ex=1168664400&en=5b2b789a19f259a1&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

OK Condi, but that's not the way some of us remember it:

By EVAN WRIGHT
Published: June 17, 2004
LOS ANGELES


To the American troops in Iraq being subjected to a daily rain of fire from roadside bombs, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, it often seems that the insurgents have limitless stocks of munitions. In fact, in the time I spent embedded with a platoon there, I heard more than one marine joke that the insurgents must have more bullets to spare than the Americans.

But it's no joke: some military officials told me that the Iraqis have so many weapons that they are suspected of exporting them over the Syrian border. And for this bounty, they can thank the Pentagon. Of all the blunders American military leaders have made in Iraq, one of the least talked about is how they succeeded in arming the insurgents.

By the time of the coalition invasion, Iraq had one of the largest conventional arms stockpiles in the world. According to one American military estimate, this included three million tons of bombs and bullets; millions of AK-47's and other rifles, rocket launchers and mortar tubes; and thousands of more sophisticated arms like ground-to-air missiles. Much of the arsenal was stored in vast warehouse complexes, some of which occupied several square miles. As war approached, Iraqi commanders ordered these mountains of munitions to be dispersed across the country in thousands of small caches.

<snip >

But under orders to reach Baghdad as quickly as possible, the marines rarely had a chance to remove, destroy or even mark the stockpiles. In one village, combat engineers (led by local children whom they had bribed with bags of Skittles candies) discovered an underground bunker crammed with dozens of sophisticated air-to-ground missiles. Yet higher-ups in the division insisted that there was no time to destroy them. The marines moved on, leaving the missiles unguarded."

Stephen Gilliard (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2004/06/biggest-blunder-of-iraq-war.html)

Can we, as a nation, afford to sit ideally by while this administration backs into a much more lethal confrontation, with a much more challenging and dangerous enemy that could possibly grind to a halt our economy by disrupting oil flow through the H. Strait? This administration is playing with fire; it can't afford to make unfounded accusations that could exacerbate the danger for our troops still on the ground in Iraq. Or are we to believe that Shi'ite militia-men, led by Muqtada Al Sadr, are training and supplying Sunni militia-men with IUD and missiles to attack them and Americans?

:rolleyes

Please.

[Nbadan]

Take a look at this, I'm still not sure what to make of it...


In the U.S. House today, Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC) introduced a resolution requiring the President "to receive congressional authorization to use military force against Iran," reports McClatchy Newspapers.

"The resolution requires that – absent a national emergency created by an attack, or a demonstrably imminent attack, by Iran upon the United States or its armed forces – the President must consult with Congress and receive specific authorization prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran," Rep. Jones said in a press release.

"Today, there is a growing concern – justified or not – that some U.S. officials are contemplating military action against Iran," Jones continues. "This resolution makes it crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes such use of force. The Constitution of the United States declares that, while the Commander in Chief has the power to conduct wars, only Congress has the power to authorize them."

Rawstory (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html)

This is coming from a Republican. Too bad it still leaves a loop-hole large enough to fly a few 757's through.

[Nbadan]

Since all indications are now that we are one Gulf of Tonkin incident away from all out regional war in the greater M.E., perhaps this is the right time for this...

War (http://kolyan.net/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=9424)

[AFE7FATMAN]

Sunday Times exposes Israeli plans to attack Iranian reactor, with US help

Israel has drawn up plans to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities with a tactical nuclear strike, a British newspaper has said in a report

Remember we just sold these to thema couple of years ago

The Sunday Times quoted several Israeli military sources as saying that two of the country's air force squadrons are training to use "bunker-busting" bombs for a single strike

The Sunday Times -- which in 1986 first revealed Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal -- said the plans involved sending conventional, laser-guided missiles to open up "tunnels" in the targets before "mini-nukes" with a force the equivalent of one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb are fired in.

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," one of the unnamed sources was quoted as saying

US, Israeli officials are evasive about plans
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice avoided the question, couching her response in ambiguous terms. "The US administration is not going to authorize anything here. We clearly have a diplomatic path ahead of us," Rice stressed. :rolleyes


http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5154.htm

Of course this is all now being deniied but I wonder just how much is true,
I bet the plan is in place, and I wonder just what it would take for the green light to be given, IMO the stroy alone provokes Iran