At least three US missles have hit Iran, supposedly “by accident,” which is remarkable considering how accurate our attack on Baghdad is supposedly being done. We are also violating Iranian airspace.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Three missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the border in southwestern Iran, Iran’s official IRNA news agency said on Saturday.
Citing an unnamed military commander, IRNA also said that U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic Republic’s airspace several times on Friday and Saturday during operations against targets in southern Iraq.
“In two cases, rockets from American planes hit” the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq, the commander said. He gave no further details and there no reports of casualties or damage.
Another rocket hit an oil refinery depot on Friday evening in the city of Abadan, about 50 km (30 miles) east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, government officials and witnesses told Reuters. Two guards at the depot were injured in the blast.
Anyone who has researched the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz plan for the Iraq war knows that the underlying idea is to use permanent military bases in our new protectorate Iraq to intimidate and/or overthrow other uncooperative arab regimes, starting with Iran.
My question is:
Are these strikes on Iran “accidental” or are they deliberate, part of an effort to provoke Iran to take some sort of an action that would justify a “defensive” attack on Iran?
One possible scenerio:
More American missles hit Iran. Tensions mount. There is a “terror attack” against American troops or some other American target somewhere.
The Boy King produces “evidence” that the terrorists are sponsored by Iran, and uses that as justification to launch a “pre-emptive regime change” in Iran.
If Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has his way, Iraq is just the
beginning of hostilities in the Middle East - he wants the U.S. to disarm
Iran, Libya and Syria once we get finished consigning Saddam Hussein to the
trash heap.
“These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass
destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make
that easier to achieve,” Sharon told a visiting delegation of American
congressmen, adding that while Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq
“but the American action is of vital importance.”
In the Middle East, impending “regime change” in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives – who’ve begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a “cabal.” Like dominoes, the regimes in the region – first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia – are slated to capitulate, collapse or face U.S. military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory committee, “We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: ‘You’re next.’” In the aftermath, several of those states, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, may end up as dismantled, unstable shards in the form of mini-states that resemble Yugoslavia’s piecemeal wreckage. And despite the Wilsonian rhetoric from the president and his advisers about bringing democracy to the Middle East, at bottom it’s clear that their version of democracy might have to be imposed by force of arms.
I would not put a great deal of stock in statements coming from the Iranian Ministry of Disinformation.
The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz plan you speak of is unfamiliar to me but I cannot see how a permanent military base in Iraq would be looked upon favourably by the Iraqis or their neighbours. They’re already pissed off that the U.S. has bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and there really isn’t a need for the U.S. to set up more bases in Iraq. They already have the ability to strike anywhere in the middle east from the bases they have.
After witnessing the destruction that is going on in Iraq, the neighbouring countries that are hostile to the U.S. are probably going to be very reluctant to be pulling on the tiger’s tail lest they incur it’s wrath and end up facing the pointy end.
I think that this is one of the other desired effects of this war on Iraq; to demonstrate to other countries that taking a hostile stance towards the U.S. would be suicidal.
The US cannot lay one filthy finger on Iran. Even though the regime is filled with totalitarian hypocrites, the US understands that Iran is not an Arab nation and not an especially religious set of Muslims (considering that they were the first to throw off the yolk of Sunni restrictions and created the Shi’ite sect).
In addition, the Reagan administration signed an internationally recognized (albeit seldom mentioned) contract to stay out of Iranian affairs. This was probably signed because the extremists agreed to delay the release of the American hostages until the after Reagan was sworn in as US president.
In addition, there is no record of any Iranian terrorists, ever. Those mollahs are smart enough to pay the Arabs to do their dirty work. Just like Israel is smart enough to make the US do its dirty work.
The international community balked at an invasion of Iraq (which has been aggressive in the recent past and has been headed by a very repressive tyrant). There is no way the international community will stand by while the US talks about aggressing against Iran. Plus, Iran’s two largest trading partners are Germany and Japan and that basically guarantees that the EU and the near east will not allow the US to do diddly squat to Iran.
The repressive theocracy is going to be overthrown, but it will be done by the Persian people, not some second rate UK clone.
2thick, 1. Iran is a VERY religious nation, 2. the Shi’ite sect is just as old as or pre-dates the Sunni sect depending on how you look at it.
Richard Perle is a bit of a nut job, quote how he managed to gain such an influential position in US Defence policy is beyond me. Just recently he proclaimed the united nations dead. Prior to this he has has presented the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the occupied territories and removal into Jordan for the strategic goal of the US in the Middle East.
I am Persian/Azeri. Even though I have been out of the country since the revolution, I speak to relatives back in Iran.
Only 20% of Persians support the current theocracy.
What westerners are shown of Iran are the slums and the religious people. I have lived in 10 different countries (including the US, Canada and Germany) so I know what the west sees and what I have seen.
The Shi’ite sect is an amalgamation of Zoroastrianism and Islam. Iranians identify themselves as Persian first, then as Muslims.
Ok I can’t comment on the feelings of normal Iranians to their theocratic leaders, but I am aware that there is a large reform movement against the theocracy headed by the Prime Minister.
The Shi’ite sect were orgianlly larger than the Sunni sect, but the difference between to the two is that one recognizes the succession of the Caliphs (the Shi’ites) wereas the other does not (the Sunni). Of course there are several sects within the Shi’ite sect, I’m not sure what particular beliefs the shi’ite sect in Iran holds.
So, that mean people who are dumb enough to assume that Persians (who have one of the worlds greatest cultural histories reaching back 6000 years) are Arabs deserve to be corrected.
**
So taking over an Embassy in your own country is terrorism? For your information, the CIA helped to bring back the Ayatollah after the Shah decided to stop being a puppet for the UK and the US. The takeover (that did not result in one death) was a backlash from a CIA miscalculation.
Take your ignorant one-sided views to a KKK rally, where they belong.
Now this is wildly off the mark. Iran is the world’s MOST ACTIVE sponsor of terrorism. Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Ever heard of Hezbollah? Hamas? Palestinian Islamic Jihad? All of them are HEAVILY supported by Iran. The Israelis confiscated the Karine-A, a ship coming out of Iran loaded with weapons for terrorists. Iran was implicated in the bombing of Khobar Towers, which killed 19 Americans.
Iran also builds long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. All of this is why the Bush Administration added Iran to the ‘axis of evil’.
So, is Iran next? No. For one reason - Iran is transforming from within. It is not under control of a fanatical dictator. It is a nascent democracy which unfortunately still leaves too much control in the hands of the fanatical mullahs, but there is good reason to believe it can change. Especially once Iraq falls.
Will the U.S. get involved? Maybe, but not militarily, IMO. Rather, the U.S. may offer financial aid and other forms of support for the student movement, and put diplomatic pressure on Iran to reform.
As for the missiles that allegedly hit Iran - Either it was an accident, or there was a specific target like a terrorist group that moved into Iraq to avoid attack. Possibly a confused pilot who dropped his bombs in the wrong location - in that area, the border regions are probably pretty hard to distinguish.
But it certainly wouldn’t have been an attempted attack on the country itself. If the U.S. DID want to invade, they sure wouldn’t give that intention away in advance by firing missiles ineffectually at some light industry somewhere.
No record of Iranian terrorists ever? Why then would Bush include Iran as part of the “axis of evil” and claim they supported terrorist organisations around the world if there was no evidence of it, “ever”?. What about Iranian-backed Hamas, who stated a goal of attacking American soldiers in Iraq, eh?
/b]
Unfortunately, they can and will. America will just ignore them, and the anti-French fervor will increase exponentially. Citizens will believe more of the world is inline with the terrorists and will want them to be invaded next. See: France
Germany, Russia, and China are/were trading partners with Iraq and Russia and China specifically could not wait for the UN sanctions to end before setting up major trade deals.
**
I certainly hope so. It’s high time we lay off getting involved in internal conflicts. Because putting the Shah in power was not such a good idea in the long run, and is partly responsible for the reason we are in Iraq right now.
I don’t know who made this argument or what it has to do with the debate.
Yes it is. Embassies are considered the soil of the nations they respectively represent. Armed thugs forcing their way into the country and holding a building of civilians hostage for political gain is terrorism.
Freedom of Information act and the three following books:
“Ajatollah Chomeine: Der islamische Staat” by I. Itscherenska
“Iran Under the Ayatollahs” by D. Hiro
“The Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Revolution” by N.R. Keddie
**
You mistunderstand my point. Support of a cause and actually being invloved are two different worlds. There are no Iranian terrorists.
**
It will not happen. There is no point of me saying this any more. I guess we will see.
**
LOL… No nation will ever match the “divide & conquer” streak of the British Empire.