Posted on 08/15/2005 4:34:59 PM PDT by dinok
At least nine British soldiers have been murdered in Iraq by terrorists working for the radical Islamic regime in neighbouring Iran, it was reported last night.
US and British military intelligence officers told Time magazine that the three British troops killed in Amarah last month were among the victims of the undeclared war between Iran and the West.
"One suspects this would have to have a higher degree of approval [in Teheran]," a senior American officer told the weekly.
A British officer expressed astonishment at the reluctance to confront Iranian interference in Iraq.
"It's as though we are sleepwalking," he was quoted as saying.
The allegations will aggravate tension between the western allies and Iran still further. The two sides are already at loggerheads over Iran's shadowy nuclear programme and fears that it is trying to develop atomic weapons.
The British dead in Amarah, 2nd Lieut Richard Shearer, 26, Pte Leon Spicer, 26, and Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of 1st Bn, Staffordshire Regiment, were killed by a sophisticated roadside bomb.
According to a leaked military intelligence paper, the men were victims of a hitherto unknown Iranian-controlled terrorist group led by a man called Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani
He is described as the leader of a 270-man organisation established by Iran's radical Revolutionary Guard to kill coalition troops in Iraq.
Of most concern to coalition intelligence officers is the growing relationship between Teheran and the new Iraqi government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The level of distrust was revealed in the statement of one western diplomat, who told the magazine: "We have to think that anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Teheran."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Not a very satisfactory state of events is it?
And probably Beijing as well.
These types of regimes only respect action, or the imminent threat of action. I'm not saying it will be easy, but certainly we are positioned to topple the Iranian regime if need be.
"And probably Beijing as well."
I would not be surprised.
No way Jose!
Time for British pay back, a cruise missle into the barracks of the Revolutionary Guards.
?
IIRC, there was an anti-clerical Iranian "mujjaheddeen al-khalk"(??) group in Iraq. Maybe it could be put to some use - to give the Iranians a good taste of their own medicine.
Some secrets from WWII are just now coming out.. I'm sure there are plans/operations underway as we speak.
It actually may take 2 more 9/11's. If the next one comes under President Bush's watch the Dems will be completely focused on impeachment, giddy with excitement, with their MSM leading the way, while little is accomplished.
Good point and may be one of the reasons nothing has happened since then. One thing I wonder is that OBL isn't getting any younger and would probably like to see this finish thru in his lifetime So how many years can he afford to wait before having another go at it?
yes it may be morbid but i have to agree
" Not a very satisfactory state of events is it?"
Surely BushFedGov understood that by allowing a republican government in shiite majority iraq, close relations with Iran were inevitable.
There needs to be an overthrow of the jihad promoting dictatorships in both Iran and Syria, otherwise there will not be a solid victory over the enemy in Iraq.
We have been in a de facto state of war with Iran since 1979 when they attacked the US Embassy. After Carters failed air strike against Iran, it became clear that to take on Iran we would need to have better logistics. We helped support Saddam early on in his war against Iran. That 8 year war helped to contain the Iranian mullahs. While the Iranian mullahs were tied up, Regan tried to stop the Syrian invasion of Lebanon, but we had to cut and run after the bombing of the US marine barracks in Lebanon. Again, logistics killed us. Shortly after Iran and Iraq agreed to a cease fire, Saddam invaded Kuwait and became a short term greater threat. Both Bush's seriously took on Saddam and eventually removed him. Also after 911 we invaded afghanistan and removed the taliban from power. Logistically speaking we are now in a much stronger position then we were when Carter had to launch a strung out air assault that failed. We now have bases within Iraq and Afghanistan. The collapse of the Soviet Union has also helped. Sure we dont have total control of the Iraqi democracy, but if we did have total control you could not call it a democracy. At the very least we can now logistically smash the mullahs, whether or not we have control of Iraq.
The war momentum has been lost at home and it will take another 9/11 to get us in to it again
Good point"
Yes that was a good point and part of it, the other real issue no one wants to mention is that Iran is the West's second biggest oil supplier behind Saudi Arabia. They shut us of tomorrow, we see an economic depression in six months.
Iran is already talking oil embargo like they did in the 70's. It takes money to win wars and a depression would not help so we cannot ruffle Iran's feathers too much until the Iraq oil can replace Iran's. That is what happens when as a country we do not learn that relying on middle eastern whack jobs to run our entire country is not a wise move.
Iran won't care as much about pissing us off with an oil embargo indefinately. China could easily buy enough oil from Iran to keep the mullahs and the country rich indefinately. That is why we would need a full navy blockade, followed by a massive ground invasion of all the major capitols, followed by years of attrition war. It wont be pretty but at this point it may need to be done.
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.