N
NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com
Guest
US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and
nuclear fears (Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts
warn):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2169798,00.html
Julian Borger and Ian Black
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian
The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq
risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional
analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days,
with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to
establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the
Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia
militias.
The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling
operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border
clash.
US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had
been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed
would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this
week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the
border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director
of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies,
said.
Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the
confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared
yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and
warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials
will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have
created in Iraq."
In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a
mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its
motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to
the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was
Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the
sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There
is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility
funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea
The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for
influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's
nuclear ambitions.
The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday
to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its
suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush
administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to
curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick
Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support
from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear
sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The
talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is
very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at
seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about
Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."
US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military
action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as
politically motivated.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a
security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time
ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of
Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical
level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part
of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack
against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He
has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his
actions."
US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia
militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main
concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of
molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say
must have been made in Iran.
A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner,
raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US
military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American
soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.
Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with
administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as
a move to increase pressure on Iran.
"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry
about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from
Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something
about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very
difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that
respect, border control is a sensible solution."
Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose
between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and
participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials
insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon
diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working.
They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a
pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by
Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be
supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of
Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and
Iran, Iran has blinked first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran
grow
Published: 12 September 2007
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with
Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is
fomenting a "proxy war".
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have
threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi
territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base
and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at
the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the
Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in
recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.
The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra
Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing
to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq.
Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at
Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop
the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of
entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces
are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of
particular concern to them."
The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of
whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK
as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.
The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to
clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and
also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of
attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting
violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two
countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.
The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and
Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest
accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General
Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker
accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to
the enemies of the Iraqi state".
In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on
Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be
necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within
its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard
look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.
The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior
armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra
air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal
handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the
UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.
The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country,
General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for
British help if there was an emergency.
While previous US military action has been primarily directed against
Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of
backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.
For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy.
They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US
concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons
into Iraq.
The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by
the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States.
British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American
request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra
Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms
entering Basra.
Brigadier Bashall said: "We are not sitting here idly at the air
bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall
act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra
City if asked to do so."
The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after
four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that
the "Iranian threat" is now one of their main concerns.
Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division,
said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his
forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian
munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling
and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran
claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi
territory in the Kurdish north.
Said Jalili , Iran's deputy foreign minister, last night said: "I
think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth
because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not
been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the
other side."
C-SPAN 'Washington Journal' viewer calls about Mearsheimer/Walt and
the coming war with Iran:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398
Anti-Iran hype reaches fever pitch
By Khody Akhavi
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II12Ak01.html
War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71055
Jim Moran's Mouth, Again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401542.html?sub=AR
justicequest2000 wrote (in the comments section associated with the
above Op-Ed appearing in the Washington Post today):
Can I assume that Mr. King hasn't even read the new book (The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy - see israellobbybook.com) by respected
political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about
the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, JINSA, etc) and
how it pushed for the attack on Iraq and has been doing similar to get
US to attack Iran. Can I assume that Mr. King also hasn't read the
third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They
Dare to Speak Out' book either. Mr. King might be interested in
accessing the following URL as well which conveys how CBS '60 Minutes'
is refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398
nuclear fears (Proxy war could soon turn to direct conflict, analysts
warn):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2169798,00.html
Julian Borger and Ian Black
Saturday September 15, 2007
The Guardian
The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq
risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional
analysts are warning.
US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days,
with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to
establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the
Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia
militias.
The involvement of a few hundred British troops in the anti-smuggling
operation also raises the risk of their involvement in a cross-border
clash.
US officers have alleged that an advanced Iranian-made missile had
been fired at an American base from a Shia area, which if confirmed
would be a significant escalation in the "proxy war" referred to this
week by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the
border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director
of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies,
said.
Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the
confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared
yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and
warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials
will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have
created in Iraq."
In such circumstances, last week's Israeli air strike against a
mystery site in northern Syria has triggered speculation over its
motives. Israel has been silent about the attack. Syria complained to
the UN security council but gave few details. Some say the target was
Iranian weapons on their way to Hizbullah in Lebanon, or that the
sortie was a dry run for a US-Israeli attack on Syria and Iran. There
is even speculation that the Israelis took out a nuclear facility
funded by Iran and supplied by North Korea
The situation is particularly volatile because the struggle for
influence threatens to exacerbate a confrontation over Tehran's
nuclear ambitions.
The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday
to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its
suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush
administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to
curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick
Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support
from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.
"Washington is seriously reviewing plans to bomb not just nuclear
sites, but oil sites, military sites and even leadership targets. The
talk is of multiple targets," said Mr Cronin. "In Washington there is
very serious discussion that this is a window that has to be looked at
seriously because there is only six months to 'do something about
Iran' before it will be looked at as a purely political issue."
US presidential elections are due in November 2008, and military
action at the height of the campaign is usually seen by voters as
politically motivated.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a
security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time
ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of
Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical
level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part
of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack
against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He
has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his
actions."
US and British officials have complained to Iran about the use by Shia
militias in Iraq of what they say are Iranian-made weapons. The main
concern is the proliferation of roadside bombs that fire a bolt of
molten metal through any thickness of armour, which the officials say
must have been made in Iran.
A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Major General Kevin Bergner,
raised the stakes when he said the 240mm rocket that hit the US
military headquarters outside Baghdad this week, killing an American
soldier and wounding 11, had been supplied to Shia militants by Iran.
Gen Bergner used to work in the White House, where he was aligned with
administration hawks, and his dispatch to Baghdad was seen by some as
a move to increase pressure on Iran.
"There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry
about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from
Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something
about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very
difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that
respect, border control is a sensible solution."
Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose
between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and
participating in or endorsing American actions. British officials
insist that Washington has given no sign it is ready to abandon
diplomacy and argue that UN sanctions are showing signs of working.
They point to the resurgence in Iran of Hashemi Rafsanjani, seen as a
pragmatic counterweight to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by
Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be
supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of
Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and
Iran, Iran has blinked first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran
grow
Published: 12 September 2007
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with
Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is
fomenting a "proxy war".
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have
threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi
territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base
and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at
the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the
Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in
recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.
The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra
Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing
to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq.
Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at
Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop
the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of
entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces
are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of
particular concern to them."
The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of
whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK
as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.
The operation is regarded as a high-risk strategy which could lead to
clashes with Iranian-backed Shia militias or even Iranian forces and
also leaves open the possibility of Iranian retaliation in the form of
attacks against British forces at the Basra air base or inciting
violence to draw them back into Basra city. Relations between the two
countries are already fraught after the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
seized a British naval party in the Gulf earlier this year.
The move came as General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and
Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, made some of the strongest
accusations yet by US officials about Iranian activity. General
Petraeus spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker
accused the Iranian government of "providing lethal capabilities to
the enemies of the Iraqi state".
In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on
Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be
necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within
its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard
look ongoing at that particular situation" he said.
The Royal Welsh battle group, with Challenger tanks and Warrior
armoured vehicles, is conducting out regular exercises at the Basra
air base in preparation for any re-entry into the city. No formal
handover of Basra to the Iraqi government has yet taken place and the
UK remains responsible for maintaining security in the region.
The Iraqi commander in charge of the southern part of the country,
General Mohan al-Furayji, said he would not hesitate to call for
British help if there was an emergency.
While previous US military action has been primarily directed against
Sunni insurgents, it is Shia fighters, which the US accuses Iran of
backing, who now account for 80 per cent of US casualties.
For the British military the move to the border is a change of policy.
They had stopped patrols along the long border at Maysan despite US
concerns at the time that the area would become a conduit for weapons
into Iraq.
The decision to return to the frontier has been heavily influenced by
the highly charged and very public dispute with the United States.
British commanders feel that they cannot turn down the fresh American
request for help after refusing to delay the withdrawal from Basra
Palace. They also maintain that the operation will stop Iranian arms
entering Basra.
Brigadier Bashall said: "We are not sitting here idly at the air
bridge. The security of Basra is still our responsibility and we shall
act where necessary. We are also prepared to restore order in Basra
City if asked to do so."
The US decision to build fortifications at the Iranian border, after
four years of presence in Iraq, shows, say American commanders, that
the "Iranian threat" is now one of their main concerns.
Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, commander of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division,
said 48 Iranian-supplied roadside bombs had been used against his
forces killing nine soldiers. "We've got a major problem with Iranian
munitions streaming into Iraq. This Iranian interference is troubling
and we have to stop it," he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Meanwhile at a conference in Baghdad on regional co-operation, Iran
claimed the US was supporting groups mounting attacks from Iraqi
territory in the Kurdish north.
Said Jalili , Iran's deputy foreign minister, last night said: "I
think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth
because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not
been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the
other side."
C-SPAN 'Washington Journal' viewer calls about Mearsheimer/Walt and
the coming war with Iran:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398
Anti-Iran hype reaches fever pitch
By Khody Akhavi
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II12Ak01.html
War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71055
Jim Moran's Mouth, Again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401542.html?sub=AR
justicequest2000 wrote (in the comments section associated with the
above Op-Ed appearing in the Washington Post today):
Can I assume that Mr. King hasn't even read the new book (The Israel
Lobby and US Foreign Policy - see israellobbybook.com) by respected
political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about
the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC, JINSA, etc) and
how it pushed for the attack on Iraq and has been doing similar to get
US to attack Iran. Can I assume that Mr. King also hasn't read the
third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They
Dare to Speak Out' book either. Mr. King might be interested in
accessing the following URL as well which conveys how CBS '60 Minutes'
is refusing to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78398
