War In Iran

C

crackerjack

Well-known member
noel emits said:
Why is it kidnapping and not detaining?

So you guys think Iran is deliberately provoking the west? And giving the UK/US public possible good reason to support action against Iran? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Because they know it's a lose-lose situation for UK/US. Any rescue mission is fraught with danger (just ask Jimmy C), in the meantime it's an unpleasant reminder for them just how weak they are in the Middle East right now.

I think it's unlikely to have any bearing on whether or not the US bombs Iran's nuclear installations.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
Because they know it's a lose-lose situation for UK/US. Any rescue mission is fraught with danger (just ask Jimmy C), in the meantime it's an unpleasant reminder for them just how weak they are in the Middle East right now.
Click to expand...

It's not like this is new to the Iranians either.

It's basically PR, as far as I can see.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
noel emits said:
If that is the case they should be concerned. Crazy fuckers stirring up a hornets nest that's already got it in for them.

I'm not calling conspiracy at all. But it has been known for reasons to go to war to have been engineered in the public mind.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, agreed!

But the Iranian regime isn't totally monolithic. Ahmadinejad has set his store by ramping up friction with the West (to the displeasure, some say, of the more pragmatic elements). He has little to lose by annoying them further and a lot to gain by posing as the defender of Iran against western aggression.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
crackerjack said:
He has little to lose by annoying them further and a lot to gain by posing as the defender of Iran against western aggression.
Click to expand...

"Little to lose"? I expect Saddam once thought something fairly similar to this. Though I sincerely hope it doens't come to that.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
"Little to lose"? I expect Saddam once thought something fairly similar to this. Though I sincerely hope it doens't come to that.
Click to expand...

Iraq-style regime change isn't on the agenda for Iran, never seriously has been. any action against them will be a limited bombing campaign that strikes at nuclear facilities, not the regime itself. It could possibly strengthen Ahamadinejad's hand.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
At the risk of sounding like a loony, do you think there's any chance America would try to establish nuclear bases in Iraq as a bulwark against threat from Tehran?
 
Last edited:
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
At the risk of sounding like a loony, do you think there's any chance America would try to establish nuclear bases in Iraq as a bulwak against threat from Tehran?
Click to expand...

Nuclear? Doubt they'd need 'em - they'd just ask Israel or send some from Europe. I also cant imagine they'd want to leave anything so deadly in a place as volatile as Iraq.

There was a lot of talk 3 years ago that they wanted to establish a permanent military base there (partly as a way of weakening ties with SA) but I reckon now they just want to gtf out as soon as seems 'honourably' possible.
 
F

Freakaholic

not just an addiction
I feel like this could be a deliberate attempt on Iran's to get people pissed at Iran. I think they want a war with US/UK. I think this could be all part of a plot to get America involved in another war against Muslims, uniting the Muslims against America/Israel and forcing China and Russia to take sides. All part of the major plan to pull the world oil market off of the dollar and topple the wicked Americans' position in the world economy and as the #1 superpower.

Which i think it will do.


That said, someone emailed me the following article, poorly translated. They said they thought it could be an interpretation of one or both of the following articles (in French, but i dont speak it)

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

-----------------------------------------

Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned
- Russian Military Sources Warn

General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of UN Security Council To
Ward Off Looming US Aggression

By Webster G. Tarpley
3-25-7

WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6,
the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty
Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov,
lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran.
In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
engineers
are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack
plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be
degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
Gulf,
and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
forces
to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear
program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued
by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
services,
and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-
peace
forces around the world.
Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly
served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently
the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
appropriations
bill which would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before
launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was
eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing
the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
administration,
the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political
leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will
unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out
the Iranian nuclear program.
Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well
for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
East," he commented.
"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
current
preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General
Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
and
the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind
of
preventive action to ward off the use of force," he concluded.

----------------------

Final note: If the US gov. were to be planning what would defintely be a very unpopular attack against Iran, then that is when they would do it. The US gov has a tendency to do unpopular things and release unpopular information on Fridays, preferably before a holiday. That way as few people as possible see it/read it in the news.
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
A question: when Clinton bombed that factory in Sudan (when was it, 1998?), did the U.S. declare war beforehand or afterwards? If not so, how was the action described?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The Shatt al-Arab is the most politically sensitive area of the Middle East. Whoever controls the waterway controls movements from Iraq to the Gulf, including oil shipments, as well as serving as an important trade route for the entire west of Iran. Control over the disputed waterway led to wars between the Persian and Ottoman empires in the 17th and 19th centuries and more recently Iraq and Iran....

The zone’s security element has strengthened covert operations inside Iraq, with the objective of securing an early exit of Coalition troops, influencing Iraq’s political system and using patronage to control local authorities in Basra. The zone is also being used to train, fund and organise militias loyal to Tehran. Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr and several Iranian-backed politicians belonging to the ruling United Iraqi Alliance have recently visited the area.
Click to expand...

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/empire_of_the_mullahs_irans_im.php
 
D

don_quixote

Trent End
if it wasnt for the gravity of the situation these fucking letters would be hilarious. "representatives" "constant supply of fluids" "the whole area of the british"

hahaha
 
H

hundredmillionlifetimes

Banned
Guybrush said:
A question: when Clinton bombed that factory in Sudan (when was it, 1998?), did the U.S. declare war beforehand or afterwards? If not so, how was the action described?
Click to expand...

As vengeful retaliation for imagined terrorism ...

The August 1998 bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan (code-named Operation Infinite Reach, by the US) were US cruise missile strikes on purported terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on August 20, 1998. The attack was in retaliation for the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people (including 12 Americans) and injured 5,000 others.

The missiles were launched from US warships in the Red Sea. Several hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which the United States claimed was helping Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the embassy attacks, build chemical weapons. Then United States National Security Council advisor Richard Clarke stated that intelligence existed linking Osama bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, namely the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan. The government of Sudan demanded an apology from both the Clinton and Bush administrations; but none has been given, since U.S. intelligence apparently still believes the plant had ties to chemical weapons.

[ ... ]

Officials later acknowledged, however, "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."

Unfortunately the factory was Sudan's primary source of pharmaceuticals, covering the majority of the Sudanese market. Werner Daum (Germany's ambassador to Sudan 1996–2000) wrote an article in which he estimated that the attack "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians. The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: "Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak." The Chairman of El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, who is critical of the Sudanese government, more recently told reporters, "I had inventories of every chemical and records of every employee's history. There were no such [nerve gas] chemicals being made here." Sudan has since invited the U.S. to conduct chemical tests at the site for evidence to support its claim that the plant might have been a chemical weapons factory; so far, the U.S. has refused the invitation to investigate. Nevertheless, the U.S. has refused to officially apologize for the attacks, suggesting that some privately still suspect that chemical weapons activity existed there.

[ ... ]

The president of Sudan harshly condemned the assault on his country, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Massive protests were staged around the world, mostly in Muslim countries, denouncing the attacks. In "retaliation", a Muslim organization bombed a Planet Hollywood restaurant in Cape Town, South Africa on August 25, killing two and injuring 26. Osama bin Laden also pledged to attack the US again ...​
 
H

hundredmillionlifetimes

Banned
An Exchange Of Signs For The TeeVee

Freakaholic said:
I feel like this could be a deliberate attempt on Iran's part to get people pissed at Iran ...
Click to expand...

_42766393_pres_turney_afp203.jpg
_42765543_medals_ap203.jpg


"How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?" - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prior to release of 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf, who will be handed over to the British Embassy in Tehran this - Thursday - morning.

Origin and Provocation of Crisis

How a bid to kidnap Iranian security officials sparked a diplomatic crisis

By Patrick Cockburn

04/03/07 "The Independent"

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

[ ... ]

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

The targeted generals

* MOHAMMED JAFARI

Powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, responsible for internal security. He has accused the United States of seeking to "hold Iran responsible for insecurity in Iraq... and [US] failure in the country."

* GENERAL MINOJAHAR FROUZANDA

Chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the military unit which maintains its own intelligence service separate from the state, as well as a parallel army, navy and air force.​

And Joseph M. Cachia writes: "Even though high-level Iraqi officials called for their release, for all practical purposes, the Iranians have disappeared into the US-sanctioned 'coalition detention' system that has been criticized as arbitrary and even illegal by many experts in international law. The US forces had raided what has been described as a diplomatic liaison office in the northern city of Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and detained six Iranians (one of whom has since been released), infuriating Kurdish officials in the process.

In response to the request by the Iranian authorities to the US-led coalition to investigate the circumstances involving their detention and to release the five men, the US State Department replied that "the investigation is not complete, and we don't comment publicly with respect to ongoing investigations".

What a slap in the face! The Iranians who are being held as 'security detainees' are not being charged with anything and so are being held unlawfully. On the other hand, the US administration has already ruled out any possibility of prisoners exchange with the 15 Britons held by the Iranians as, in the words of Sean McCormick, spokesman for the State Department; "There is no comparison between the two issues".

[ ... ]

And lastly; when is the British media going to stop playing on the sentiments of its gullible public?

Their immediate reaction to the televising of the only captive woman sailor set them off searching hysterically family albums to depict her as a distressed sweet young mother. Quite rightly, although seemingly stressed, she did look healthy, without any sign of violence, not handcuffed, wearing civilian clothes, smoking and smiling -- not in a lurid orange boiler suit, like the other human beings paraded for a global television audience. However, none could have missed her other photo showing her in full battle uniform and cuddling a machine gun. Oh, sweet mother, whose kids and toddlers would you be killing in case these may be 'terrorists'? Isn't it a charming contrast? "


Meanwhile, the U.S. military confirmed on Wednesday receiving an "informal" request for an Iranian consular official to visit five Iranians who have been held in Iraq by U.S. forces since January:

"An informal request has come in for a consular visit and it is being assessed at this time," U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell told journalists in Baghdad.

The United States says the five are linked to Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards and says they were providing support to militants in Iraq. Tehran denies the charge and says the men are diplomats.

On the other hand, and co-inciding with Iran's release of the British personnel:


TV: kidnapped Iranian diplomat released in Iraq

·The 2nd secretary of Iran's embassy in Iraq, who was kidnapped in Feb., was released.
·Iran accused the U.S. forces in Iraq of "supervising the operation."
·The U.S. military on Tuesday said it was ignorant of Sharafi's release.

TEHRAN, April 3 (Xinhua) -- Iranian state-run television reported on Tuesday that the second secretary of Iran's embassy in Iraq, who was kidnapped in Baghdad in February, had been released.

Jalal Sharafi, the abducted diplomat, has been released and would return to Tehran Tuesday, said the report, without disclosing how and when he was released.

Iran's embassy in Iraq on Tuesday also made an announcement and confirmed this report.

"He was released yesterday (Monday) and I don't have further details on his kidnapping," said an official on condition of anonymity.

Sharafi was abducted on Feb. 4 by about 30 gunmen wearing Iraqi army uniforms in more than 10 military vehicles, in front of the Baghdad branch of Iran's state-owned Bank Melli without any escort.

Iran accused the U.S. forces in Iraq of "supervising the operation," saying, "Iran holds America responsible for the safety and life of the (abducted) diplomat."

But the U.S. side has denied the accusations. The U.S. military on Tuesday said it was ignorant of Sharafi's release.

"We were not holding him, so we do not know about his release,"said spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver.​

All's stage-managed well that ends stage-managed well. Until the next manufactured "incident" ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top