Another Iranian incident...is there a pattern forming here?

[XT]

I was reading this article today. Granted, it happened a while ago…but it still seems (in light of the recent dust up with British sailors) to be part of a larger pattern involving Iran and their possible actions.

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq’s eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. “For that level of detail, you’re going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad,” says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. “We don’t know anything about it.”

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army’s statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

Not exactly breaking news I know. However…it just seems to be part of a pattern (or maybe a prelude) when looking at what has recently happened to our British allies. The situation is very similar…obvious border violation by the Iranians, followed by an attempt (successful in the case of the Brits sailors) to intimidate coalition forces into surrendering with the purpose of taking them prisoners back to Iran. I was reading earlier about what looked like (to me) a staged ‘protest’ but ‘Iranian students’ (anyone else getting that US embasy hostage chill/flashback?) at the British Embasy…and it looks to ME to be part of a bigger pattern, a more systematic strategy that Iran has embarked on.

Anyone else getting these vibes or is it just me? Where is this all headed if not war…and a war that Iran SEEMS to be courting, to actually WANT? Coupled with Irans stance on nuclear weapons (granted, its an on again, off again proposition), anyone want to take a shot at speculating on what the hell is going on here?

-XT

[XT]

Here is the article on the Iranian protests outside the British Embasy in Terhan if anyone is interested.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) – Hundreds of Iranian students crowded outside the British Embassy in Tehran on Sunday, setting off firecrackers and hurling projectiles toward the compound, an embassy spokesman said.

No one was injured and there was no damage in the protest, which continued into the late afternoon, the spokesman said.

The students are protesting the alleged trespass of 15 British marines and sailors into Iranian waters on March 23.

Britain and Iraq say the Britons were well inside Iraqi waters, and London is demanding the release of the 15 detainees.

Iran has not allowed British ambassadors access to the Britons, who are being held at an undisclosed location in Iran.

Video from earlier in the day showed Iranians of all ages crowded around the embassy while Iranian forces maintained a cordon around the peaceful crowd, which chanted and waved flags.

I think our British cousins better be watching their asses…it LOOKS like the Iranians are being whipped up into a frenzy and it might just be that some of their Embasy personnel might be having some extended room accomodations made for them, curtasy of the friendly and fun loving people of Iran…

Or maybe not. Perhaps I’m reading too much into all this, and the Iranians aren’t REALLY manipulating their people and whipping them up into a frenzy about some sailors they violated the borders of Iraq to capture…

-XT

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I was reading this article today. Granted, it happened a while ago…but it still seems (in light of the recent dust up with British sailors) to be part of a larger pattern involving Iran and their possible actions.

Not exactly breaking news I know. However…it just seems to be part of a pattern (or maybe a prelude) when looking at what has recently happened to our British allies. The situation is very similar…obvious border violation by the Iranians, followed by an attempt (successful in the case of the Brits sailors) to intimidate coalition forces into surrendering with the purpose of taking them prisoners back to Iran. I was reading earlier about what looked like (to me) a staged ‘protest’ but ‘Iranian students’ (anyone else getting that US embasy hostage chill/flashback?) at the British Embasy…and it looks to ME to be part of a bigger pattern, a more systematic strategy that Iran has embarked on.

Anyone else getting these vibes or is it just me? Where is this all headed if not war…and a war that Iran SEEMS to be courting, to actually WANT? Coupled with Irans stance on nuclear weapons (granted, its an on again, off again proposition), anyone want to take a shot at speculating on what the hell is going on here?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

And before the usual suspects get all up in arms about how the US brought this on themselves, I’d like to toss a question in about what those 5 Iranian generals everone assumes the US snatched were doing in Erbil? Tourists? Or planning further attacks against US and Iraqi forces as the Quds Force has been doing for months in attempting to destabilize Iraq and force it close to Iran?

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And before the usual suspects get all up in arms about how the US brought this on themselves, I’d like to toss a question in about what those 5 Iranian generals everone assumes the US snatched were doing in Erbil? Tourists? Or planning further attacks against US and Iraqi forces as the Quds Force has been doing for months in attempting to destabilize Iraq and force it close to Iran?
[/QUOTE]

IIRC one of the generals mentioned disappeared in Turkey, as for the other captures in Iraq, I have to say that my impression so far is that there is something amiss with the reports of generals being captured, does a country nowadays will risk generals in clandestine operations in enemy territory?

[Evil_One]

In the far-left template, the Iranians have “just as much right” to do whatever they want because the United States is currently being run by “monsters” and “corporate lackeys”.

I also think the Iranians are pushing for war. Why?

1. The theocrats in charge may think that their time in power is limited based on rumblings inside the country. The best way to do something about that is to manufacture outrages from the outside to react to.

2. They think the United States is overextended and vulnerable.

3. They think the Russians and Chinese will protect them.

I expect the provocations to continue because the Iranians want to test western resolve and response. It remains to be seen whether the answer will be Chamberlain or Churchhill.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=Evil One]
In the far-left template, the Iranians have “just as much right” to do whatever they want because the United States is currently being run by “monsters” and “corporate lackeys”.

I also think the Iranians are pushing for war. Why?

1. The theocrats in charge may think that their time in power is limited based on rumblings inside the country. The best way to do something about that is to manufacture outrages from the outside to react to.

2. They think the United States is overextended and vulnerable.

3. They think the Russians and Chinese will protect them.

I expect the provocations to continue because the Iranians want to test western resolve and response. It remains to be seen whether the answer will be Chamberlain or Churchhill.
[/QUOTE]

My belief is point 2 most of all , salted a bit by 1 and 3- Iran thinks that inability to secure Iraq means we don’t have any capability to attack Iran. They forget that to hold and stabilize a country is much more difficult, and takes a lot more troops, than to successfully attack one as we proved in the Gulf with regards to Iraq. Don’t forget, in 1991, all the pundits propheseyed that we’d get our butts royally kicked by the ‘Fifth Largest Army’ in the world and chemical weapons would rain from the sky and we’d be forced to use nukes to contain it. Instead, we destroyed Saddam’s highly trained, blooded, dedicated, and well armed force in less than 90 days almost purely through air attacks; the ground attacks in the end of the war were just mopping up.

We wouldn’t even have to go nuclear to take out Iran’s military as well as command and control; we’d just have to take the leash off our B-52s and fly in some Stealths to take out their SAM sites so we could follow with precision attacks. Wouldn’t even get our hair mussed, and we could decapitate their military, C&C, and deestroy much of their infrastructure that they would need to project force beyond their borders.

On item 1 in your list, I think the theocrats and Ahmenijad need the support and can get it by being ‘against’ America and the West, but I don’t know about the ‘rumblings’ in Iran which might be scaring them… can you elaborate? If they want support, they keep the incidents going but don’t actually go to war - their support would evaporate quickly in the face of us kicking the crap out of their military without too much trouble. Not saying this is a solution, mind, but if their promises of ‘We will destroy the Americans’ result in destruction raining down on their own, then I kinda doubt the young populace of Iran, who were edging towards tossing the Theocrats out anyways, would believe them.

As for 3, the Russians and the Chinese can blow all the hot air they want, but they can’t effectively stop us from doing whatever we want in this region or any other - they don’t have the capability to project force other than nuclear. And to be honest, they’ve both got enough problems on their own frontiers to not really want to try too hard.

[Squink]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Anyone else getting these vibes or is it just me? Where is this all headed if not war…
[/QUOTE]
It’s a hostile border. There are going to be incidents, just like there were during the cold war. The incidents themselves don’t necessarily presage the eruption of a hot war.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Evil One]
In the far-left template, the Iranians have “just as much right” to do whatever they want because the United States is currently being run by “monsters” and “corporate lackeys”.
[/quote]

I agree with the rest of the post, but I just have to mention that IMHO the current leader of Iran is a monster, OTOH that does not mean one can ignore the monstrous things done by our side. I think it is naive to ignore that it is thanks to current desitions by leaders in the US and England that we are in this mess.

Regarding the recent incident at sea, if it is true that the status of the border in gulf waters was not settled, it means that the British leadership was not being accurate (this is being kind to them, I could be more cynical when official reports conveniently forget to mention the borders are not settled yet) when they still claim to never be in Iranian waters.

I think the Iranians and Iraqis (and the US since they have lots of control over the Iraqi government now) are idiots for not settling this basic question of the border.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/murray290307.html

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

And the reason why I say “IF” is that we need more confirmation. However, I have to say that map does have a curious change of direction of the border.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Evil One]
I also think the Iranians are pushing for war. Why?

1. The theocrats in charge may think that their time in power is limited based on rumblings inside the country. The best way to do something about that is to manufacture outrages from the outside to react to.

2. They think the United States is overextended and vulnerable.

3. They think the Russians and Chinese will protect them.
   [/QUOTE]

They would be right on the second point, at least.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=Squink]
It’s a hostile border. There are going to be incidents, just like there were during the cold war. The incidents themselves don’t necessarily presage the eruption of a hot war.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed - the DMZ between N and S Korea is anothe excellent example of this sort of tension; also India and Pakistan, or even India and China. You get two big bodies of young men on either side of a border, throw in some political or religious tensions, and you’re gonna have interests.

I’m not worried (overly) about outright war, because to be honest (as much as I hate to admit it) I don’t think either Bush or Ahmenijad are quite that stupid, and Tony Blair won’t likely attack on his own hook and all the other players (Russia and China, mostly) are firmly in their own ‘wait and see’ camps while busily issuing meaningless statements of intent.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
They would be right on the second point, at least.
[/QUOTE]

Disagree rather strongly. We could attack them very effectively, to the point of destroying their standing military, all remaining air force, all navy, C&C, and significant infrastructure, without even mussing our hair.

Where we would struggle is in an Iraq-type invade and occupy; we could do the invade part, we’d struggle with the occupy part. Don’t forget, we’ve only got 150k troops in Iraq; we have another 500k in various configurations throughout the rest of the world, most of whom could be re-deployed to an Iran war relatively quickly. And our air power is not very highly utilized at present - that we could dedicate to offensive actions very very quickly. A couple of carrier battle groups would fit the bill rather nicely, and that’s without any USAF support.

Please note - I am NOT saying we should do this, merely that we could do this if we had to.

[ExTank]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

They would be right on the second point, at least.
[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily; at least in terms of air power and certain conventional ground forces. It actually hinges on what the strategic objective is. We certainly have the capability to launch a limited ground campaign with armored forces, largely sitting idle in Iraq as tanks and IFVs are largely unsuited to anti-insurgency/pacification missions.

And the logisitcal “tail” is already in place in the region.

As far as air assets are concerned, I think we could free up enough stealth fighters and bombers to conduct the sort of air campaign GomiBoy describes.

Again, it hinges on the objective of such a campaign. Were it to be a strictly “punitive” campaign, without any goal of taking and holding territory, but to seek out and destroy Iran’s war-making capability (with a quick detour to their Uranium processing facilities) and then withdraw, I think it has better than even odds of succeeding.

Whether or not we’re overextended politically and/or economically…I would tend to agree with you Evil One.

Without a much more egregious casus belli from Iran, I don’t see it happening.

[treis]

This really isn’t too surprising. Iran and the US have been fighting a shadow war since the Iranian revolution. Iran wants to become the regional power, and the turmoil in Iraq is a perfect opportunity to create an ally.

[Themenin]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
As for 3, the Russians and the Chinese can blow all the hot air they want, but they can’t effectively stop us from doing whatever we want in this region or any other - they don’t have the capability to project force other than nuclear. And to be honest, they’ve both got enough problems on their own frontiers to not really want to try too hard.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you mean by this, Russia could put planes over Iran in less than an hour, since they are virtually neighbors - they also have sea access.

On the issue of why Iran would take British sailors in the first place - in addition to the various points already raised, Iran may simply be feeling the pressure of having hostile forces occupying countries on two of its frontiers. It probably seems important to them to clearly demonstrate their sovereignty over their border regions.

[BrainGlutton]

We have a thread going on Russia and China’s position WRT Iran (although it has drifted a bit off-topic).

[Shodan]

Maybe they think the hostage situation worked out so well in the 70s that they want to try it again.

But yes, I bet they wanted to take some hostages back to Teheran. And no doubt they would announce that the US hostages were taken on Iranian soil.

It seems President Whatever of Iran needs something to shore up his popularity. Attacks on the Great Satan might fit the bill. If I were him, I would wait until the US pulls out of Iraq and then attack, the way the North Vietnamese did after Nixon signed the peace treaty. With any luck, the US will be busy impeaching Bush and will ignore a Middle East war. Until they get to Israel, that is - I hope the prospect of another “killing fields” in Tel Aviv will light a fire under the Democrats’ cowardly butts this time.

Regards,
Shodan

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=Themenin]
Not sure what you mean by this, Russia could put planes over Iran in less than an hour, since they are virtually neighbors - they also have sea access.
[/quote]

And we could shoot them down just as quickly and easily; the Russians would be operating far from their home ground and with little or no support on the ground seeing as how we’d be blowing up Iranian air bases left and right. We have a massive air force and navy, both of which are effectively unengaged and which are both vastly superior to the current Russian equivalents in training, manpower, funding, etc… and a very short logistics tail seeing as how they would be based in either Diego Garcia for the long-haul bombers or in Iraq for the fighters - both are a hop skip and jump from Iran logistically-speaking. The Navy bombers and fighters would have an even shorter tail, seeing as how they could fly right off the coast and even into the Straights of Hormuz once the coastlines had been sanitized of anti-ship missiles.

That said, whilst this would be militarily easy to do (the attack part; the invasion and occupation part would be incredibly difficult if not impossible as I’ve already stated); politically it’s pretty much impossible. No way would we risk war with Russia, Iran, and whoever else wanted to come to the party.

@Themenin

On the issue of why Iran would take British sailors in the first place - in addition to the various points already raised, Iran may simply be feeling the pressure of having hostile forces occupying countries on two of its frontiers. It probably seems important to them to clearly demonstrate their sovereignty over their border regions.

Sure, sounds like a likely justification for this fairly rash action. Also, taking on the ‘weakest’ partner in the coalition is a bit safer than taking on the strongest; the US is clearly pretty keen for any justification for war just now, and this has the possible added bonus of a real possibility of driving a wedge between the two prime partners in the Coalition.

[Squink]

[QUOTE=Evil One]
In the far-left template, the Iranians have “just as much right”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
light a fire under the Democrats’ cowardly butts this time.
[/QUOTE]
You know, xtisme asked a serious question here. Would it kill you all to stop spouting shit in an otherwise perfectly decent thread?

[Spoke]

I’m not sure I would be quite so sanguine regarding US force-projection capabilities in light of this development:

US has no answer for Russian “carrier-destroying missile”

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=spoke-]
I’m not sure I would be quite so sanguine regarding US force-projection capabilities in light of this development:

US has no answer for Russian “carrier-destroying missile”
[/QUOTE]

Scary, but so what? Taiwan is a whole different thing than Iran. Once we’ve sanitzed both coasts of the Straights of Hormuz, and taken out all of Iran’s navy using USAF strikes, what would prevent us from sailing a carrier or two up and down the coast? Without a coast or a navy or an air force to launch from, you can’t launch anti-ship missiles.