U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

[Iggore]

Thats true.

As for international support for the american venture in the Middle-East, I believe that it will look very bleak for the USA. Broadly speaking, for most countries, the cost of staying idle and waiting to see how Irak unfold and eventually adjusting to the mostly negative consequences is probably lesser than the cost of helping the americans right away with very incertain results in the future. Of course, this depends of which State your talking about, but I'd say that this is true for most Western countries, and perhapes even for the rest of the world. Its not profitable to get involved in Irak for anyone right now, so its better to sit back and watch and wait.

This is why I believe that the americans will be alone in this for the foreseeable future, until the theatre of war eventually degenerate and expand to include Iran, Israel, or some other oil-rich states which will then threaten the interest of other powers and thus get their attention. Think about it; its better to deal with the mess in Middle-east when the Americans are on the brink of disaster, which would allow you to drive an advantageous bargain against them on some issues, than to join the "Coalition of the Willing" under american leadership at the beggining and get mostly nothing out of it but sociale disapprobation at home, like in Tony Blair's case.

But until then, it will be more of the same until the americans give up, succumb to the insurgency and the whole thing blow out of proportion.

 

[ramonmercado]

I think the Iranian Resistance could do it. But if they were seen to be collaborating with the US it could damage them. Never underestimate the power of nationalism when a countrys citizens perceive it to be under external threat.

 

[wembley8]

A pretext? But Iran is clearly supporting and sponsoring terrorist militias in Irak, which are murdering american and irakian soldiers (See here, here and here).

Those links do not contain any evidence, just unsubstantiated claims by the US military with no independent support. That's the same sort of 'evidence' as we had for the WMD in Iraq. Beware of sources with an agenda.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Iran's behaviour 'negative' - Gates

Increased US military activity in the Persian Gulf is meant to counter 'very negative' behaviour by Iran and undercut its belief that American forces are over-committed in Iraq, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said.

Gates said the time is not right for diplomatic talks with Iran, but left open that possibility for the future.

After meeting with senior officials at Nato headquarters, Gates was asked at a news conference what was behind the Bush administration's decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf region - moves announced in connection with a further buildup of ground troops in Iraq.

He noted that the US has taken a leading role in Gulf security for many decades. 'We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the US and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future,' he said. Gates, who as recently as 2004 publicly called for diplomatic engagement with Iran, said the situation has changed. In 2004 Iran was concerned by the presence of US forces on its eastern and western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More recently, the Iranian government has come to see it differently, he said. 'The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways,' he said. 'They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point.' He added: 'And so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there might be opportunities for engagement.' Gates spent a few hours at Nato headquarters for his initial meetings with allied officials and American military officials.

http://headlines.virgin.net/story/OOO/B ... 8859141A00

 

[crunchy5]

Here's a good site for seeing how the Brit troops on the ground think.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewforum/f=3.html

One user, schweik, said to bliar

"when your boss across the pond rings up and tells you your boys are being deployed to Iran next, have the bol*ocks to tell him to fu*k off and die."

I frequently speak to some mates who are UK service personnel and they are not happy bunnies.

 

[Iggore]

A pretext? But Iran is clearly supporting and sponsoring terrorist militias in Irak, which are murdering american and irakian soldiers (See here, here and here).

Those links do not contain any evidence, just unsubstantiated claims by the US military with no independent support. That's the same sort of 'evidence' as we had for the WMD in Iraq. Beware of sources with an agenda.

The thought of Iran's involvement in Irak seem to be increasingly accepted in the medias, as far as I know. This notion hasn't met much skepticism yet, even if its comming from the same institutions who sold us the "Irak has WMD" idea. Here's two good articles from the Telegraph.

US forces turn on Iranians

Iran 'taking control of Basra by stealth'.

Casus belli?

 

[crunchy5]

I have also read reports of other foreign nations undertaking military actions in Iraq, I believe they are known by the acronyms USA and UK.

Igore what's with the new spelling of Iraq, or is it just your way of showing disdain for the Muslims of the middle East who had the cheek to grow up on top of oil, much like my own "bliar" or "Wuh" when referring to the pirate leaders.

 

[Iggore]

"Irak" is how its spelled in French. I dunno, I just have an habit of preserving the french spelling of some proper noun when I speak in another language. Its not disdain for the arabic language, its more like a silly form of reverence for my mother thongue.

I could use the english version out of respect for the majority of this board, but whether its in english or french, its still not the original arabic spelling, so it doesn't matter regarding my respect for the arabs.

Its the same with my forum name. It has a double "g" and a "e" at the end. Its useless, complicated, an insult to its scandinavian and slavic roots, and it's as french as it get.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I have also read reports of other foreign nations undertaking military actions in Iraq, I believe they are known by the acronyms USA and UK.

Igore what's with the new spelling of Iraq, or is it just your way of showing disdain for the Muslims of the middle East who had the cheek to grow up on top of oil, much like my own "bliar" or "Wuh" when referring to the pirate leaders.

i think it would be fair to say that the iranians hold many iraqis in more contempt than the americans and british, though.

 

[crunchy5]

I don't know I heard some yanks on tv the other day saying they should just turn the whole region into a glass bowl, that's a pretty high level of contempt, on the other hand a mate who in the past 3 years has had a few deployments to the gulf holds t bliar in utter contempt while holding the Iraqis in high respect even the insurgents, he's aware that in a reversed situation we'd do the same.

Here's the clip it's quite funny actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkYfYa8ePI

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

i'm not sure we'd organise our police units into death squads or blow up our fellow oppressed citizens while they travel to work, though.

 

[crunchy5]

Ah the British, immune to fascism and so resourceful we'd invent a new way to fight asymmetric warfare, have you ever read any of the plans we had for fighting a possible Nazi occupation army complete with suicide attacks on tanks and assassinations of collaborators.

 

[Iggore]

But in Irak's case, the american occupation offers a better alternative than the rabble of foreign fighters and terrorists could ever come up with. And the methodes of the "occupation" are better than anything that the insurgency is doing. We're not talking about the French Resistance here, we're talking about sectarian violence thats killing irakies as much as they're taking out coalition forces, without ofering an alternative that is better than the american backed democratic government in Bagdad.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ah the British, immune to fascism and so resourceful we'd invent a new way to fight asymmetric warfare, have you ever read any of the plans we had for fighting a possible Nazi occupation army complete with suicide attacks on tanks and assassinations of collaborators.

yes, i have. i can scarcely believe that you equate those actions with the death squads and tit-for-tat violence currently taking place in iraq, however. i'd post some more details but clearly they'd be overlooked.

 

[crunchy5]

That's very true Iggore but try telling some poor schmuck in Baghdad who's entire family is dead, and lets face it it's easier to kill an unemployed Shia who thinks becoming a cop is a good idea than a yank in body armour and equipped with night vision years of training and a squad of equally tough soldiers around him ahhnd the superhuman ability to call in air support.

Iraq wasn't in a state of anarchy till we broke it, getting rid of Saddam was good but not at this cost, as all but 11% of yanks believe according to the latest polls. Lets face facts only a complete moron could still support this war and consider a new fresh war a good idea.

 

[crunchy5]

i'd post some more details but clearly they'd be overlooked.

Not true, but they may already be known and discounted as invalid if they are the details that make you think we're doing the right thing.

Ah but the equating of the two situations is subjective and obviously the Iraqis doing the fighting think they're doing the right thing in the eyes of their nation and god, I feel sure they aren't doing it for fun.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

i'd post some more details but clearly they'd be overlooked.

Not true, but they may already be known and discounted as invalid if they are the details that make you think we're doing the right thing.

Ah but the equating of the two situations is subjective and obviously the Iraqis doing the fighting think they're doing the right thing in the eyes of their nation and god, I feel sure they aren't doing it for fun.

i've never said we're doing the right thing in iraq but i've never believed that the violence is specifically against the occupation. you'd have to be blind to not see that much of it, if not the majority of it, is sectarian and has little to do with the occupation.

were those carrying out saddam's execution insulting him and chanting the name of a shia leader because saddam used to be cosy with america? or because he didn't fight their invasion?

 

[Iggore]

I think that by their methodes, aims and achievements, we can all agree that the Insurgency is objectively a bad thing, whatever they might think of themselves. And I do hope that if Britain found itself under the same situation, its resistance movement would not cause the country to collapse into an abject civil war.

And this does not necessarily validate what the americans are doing in Irak.

 

[crunchy5]

and has little to do with the occupation.

To be honest Ted I agreed with every thing you wrote up to the above point, because obviously it has every thing to do with the war/occupation. The sectarian hatred is a direct result of the evil empires divide and rule policy that served us so well for so long, we're reaping the whirlwind all over the world now though eh ?

Did you ever pause to think why were the Sunni in charge even though they were a small minority of the population thus garnering a sizable amount of anger from the Kurds and Shia.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

and has little to do with the occupation.

To be honest Ted I agreed with every thing you wrote up to the above point, because obviously it has every thing to do with the war/occupation. The sectarian hatred is a direct result of the evil empires divide and rule policy that served us so well for so long, we're reaping the whirlwind all over the world now though eh ?

Did you ever pause to think why were the Sunni in charge even though they were a small minority of the population thus garnering a sizable amount of anger from the Kurds and Shia.

the evil empire's divide and rule policy? what islam's? :?

if it's to do with our occupation, from the 7th century onwards presumably, then surely the war makes little difference?

was it not saddam's uncle who he grew up with that wrote of allah's 3 mistakes of creation - jews, persians and flies - in the 1930's? you can hardly blame america for that, if indeed that's what you mean by "evil empire" (i initially wondered why you were blaming the soviets).

 

[crunchy5]

I think that by their methodes, aims and achievements, we can all agree that the Insurgency is objectively a bad thing, whatever they might think of themselves. And I do hope that if Britain found itself under the same situation, its resistance movement would not cause the country to collapse into an abject civil war.

And this does not necessarily validate what the americans are doing in Irak.

Agree on all points, the thing is the collapse of Iraqi society is not in the least surprising it was written about and predicted by many in the weeks leading up to the aggressive war we launched.

The trick with international relations is not to be able to see what is right or wrong, but how will the other guys see my actions and what will their reaction be and can we deal with it.

Force the Palestinians to have democratic elections, then the entire plan comes off the rails when they elect Hamas, Durr, come on neocons try harder. Put yourself in the other guys shoes.

 

[crunchy5]

i think it would be fair to say that the iranians hold many iraqis in more contempt than the americans and british, though.

After I didn't pick you up over this jumble of words you pretend not to know that by "evil empire" in this context of the Sunni, Shia, Kurd divide I meant the British Empire, ie the empire that set the borders, with a little help from France, of modern Iraq after ww1. The sunni were put in charge by us for the benefit of oil companies, as you know ted divide and rule was a favorite policy of the Brits that's why our ex colonies are so lacking in cohesion. Take a look at Fiji for a less violent example or Ireland for one closer to home.

But thanks for the Saddam quote

 

[wembley8]

The thought of Iran's involvement in Irak seem to be increasingly accepted in the medias, as far as I know. This notion hasn't met much skepticism yet, even if its comming from the same institutions who sold us the "Irak has WMD" idea....

So are you saying you believe it or not?

 

[wembley8]

I think that by their methodes, aims and achievements, we can all agree that the Insurgency is objectively a bad thing, whatever they might think of themselves.

But a lot of people say exactly the same about the occupation. There aren't necessarily good guys on either side in a war.

 

[Iggore]

I think that by their methodes, aims and achievements, we can all agree that the Insurgency is objectively a bad thing, whatever they might think of themselves.

But a lot of people say exactly the same about the occupation. There aren't necessarily good guys on either side in a war.

Yeah, maybe there are no good guys, but maybe there are some who are better than others. Those who advocate a stable, (probably) democratic government in Bagdad, a government who could uphold the rule of law and generate legitimacy and protect citizens with its monopoly of organized violence, are probably better than the other guys, the insurgents, who pretty much work toward achieving something that would look like a Hobbesian state of nature.

I can't defend the American venture in Iraq. Its not legal, its not legitimate, not even strategic or successfull. But by God I can't accept the alternative proposed by the local opposition to the occupation. Its a proposition that we can't understand, predict nor controle. Its not secure, not just for our own selfish interests, but for the very people living there too.

Maybe if the Insurgents were united ideologically, with a clear aim and goals, maybe if they could be negociated with, but its not the case. The Insurgent alternative is the breakdown of Iraq and an ensuing blooshed, resulting perhapes in a proxy-war between Saudi backed Sunnie factions and Iran backed Shiit factions. Its something that we can't control, in a region that is vital for our energy security.

The thought of Iran's involvement in Irak seem to be increasingly accepted in the medias, as far as I know. This notion hasn't met much skepticism yet, even if its comming from the same institutions who sold us the "Irak has WMD" idea....

So are you saying you believe it or not?

Personaly, I'm inclined to believe that the iranians mingle in Irak in a manner that challenge american influence there, with destabilizing results. I say this because I believe that they have a lot to gain by sponsoring and arming militias there, simply because it would increase their influence at the expense of the american effort. One of the thing that Iran has to gain from destabilizing Irak is to delay the moment where the american military will be able to pose a threat to its nuclear program.

But this is all suppositions. But yeah, I suppose that Iran is mingling in the region, because I suppose that it would serve my their interests, as I understand them.

 

[Iggore]

Well well well...

Saudis consider sending troops to Iraq
Government ‘deeply skeptical’ al-Maliki can make Bush surge plan work
EXCLUSIVE
By Alex Johnson and Andrea Mitchell
MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Tuesday.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal made no effort to mask his skepticism Tuesday about President Bush’s proposal to send 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq to stem sectarian fighting.

“We agree with the full objectives set by the new plan,” Saud said at a joint news conference in Riyadh with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in the region selling Bush’s plan. “We are hoping these objectives can be accomplished, but the means are not in our hands. They are in the hands of the Iraqis themselves.”

In fact, Saudi leaders are privately “deeply skeptical” that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could implement the U.S. plan, the senior U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, who is traveling with Rice.

The Saudi government has signaled in the past that it would oppose an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, fearing it would leave minority Sunni Muslims at the mercy of Shiite Muslim militias.

The Saudis’ primary concern is the Sunni population of Anbar province, the senior U.S. official. The official said the Saudis had informed Washington that they were considering a plan to send troops into the province if Bush’s plan failed.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the report, which Rice downplayed during a briefing for reporters. She said such a scenario was why it was important for the U.S. plan to produce a unified Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/

I'm glad. It seems that more and more countries will inevitably get sucked into the conflict, and I hope that it will alleviate pressure from the american's shoulders.

 

[Anonymous]

I had no idea that the Saudi's even had forces to move anywhere.

How big is their army?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I had no idea that the Saudi's even had forces to move anywhere.

How big is their army?

No idea, but it is very well equipped:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,,1933862,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,,1984657,00.html


8)

 

[Hanslune]

They have two/three armies, a national guard that is tribal based and evolved from the Irkwan and a regular army with Royal Guard. They watch each other and make sure there are no coups.

The equipment is good but the actual combat effectiveness of any but the elite units is probably poor. It's more of a police/parade army than a fighting force.

SANG 90,000 with reserves
SRA 200,000
Royal Guard 3 battalions. Mainly recruited from the tribes of Najd, guardsmen were selected on the basis of their loyalty to the king and the Al Saud. The inner quards are Moroccans and Baluchis, non-Arabic speakers and thought to be less corruptible.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

very interesting report on Newsnight on the subject of a deal offered by the iranians a few years back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 272661.stm