Posted on 04/04/2008 6:43:24 PM PDT by blam
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:53am BST 05/04/2008
British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.
A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.
General Petraeus: recent attacks on the green zone used Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets
The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency is dramatically diminished, Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country.
"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.
"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."
Tension between Washington and Tehran is already high over Iran's covert nuclear programme. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes.
In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."
The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq.
Gen Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, will answer questions from American political leaders at the US Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday before travelling to London to brief Gordon Brown.
The Wall Street Journal said last week that the US war effort in Iraq must have a double goal.
"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan.
There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."
I wish he had the bollocks to go on the record.
Excuse me but I think the Brits have already had their day and say with Iran. Please, Mates, try to stay out of our way.
Maybe they think he should just lie and thank the Iranians for their polite tolerance of our mission next door.
“A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran’s intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities,”
Notice it doesn’t say ‘British officials fear Iran is provoking a wider war”. Nope, it’s all that bloodthirsty rat bastard Petraeus’ fault.
Once, a long long time ago, there were men.
“Fear” you mean Brits ain’t got the intestinal fortitude for a tough job?
They want to sit by the fire with their tea and crumpets?
General Petraeus doesn’t need to “beat the drum” against Iran.
At his command, the invisible forces of SOCOM could wreak havoc on every Iranian activity from Syria to Tehran. It is difficult to imagine how ferocious such an unleashed attack would be.
He could effectively neuter Iran, and there would be no declaration, no announcement, and no tally of the havoc. Iran would stop functioning.
I like to point out that before the ground war in Gulf War I began, at one point it was estimated that between 20-30,000 elite forces had already entered Iraq.
Since that time, SOCOM has been enlarged by perhaps 10 times its size.
Love the spin that we are claiming Iran is involved because Maliki was "humiliated", whereas in fact the Basra operation uncovered loads of Iranian weapons.
I’d love to put you on my ping list, but I do it from memory and you have one hell of an unrecallable freepername.
Here’s a thread about Muslims ditching Islam for Christianity since OIF:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1996654/posts?page=40
Islam is lost, and Cheney’s recent visit to tie up loose strings hopefully points to our support of the Iranian people de-throning the Mullacracy.
We wouldn’t attack Iran with so many of our troops in Iraq, we’re waiting for the popular revolt in Tehran. It’ll happen, before Jan 20 ‘09.
The men of Agincourt, El Alemein...Burma, and those who flew the Hurricanes. Where the hell are you? Look around your own freaking cities, and tell us we’re the bad guys.
Iran is a complex problem, and not something that should be left to a hopeful revolution.
To start with, Iran is Persia, surrounded by foreign territories of hated and powerless minorities, with far more in common with surrounding nations than Persia. The major groups are Kurds, Azeri, Arabs, and Baluchs. All of them are despised and abused by the Persians, and their lands are exploited by Persia to enrich itself.
The big problem is that the typical Persian-on-the-street sees nuclear weapons as the equivalent to Aladdin’s djinn in the lamp, offering them everything they want; and they also feel, with some justification, that their nation should be a lot more economically powerful than it is—much like Japan felt prior to WWII. Ergo, nuke weapons will make them wealthy and respected.
This means that no matter what government Iran has, it will still want nukes. It also plays off their traditional fear of invasion and general xenophobia to want nukes.
This also means that just destroying their nuclear, and capable missile infrastructure will just delay the inevitable. They will rebuild it, no matter what government is in charge. (Of course, assuming that they didn’t just buy enriched uranium and plutonium from the North Koreans, and their enrichment program is just a ruse to buy time.)
However, their being a nation divided into Persia and everyone else provides a possible solution. That is, *both* destroy their nuclear and missile infrastructure, *and* partition Iran to deny them the resources they need to rebuild their nuclear weapons program.
The advantages of this are that if the US did partition Iran, it would not have to attack Persia proper, and it could turn over the partitioned parts of Iran to the adjacent friendly powers. Kurdish Iran would go to Kurdistan, Arab Iran (with most of Iran’s oil) would go to Iraq, and Baluch Iran (with much of Iran’s mineral resources) would be joined with Pakistan.
Unfortunately, the Azeri territories could probably not be given to Azerbaijan, as it is a weak nation, and could not support Azeri Iran. But this is where the Iranian uranium mines are located. So the US would have to destroy these mines in such a way that they could not be reused.
By not attacking Persia proper, even though we destroyed Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard, Persia would cease to be an issue. It would still be reasonably prosperous, but it could not build nuclear weapons, nor conquer its neighbors, greater Kurdistan, Iraq or Pakistan, to regain its lost territories.
The actual partition would be a crescent along Iran’s west and southern borders. This would include the Bushehr reactor and access to the Persian Gulf, so that Persia could no longer menace shipping or the Strait of Hormuz. It would still have access to the Caspian Sea.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_pol01.jpg
ping
Happy to. Please stay out of our way in Afghanistan while we clear up the mess you left us.
These men are in Afghanistan and Iraq, doing a dirty job that not a single Yank ever gives us credit for.
You must understand that we over here don't get a very warm feeling from the press we get in your country, and there's an overall sense that we are regarded as greater villians than those we are facing in the Middle East.
There is one thing you can count on. The general will tell it like it is. He is no politician waxing words to put smoke on the battlefield to obscure the truth and avoid doing what might be the “hard right”.
Fair enough, and I appreciate your support. Fact is we don’t get a warm feeling from the press in your country, nor from the posters here on FR. Most of the Freepers are more than willing to pander to the lies and misrepresentation by the media in the US, and public gossip too. I’ve have just finished a heated debate with some bonehead who criticised the Brits in Afghanistan for taking a softly-softly approach (!), such is the level of ignorance for what US allies are doing.
Their is a massive level of ignorance about the British, and the role we are playing in both wars. The very least we should get from you (in a general sense, this isn’t a personal rant) is thanks and acknowledgment for the work we do.
Some hope. Got more chance of owning a Veyron...
Thanks to all from the UK who are doing the right thing, those who support and most of all those who do the hard dangerous work of fighting terrorism around the world.
Yes, on both sides of the Atlantic we all sometimes get the worst impressions of each other because on our TVs and computer screens we see mostly the leftist wankers and weasels who grab all the headlines railing against the war(s), those who seek to appease and grovel and accommodate.
I wouldn’t want America to be judged solely by the scum of our Demagogues......
We havent “left” anything Afghanistan. How long before what’s left of the British forces are withdrawn from there as well? Your help has been appreciated but obviously commitment for the long haul is rather short on your side of the pond.
What’s left in Afghanistan? The British have almost as many troops there as the Americans do, despite having only 1/5 of the population.....
I will correct my previous statement, they have just under half the number of troops as the Americans do, but the contribution per head of per head of population is still far greater than that of the US. And they are mostly deployed in Helmand province, one of the most war-ridden provinces in the country. There is no room for an American to belittle Britain’s contribution in Afghanistan..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
