BBC: Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq ~ (We must have a very valuable important "diplomat")

US flexes muscles towards Iran

*****************************************

Last Updated: Monday, 15 January 2007, 18:02 GMT

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

US flexes muscles towards Iran

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

A US Navy jet launches from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower

The US is making its presence felt in the Gulf

The arrest of five Iranian officials, seized by US troops in a raid on an office in Irbil in northern Iraq, could signal a new more assertive US policy towards Tehran.

Indeed, while President George Bush's speech last week was focused largely on Iraq and the need for a new security plan in Baghdad, one of its notable aspects was its uncompromising tone towards Iran.

Rhetorically, Mr Bush had the Iranian government firmly in his sights. Now there are indications that Washington's tougher words are being matched by a range of practical steps to bring further pressure on Tehran.

Just a few weeks ago, when the bipartisan Iraq Study Group published its report in Washington, one of its central recommendations was that the Bush administration should engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran.

Tehran, so the argument goes, through its close alliance with key Shia factions both inside and outside the Iraqi government, has an important finger in the Iraqi pie.

What could be more logical then than to try to win Tehran over - to seek a deal, hoping, at least, to curtail or constrain Iran's influence?

Pressure on all fronts

President Bush shares this analysis of Iran's role but not the recommended answer of engagement.

Indeed his comments mark a toughening of the US position - a clear sign that Washington now intends to confront Iran's growing influence in Iraq.

"Iran," said the president, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops... We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The Iranian liaison office in Irbil raided by US forces

US forces raided the Iranian liaison office in Irbil

Within hours of the president's speech, US forces raided an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq and detained five staff members.

This undoubtedly signals a ratcheting up of pressure on the Iranians, pressure which is already being applied on a number of other fronts.

Limited economic sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme have been backed by the UN Security Council in New York.

The United States is pressing its closest allies to apply additional sanctions of their own and is leading the way, by - last week, for example - black-listing Iran's fifth-largest bank, alleging that it is involved in financing Iran's missile programmes.

Overt military pressure is also being applied. An additional US aircraft carrier and its accompanying strike group has been deployed to the region.

The message is clear. Both on the nuclear front and in Iraq, Mr Bush seems intent on rolling back Iran's growing influence.

Nuclear strike?

Another straw in the wind is the lively public debate in Israel on the desirability or otherwise of a potential strike on Iran's nuclear sites - perhaps even using tactical nuclear weapons.

Serious strategic analysts question if Israel really has the means to mount the kind of long-range, week-long air campaign that might be needed to significantly damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

But the discussion, orchestrated by more hawkish voices, serves a purpose - again it is an effort to step up the pressure on Tehran.

There are rumours about the health of Iran's supreme leader

So can the new US strategy succeed?

There are those who strongly back the toughening US stand against Iranian influence in Iraq.

One leading Sunni politician, Iraq's Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi, says that Iran has "a deep and exceptional influence" in his country's affairs, something he wants to see much reduced.

But, of course, that is not how many Shia politicians see it, and the detention of the Iranian officials is straining ties between Washington and the Iraqi government at a very inconvenient moment.

Future unclear

So much, then, for Iraq, where the tougher US stand towards Iran looks like creating as many problems as it seeks to resolve.

What about the broader impact on Tehran's regional ambitions?

It is not clear yet how successful the new US approach will be. Bilateral economic sanctions by America's friends could potentially concentrate minds in Tehran, though it is far from clear how many countries are willing to go down this path.

The fluctuating rumours of ill-health surrounding Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could also complicate the picture - prompting either a step back from confrontation or more abrasive rhetoric.

Washington's intentions, too, are far from clear. Is Mr Bush seeking to encourage greater pragmatism on the part of the Iranians? Or is this simply the prelude to a more comprehensive attack?

Whether or not the Bush speech represents a new strategy towards Iraq is still a matter of debate. But it decidedly signalled a more muscular US approach towards Iran.

Talk to us in 444 days.

From http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20070117.aspx

America Goes on the Offensive
January 17, 2007: In the last month, Iran has become aware that the U.S. is deliberately hunting down Iranian agents inside Iraq. For most of the last year, Iran believed that it's high ranking contacts in the Iraqi government gave its men immunity. Certainly the Iraqi police would not touch them (the head of the national police, and Interior Ministry, was a pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia). But the Americans simply brush aside any Iraqi troops or police who get in the way, and grab Iranians. This is being done without much publicity at all. It's as if the Americans were just collecting evidence and building a case. A case for what?

January 1 6, 2007: The government claimed it shot down an American UAV, but offered no evidence. The U.S. says it has not lost any UAVs lately. It's no secret that American UAVs regularly monitor the Iranian side of the Iran-Iraq border.

Russia announced that it had delivered another shipment of Tor-M1 short range anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. These systems have a maximum range of 12 kilometers, and a max altitude of about 20,000 feet. They are used to defend specific targets, like nuclear research facilities and air bases. About a dozen Tor-M1 systems have been delivered so far, with another 17 to come.

January 15, 2007: The U.S. is sending another Patriot missile battalion to the Persian Gulf. The only thing this battalion could be used for, is stopping Iranian warplanes and missiles. The U.S. confirmed that this was the idea.

January 14, 2007: Iran admitted that it's nuclear program was behind schedule, and that its centrifuge effort, needed to produce radioactive material for power plants (or bombs) was encountering problems. Even with that, Iran appears to have no real obstacles to having nuclear weapons within five years. At that point, the reasoning goes, the Iranians can bully the Gulf Arabs without fear of American interference.

January 12, 2007: A British soldier, of Iranian descent, was arrested and charged with spying for Iran. The accused worked in Afghanistan as a translator for the British commander.

January 11, 2007: After a rather blunt threat from Iran, the UAE ( United Arab Emirates) said it would not cooperate with the U.S. in spying on Iran. The UAE knows that Iran's main targets in the area are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The smaller states along the west coast of the Persian Gulf have long survived by being nice to the local bullies and being an inconspicuous as possible. The smaller states hope that Iran and Saudi Arabia will fight it out, and, as has been the case for centuries, leave the little guys alone.

Meanwhile, in northern Iraq, American troops raided the Iranian "liaison office" (that was to become a consulate), arrested six people and seized documents and computers. The Kurds protested, but the U.S. apparently had evidence that Iran was running many Iraq operations out of this office. The Iranians protested that diplomatic immunity has been violated. But since Iranians took over the U.S. embassy in 1979, and took American diplomats hostage, the U.S. has considered Iran outlaws when it comes to the sanctity of embassies.

Along the Iraqi border, in south Iran, three explosions were heard. The government said the explosions were not near any oil facilities, and others said it was all about destroying minefields left over from the 1980-88 war.

January 10, 2007: The UN sanctions imposed last December were considered pretty weak. However, they are having a chilling effect on foreign investment in Iran. That's because, combined with the more vigorous moves by the U.S. against Iranian use of the international banking system, and the threat of more sanctions, or even war, foreign investors are backing away from Iran. In response, the Iranian government is trying to reassure potential investors. But this is difficult when Iranian president Ahmadinejad, and other hard liners, keep spouting off about destruction and making war.

Hang em. that oughta get their attention.

So for the last 5 years this was not known that Iran was the problem in Iraq? Bush was smoking pot until just now all this time?

Oh man...

More items:

*******************************

ElBaradei Frets Over Sanctions on Iran 18 Jan. 04:47:10

Rice Hears Encouragement From Mideast 18 Jan. 03:45:10
El-Baradei Concerned Iran Sanctions 18 Jan. 02:16:59
Rice Resists Seeking Talks With Iran 18 Jan. 00:24:07

But first thing's first:

Iiiiiiiitttt'sssssssssss WATER-BOARDING time!!!!!!

How long did the Iranians hold American diplomats hostage?

A tough response would be to pound Iran into oblivion, after we caught these guys and strung them up as spies.

Foreign state agents on the battlefield, no uniforms, conducting sabotage, espionage or guerrilla type warfare are hung, that simple.

From Wikipedia:

Iran hostage crisis

********************AN EXCERPT ****************************

The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis lasting from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981. The situation involved members of the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line," student proxies of the new Iranian regime, holding 63 diplomats and 3 additional US citizens hostage inside the American Diplomatic mission in Tehran, Iran.

The captors released several captives, leaving 52 hostages at the conclusion of the crisis. ^[1] During the crisis the United States attempted a rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw. The operation failed and resulted in the deaths of eight US soldiers.

Some historians argue that the crisis was one of the primary reasons for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's loss in the US Presidential Election of 1980.^[2].

The crisis reached its conclusion with the signing of the Algiers Accords, and on January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were formally released into U.S. custody after having spent 444 days in captivity.

There are rumours about the health of Iran's supreme leader

Yeah, like he has assumed room tempurature. Maybe he is being held up on the highway to hell by his carpool buddy, Fidel.

See post #3 also.

The 444 days is only one condition. The other is to swear in a new President before the release.

exactly! 444 days they hold an entire embassy worth of hostages and they've got their knickers in a bind over this?

I say capture 5,000 more Iranians, then kill 50 a day until they quit their B.S. That might get teir attention.

gee I'd like video of the whole thing.... I'm a taxpayer...and I demand entertainment. It's my right!!!!

If Tehran Knew!:

"In America, they lie for tactical reasons, stating over and over that military action against Iran is unlikely. However in Iran, out of ignorance, they reiterate that American military action against their country is impossible because the US is "unable" to do so!

We say and hope our analysis is wrong. A possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is in the final stages. Unless a political miracle occurs that revives the halted dialog between Iran and the international community, Iran and its neighboring countries should not be surprised by a scenario that includes American military action. "

Just maybe, President Bush is purposely allowing the media and the left to spout their garbage in order to create the illusion that we are completely incapable of taking any action against Iran. It would come as a complete surprise if we did take action.

Iranian Map: Before our upcoming Victory:

Iranian Map: After our upcoming Victory:

Over the past week, the U.S. Navy has given orders to the U.S.S. John Stennis carrier battle group, based in Bremerton, WA, to steam toward the Persian Gulf, where it will join the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Navy sources say the Pentagon is getting ready to announce the dispatch of a third carrier battle group – the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan – from San Diego. That will make three carrier battle groups in the region starting at around the end of January.

Oh, and along with them is the amphibious assault group led by the U.S.S. Boxer, which can land several thousand U.S. Marines to seize and destroy strategic sites near the coast at a moment’s notice. (Busheir? Bandar Abbas? Jask? The three Persian Gulf islands Iran seized from the UAE in the 1990s and has since fortified to harass Gulf shipping? Your pick).

A Quote from: The Dogs of War - Lessons of the 20th Century. By Victor Davis Hanson, (author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power):

“"I would not wish to fight the United States - either militarily, politically, or culturally. For every threat, our history teaches us that Americans offer not just a rejoinder, but the specter of a devastating answer of a magnitude almost inconceivable to those now chanting and threatening in the streets of the Middle East.

Do they have any idea of what sort of dangerous people we really are? Do they understand the history of the names of those ships now off their coasts, like the USS Peleliu or Enterprise, or the pedigree of the 82nd or 101st Airborne?"

Click The Pic To Donate

To others reading this: "If you are reading this and don't donate to Free Republic, you are probably a liberal or CINO Freeploader! Real conservatives don't mooch off of others. They pay their share! "