US Raids Iranian Consulate in Iraq

[rutherford]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/w...em&ex=1168664400&en=f6c9aa50784b7474&ei=5087

American forces backed by helicopters raided the Iranian consulate in the mainly Kurdish city of Erbil in northern Iraq before dawn today, detaining at least five Iranian employees in the building and seizing some property, according to Iraqi and Iranian officials and witnesses.

I know this is mentioned briefly in the other thread, but perhaps deserves space of its own.

 

[tellner]

I'm torn between fark.com's "What could possibly go wrong?"

"And that's the Circle of Liiiiife!"

and

"George has screwed the pooch without even patting it on the head first. This is a screw up of Biblical proportions."

 

[Cryozombie]

This worries me...

 

[tellner]

If by "worries" you mean "scares like looking down the wrong end of a shotgun", then I'm worried too.

 

[Monadnock]

The Pentagon has stated it was not a consulate. Guess we'll have to define Consulate.

Is anyone upset about the US Embassy attack this morning in Greece?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Definately a cause for concern. Makes you wonder with the eminent troop build up in Iraq what will happen next.

 

[rutherford]

The Iraqi Foreign Minister has clarified that the office was in the process of becoming a consulate.

Some interesting bits in this AP story:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=TXMID&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrests of the Iranians and called for their release. Many Kurds, including Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, have close ties to Iran. Last month, U.S. troops detained at least two Iranians and released two others who had diplomatic immunity. Two of those detained were visiting as guests of Talabani, his spokesman said.

. . .

In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors and "demanded an explanation" about the Irbil incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran.


U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday that the detained Iranians were being questioned. The U.S. Embassy declined to give an update Friday.

I didn't know that about Switzerland.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The question in my mind is: is this a genuine and legitimate seizure of folks from Iran who were trying to stir up trouble among the Shiites in Iraq - or was it a case of Provocation by the current American Administration in hopes of sparking (provoking) a Gulf of Tonkin type incident that would, in their minds, at least, rally the American people around a war with Iran? Perhaps a little bit of both?

 

[Don Roley]

The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations says consular premises are "inviolable," but it was not clear how that would apply as the building was not a consulate.

Casey said there was no truth to reports that Iran was carrying out legitimate diplomatic activity at the site.

"It did not have the standing of a consulate nor did it have any other international diplomatic standing to speak of," Casey said.

He said the Iranian elements included Revolutionary Guards, a key part of armed support for Iran's Islamic government since it took power in 1979.'

So it was not a consulate, and the folks in it were part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Considering just how much goes on behind the scenes with diplomacy, I have to wonder if this, the previous seizures of Iranians with ties to Iraqi politicians, the new plan with Bush's comments off the record to certain congressmen and the Iraqi PM's move to finally crack down on Shi'a militias are connected.

 

[Ninjamom]

comment deleted

 

[Jonathan Randall]

So it was not a consulate, and the folks in it were part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Considering just how much goes on behind the scenes with diplomacy, I have to wonder if this, the previous seizures of Iranians with ties to Iraqi politicians, the new plan with Bush's comments off the record to certain congressmen and the Iraqi PM's move to finally crack down on Shi'a militias are connected.

I think they are connected - you're right. Also, I believe the Shiite "Militias" are simply death squads using a religious, as opposed to political, ideology to "justify" their crimes.

 

[jazkiljok]

The question in my mind is: is this a genuine and legitimate seizure of folks from Iran who were trying to stir up trouble among the Shiites in Iraq - or was it a case of Provocation by the current American Administration in hopes of sparking (provoking) a Gulf of Tonkin type incident that would, in their minds, at least, rally the American people around a war with Iran? Perhaps a little bit of both?

doubt that a gulf a tonkin incident, even a real iranian act, would propel us into a war with iran now. where are you going to get the troops? George can't even surge the surge properly in iraq, maintain sufficient troops in afghanistan to stop a taliban resurgence or intimidate little kim junkdog of north korea.

the american voters want us out of Iraq and the only way you can have enough troops to go into iran is with a draft. add those two combustible elements together and you'd finally see protesting in the streets like the 60s.

this raid ticked off the Kurds... which isn't good news considering that they are a staunchest most reliable allies over there. seems like the kurds and iranians are already working towards some friendly relationship.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

doubt that a gulf a tonkin incident, even a real iranian act, would propel us into a war with iran now. where are you going to get the troops? George can't even surge the surge properly in iraq, maintain sufficient troops in afghanistan to stop a taliban resurgence or intimidate little kim junkdog of north korea.

the american voters want us out of Iraq and the only way you can have enough troops to go into iran is with a draft. add those two combustible elements together and you'd finally see protesting in the streets like the 60s.

this raid ticked off the Kurds... which isn't good news considering that they are a staunchest most reliable allies over there. seems like the kurds and iranians are already working towards some friendly relationship.

First of all, an attack on Iran, either by the Americans, the Israelis, or both, would largely be, from what I've heard, an air assault. Secondly, I don't believe the the current American leadership is rational enough to concern itself with the consequences - particularly as their Ideology, screwy as it is, tells them otherwise. Also, a significant portion of the American Right is looking forward to Armageddon anyway.

Regarding allies - antagonizing them is this Administration's forte. BTW, don't take my slams against the U.S. Admin. to mean that I don't believe that the Mullahs in Iran are a bunch of corrupt (and dangerous) tyrants - I do.

 

[searcher]

Definately a cause for concern. Makes you wonder with the eminent troop build up in Iraq what will happen next.

And the slow buildup of troops in Afghanistan. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but we are building up our forces on both sides of Iran. Also, with the recent leak of the Israeli plans I would say that we are about to have something major go down. As for what that might be I will leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

doubt that a gulf a tonkin incident, even a real iranian act, would propel us into a war with iran now. where are you going to get the troops? George can't even surge the surge properly in iraq, maintain sufficient troops in afghanistan to stop a taliban resurgence or intimidate little kim junkdog of north korea.

the american voters want us out of Iraq and the only way you can have enough troops to go into iran is with a draft. add those two combustible elements together and you'd finally see protesting in the streets like the 60s.

this raid ticked off the Kurds... which isn't good news considering that they are a staunchest most reliable allies over there. seems like the kurds and iranians are already working towards some friendly relationship.

We have the technological superior weapons and could considerably downsize Irans ability to make war with airstrikes like the one used by President Clinton during the war with Serbia, no ground forces were needed there.

 

[tellner]

We can kill a bunch of Iranians. We can even do it from above like the Hammer of Thor. But there's no way in hell we can occupy Iran unless we kill all of the Persians first. Half a million might have been enough for Iraq. That's an Iraq that was divided and had been starved for more than ten years. Iran hasn't been. If you thought counterinsurgency was fun in Baghdad you will just love pacifying a whole country full of guerillas, bombers and curved-knife hillbillies. Two countries, actually. Because the moment we go to war against Iran every single Shia in Iraq will be after us, probably including our puppet in the Presidential mansion.

 

[Don Roley]

The US will not attack Iran because that is exactly what their government wants.

I have had a great interest in the region and have been following the news as well as talking to folks from there. President Ahmadinejad was forced to cut short a speech and had his car surrounded by students kicking and hitting it. In the last local elections, everyone associated with him lost to the opposition. There have been reports of troops refusing to fire on protestors. That would all change with the natural tendancy for folks to rally around thier leaders when their country is attacked. There has been some speculation that all that Ahmadinejad is doing is to cause some small reaction from the US so that he can save his career and not end up deposed.

But so far, the US is not giving him what he wants. When Iranians are caught helping insurgents in Iraq, the common folk scream about what he is getting them into. Take a look at the last speech by Bush at the UN where he reached out to the Iranian people and told them they deserved a better government- exactly what the common folk is saying if you watch reports from the region.

There is a damn good chance if we don't do anything, they will take care of the problem themselves. But if we get involved, they will all rally to their government.

More news on the raid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians

 

[Jonathan Randall]

The US will not attack Iran because that is exactly what their government wants.

I have had a great interest in the region and have been following the news as well as talking to folks from there. President Ahmadinejad was forced to cut short a speech and had his car surrounded by students kicking and hitting it. In the last local elections, everyone associated with him lost to the opposition. There have been reports of troops refusing to fire on protestors. That would all change with the natural tendancy for folks to rally around thier leaders when their country is attacked. There has been some speculation that all that Ahmadinejad is doing is to cause some small reaction from the US so that he can save his career and not end up deposed.

But so far, the US is not giving him what he wants. When Iranians are caught helping insurgents in Iraq, the common folk scream about what he is getting them into. Take a look at the last speech by Bush at the UN where he reached out to the Iranian people and told them they deserved a better government- exactly what the common folk is saying if you watch reports from the region.

There is a damn good chance if we don't do anything, they will take care of the problem themselves. But if we get involved, they will all rally to their government.

More news on the raid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians

You make some very good points. I believe it possible, had we not put them in the "Axis of Evil" and thus provided their despots with an outside enemy, that their regime may have fallen some time ago - it certainly no longer, if it ever did, represents its people. Ahmadinejad's trying the same ploy with his Nazi style attacks on Israel and "the Jews". Still, it's up to the Iranian people to make the change themselves - their country and their responsibility.

 

[jazkiljok]

The US will not attack Iran because that is exactly what their government wants.

I have had a great interest in the region and have been following the news as well as talking to folks from there. President Ahmadinejad was forced to cut short a speech and had his car surrounded by students kicking and hitting it. In the last local elections, everyone associated with him lost to the opposition. There have been reports of troops refusing to fire on protestors. That would all change with the natural tendancy for folks to rally around thier leaders when their country is attacked. There has been some speculation that all that Ahmadinejad is doing is to cause some small reaction from the US so that he can save his career and not end up deposed.

But so far, the US is not giving him what he wants. When Iranians are caught helping insurgents in Iraq, the common folk scream about what he is getting them into. Take a look at the last speech by Bush at the UN where he reached out to the Iranian people and told them they deserved a better government- exactly what the common folk is saying if you watch reports from the region.

There is a damn good chance if we don't do anything, they will take care of the problem themselves. But if we get involved, they will all rally to their government.

More news on the raid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians

which has been the case for many years- the youth of iran don't like the mullah restrictive ideologues-- but iranians are very nationlistic. there is no reason to take potential allies and force them into a war with us.

the current leader is a blowhard with many enemies, including some of the mullahs there-- the moderates want a functioning govt' and to move on with a stable economy and promise for its people-- the conservative mullahs are proving to be empty of any ideas to move the economy forward- but then, religious zeolots of islam rarely do anything but move societies back towards the stone age-- their irrelevancy is inevitable.

dropping bombs and forcing the iranians to circle the wagons as a unified nation would be ludicrous at this point. one hopes that a few intelligent intelligence officers are left to point that out to cheney or bush or rice or whoever is playing "the decider" these days.

syria is also a nation thats people are not interested in war. they enjoy a decent economy-- the middle class and wealthy fear distablization.

as Jim Baker noted-- we need to be talking with these nations about our mutual interest in the stabilization of the region.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

We can kill a bunch of Iranians. We can even do it from above like the Hammer of Thor. But there's no way in hell we can occupy Iran unless we kill all of the Persians first. Half a million might have been enough for Iraq. That's an Iraq that was divided and had been starved for more than ten years. Iran hasn't been. If you thought counterinsurgency was fun in Baghdad you will just love pacifying a whole country full of guerillas, bombers and curved-knife hillbillies. Two countries, actually. Because the moment we go to war against Iran every single Shia in Iraq will be after us, probably including our puppet in the Presidential mansion.

The people of Iran are sick of the Ayatolles and don't want a strict government run by Muslim clerks anymore. If we take out their capacity for large scale war we can then let the student orgs and civilians retake control of their country.