| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| British commanders fear reaction to American aggression |
| 2005-01-18 |
| REPORTS of an increasingly hard-line US policy towards Iran are starting to worry British generals and diplomats, who fear the 9,650-strong UK garrison in southern Iraq would be targeted by Tehran in retaliation to any strike by the Bush administration. The allegations of US covert operations inside Iran have added to the worries in Whitehall that the stand-off with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions could be moving into a more dangerous phase. Last summer's capture of eight Royal Marines by Iranian Revolutionary Guards off southern Iraq has convinced many senior British officers and diplomats that any increase in tension with Iran would result in 'blow back' against British forces in Iraq. The marines were eventually released unharmed but it later emerged that Iranian gunboats entered Iraqi territorial waters to abduct the marines' patrol boats. Revolutionary Guard naval forces conducted the operation, apparently on the orders of hard-line Mullahs, causing tension within the Tehran government which had been trying to cultivate the Europeans as a counter-weight to the Americans. "We now think the Iranians were sending us a signal," said one British officer. "They were saying, if you get too close to the Americans we can make life very difficult for you and you will pay a price." Foreign Office sources are particularly worried that the departure of Colin Powell from the Bush administration has left the neo-conservatives in control of US foreign policy in Washington. British intelligence sources are becoming worried that the Iranians will employ a strategy to strike back at US interests and its allies across the Middle East. Here, the role of the large Shia population in southern Iraq will be crucial and this could make life very uncomfortable for the British garrison in the Basra region. Until now the Shia of southern Iraq have generally been co-operative with British forces, but the fear is that Tehran could activate "sleeper" cells to launch an all- out guerrilla war. There were credible reports that last summer Tehran concentrated troops along the border with Iraq in response to US sabre-rattling over the nuclear issue, raising the possibility that Iran might try to seize Iraqi territory. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #34 com, I would like to see some creative options to muddy the waters further... Maybe direct at TV frequencies broadcasts on all Iranian channels of western entertainment and News (not just US -- porno, first run movies, church services, buddhist messages everything...) so that on every channel they get the world and not the Mad Mullahs. Jam the Mullah's channels on Radio and TV when they appear or just overpower them from the sat. (give the sat a nice reactor to give it enough kilowatts...) Deny ownership of the whole thing..... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-01-19 12:00:02 AM |
| #33 "...the EU are willing to sacrifice Israel's security and risk its survival rather than risk a US strike that would hurt the EU's relations with the muslim world..." Lex-At times, one can only stand back and watch. Nicely done. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-01-18 8:37:55 PM |
| #32 2x - The key, of course, is time and timing. I have many personal sayings and one applies here: You can't wait for good timing, that's an oxymoron. Either there's time to coordinate or there's not. If not, then #3 is all that's left to us. The other possibility, of course, is Israel. They cannot afford to let this happen. Period. Full stop. Personally, since it would probably be a one-way trip without US refueling assistance, I would much prefer we do it. But, as insurance, we sold them 500 bunker busters. I don't think they're considering deepening the Suez with them. I really have no doubt that #3 will happen, either alone or as part of #5. I hope we have the time to do it right - or we'll have to come back and do it again. I think Iraq is a good lesson in getting it right on the first pass. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 7:23:51 PM |
| #31 So you and I agree, #28, about the most favorable option being #5 and that there would be a sequence of events over a number of years for the ultimate goal of mullah over throw to be accomplished. Maybe I have misunderstood the article. When I read "to any strike by the Bush administration", I assumed a military strike was imminent. I don't think that option is appropriate now because the majority of Iranians are not on the same page about co-operating with the US to over throw the mullahs. |
| Posted by: 2xstandard 2005-01-18 6:56:20 PM |
| #30 LH - Lex one supposes they dont think a war against Iran is in their interest. Doesnt automatically mean their motivation is to restrain US power. OK, let's analyze the interests at stake here. Given the manifest determination of the Iranians to rip up agreements they sign, it's obvious that this approach means Iran goes nuclear. Then war with Israel becomes very likely. At the same time this approach will likely result in large contracts in Iran for EU multinationals such as Renault and Siemens. In other words, the EU are willing to sacrifice Israel's security and risk its survival rather than risk a US strike that would hurt the EU's relations with the muslim world. No problem, no problem at all. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-18 6:46:06 PM |
| #29 2x - No flames. The problem is that you're new here, as far as I know. This topic has been hashed and bashed numerous cycles. There are 5 generally agreed possibilities: 1) We do nothing, ever, and the Mad Mullahs get the nuke, a guidance system, and slap it on their Shahab 3 improved (Shahb4, actually) rocket. Link 1 Link 2 As you can see, this sucks and has caused some to get very unhappy because they're worried Bush will do nothing. 2) We try to invade a country 3x the size of Iraq with almost no troops. Duh. Won't happen, agreed? 3) We Try to knock out the Iranian nuke facilities via air. TLAMS, Cruise missiles, Stealth, etc. Most say this is very risky cuz we don't know where everything is, some is buried too deep even for bunker-busters, and / or some is co-located with innocent civilian sites. Who knows? Can out intel be trusted? 4) Some sort of thingy with a blockade. Strikes me that this accomplishes nothing without one of the others, but hey, what do I know, eh? 5) My favorite, of course. Collaborate with the native Persians who are progressive, predominantly young, quite liberal for the ME, elders are still alive who probably have filled them with happier tales of pre-Mullah days, they have shown a distinct dislike and distrust of the Mullahs, the heavy-handed way Khomeini slapped down Khatami - who the normal people had elected and felt was their man, etc... If our CIA isn't utterly worthless, it ought to be a cinch to find the elements who would welcome assistance in toppling the Mullahs. Give them arms and do a full decapitation strike on the Mullahs, Rev Guard, the Doodah Council, the Basij and back it up with SF to protect important facilities. Also, hit all known nuke sites. If coordinated, the Persians should be able to take control of their country - and I hope if it goes this way, the Black Hats are wiped out. Just some thoughts that have been batted about. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 6:27:45 PM |
| #28 I will probably get flamed for saying this, but here goes...I think it would be a big mistake for the US to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran at this point in time for several reasons. For one thing I think there's a good deal of internal struggle in Iran right now and Iranians are lining up against the mullahs, particularly the young university students and the older intellectual elders who remember the good Western things that were present there under the Shah's reign. Unlike Iraqis who were not as outward looking, the Iranians are and I think if we can stabilize Iraq and have a decent elected government take the reigns, the Iranians will are ripe to rise up and over throw the fundamentalist mullahs with a little help of discreet Western funding. However if the US does a premptive strike and actually becomes an invader we play right into the mullahs hands. There will be collateral damage and the Iranian people will change their focus from over throwing the mad mullahs to lining up behind them to protect their country from "American imperialism." We know for sure that Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear weapons and yet we're working through diplomatic channels to curb the chance that these 2 rogue nations would ever use the weapons against us or Japan or India. What's the rush to nail Iran when we're not even sure it has nuclear capability and when the mullahs' own people might over throw them in the not too distant future? So flame away. |
| Posted by: 2xstandard 2005-01-18 6:07:47 PM |
| #27 .com - Exactly. Right after the election I remember all these Europeans saying how they hoped Bush would "make an effort" to "mend fences" with Europe in his second term. Silly me, sitting here thinking that they should be the ones making efforts. As for this situation, I don't really think there's much chance that the Europeans are playing a soft card, I think it's exactly what it seems like: obstructing the US from taking action against Iran. 'Cuz for some reason France seems to want them to have nukes. Maybe they figure if everybody has them, then the US will be scared off from doing anything, anywhere, and our military advantage won't matter any more. Of course, that presumes that the lunatics won't start setting them off like firecrackers. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-01-18 4:08:15 PM |
| #26 LotR - Odd, isn't it? Much like with the Blue Staters, the US (Red Staters) "must reach out to", "must understand", those that act in opposition. Has the same faint odor of "The US Asked For It" regards 9/11. We should clearly state and follow US interests - and those who wish us to follow a different path can approach us and explain their reasoning. Where it is deemed a superior avenue, we should join them and collaborate. Where it is not, we should thank them for their time, decline, and proceed with securing US interests. I don't think this needs to be as complex and nuanced as the game currently demands. Just a blunt person's take. Perhaps that is precisely what's happening here. The E3 plays the soft card, it is verified that the Mad Mullahs are / are not dealing in good faith. And at the back of the parade is the US with Bush having in his pocket HCON 398 Joint Resolution authorizing all means necessary to gain Iranian compliance with their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations... Then, again, maybe the E3's being the wankers identified in #18, #19, etc... Or it's just the usual game and we're expected to do what we usually do - when everything turns to shit trying to deal with asshats like the Mad Mullahs, we go it alone. Did I miss anything. lol? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 1:51:30 PM |
| #25 Oy vay-that should be "recklessness". Carry on. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-18 1:48:25 PM |
| #24 The wrecklessness of France, Germany, the UK and let's not forget Russia (towards Iran) might well lead to wrecklessness on the part of the US. At the least, the EU approach puts a lot of faith into diplomatic means working with Iran. On what do they base that belief? Has Iran always been trustworthy with regards to those governments? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-18 1:41:50 PM |
| #23 LH - Given how many countries have been playing like/with Chirac, then in cases where they disaggree with the US for other reasons, they should perhaps make the effort to get the US to believe them (that they aren't Chiraq's lapdogs). It seems like the same carping from the sidelines all the time. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-01-18 1:34:43 PM |
| #22 Lex one supposes they dont think a war against Iran is in their interest. Doesnt automatically mean their motivation is to restrain US power. Nations may have different reasons for disagreeing with us - we dont have to listen when their positions are not in OUR interest, but if we assume that everyone who disagrees with us on an issue like Iran is playing a Chirac, we really will unnecessarily alienate allies. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-01-18 1:17:37 PM |
| #21 This news, coming on the heels of the UK's caving in to France and Germany in arms sales to China, does not bode well for the Brits. Very mixed signals at best. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-01-18 1:10:13 PM |
| #20 So why are Blair and Straw actively participating in and perpetuating the farce, Bulldog? Either they believe in what they're doing or they don't. If the former, they're being played for fools; if the latter, they're a too cunning by half. What do they hope to achieve? |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-18 12:11:26 PM |
| #19 Doesn't it also run counter to the chief EU members' current approach towards Iran? Yep. Blair got his fingers burnt over Iraq but I don't doubt he'd side with the US again if he thought the situation was unmanagable through jaw-jaw. When or if that'll happen, I don't know. But the resources with which to play an active role are thin. Still, we've got the subs if required. Their primary goal is not to contain Iran but to restrain the militarist US hegemon. ... The "negotiations" with Iran are a farce. Iran and the EU 3 are on ths same side here. That's certainly a gross exaggeration on the British part. It might apply to the French and Germans. Blair and his Straw monkey may be being played for fools, and overreaching in their efforts to mend some fences post-Iraq, but their guiding motivation is not to restrain the militarist hegemon. That's a tad absurd. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-01-18 12:07:43 PM |
| #18 Regarding Iran, the EU are not on our side. Their primary goal is not to contain Iran but to restrain the militarist US hegemon. Given the choice between 1) defanging Iran with a US-Israeli strike + covert action and 2) a nuclear Iran, the EU Three would clearly prefer the latter. The "negotiations" with Iran are a farce. Iran and the EU 3 are on ths same side here. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-18 11:55:15 AM |
| #17 bulldog-Doesn't it also run counter to the chief EU members' current approach towards Iran? |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2005-01-18 11:44:15 AM |
| #16 Ninety years ago, the British army was called "lions led by donkeys." It still seems to apply. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-01-18 11:27:13 AM |
| #15 British forces are extended to the limit at the moment, and getting involved in an attack on Iran would exceed that limit, IMO - hence the apparent apprehension. Blair and Brown hacking at the Army - in order to scrape a few more pounds together to throw to out EU neighbours, buy comfortable chairs for employees of the MoD and generally piss up the wall - doesn't help. The British Army increasingly relies on its volunteer segment, the Territorial Army (TA), to fill the gaps, but that's a finite resource approaching a point where membership and holding down a day job is untenable for a critical number. In short, the current UK Government is shafting the Armed Forces. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-01-18 11:25:08 AM |
| #14 I didn't phrase my comment (#2) as well as I thought. Sorry. What I meant is that the people who work in the Foreign Office generally don't like Americans (and haven't historically, going back to when we were mere Colonials), in the oh-so-common elitist way. For that matter, many in the American foreign service (aka the State Department) feel much the same as their British counterparts. I didn't mean that the Britain has been less than staunch ally. But anyway, I was trying to find an explanation for the comment that, as 2b pointed out, came from anonymous Sources in the Army and Foreign Service complaining about potential ugly possibilities. What I was really hoping for from our cousins is commentary on the next sentence, about overstretched forces. Any takers? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-18 11:03:45 AM |
| #13 that's a valid point, .com. It is both the greatest strength and weakness of a democracy - that politicians get to direct the military. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-18 9:13:22 AM |
| #12 I believe SH's real complaint was the use of "traditionally"... and that is probably valid to a degree. The current schizophrenia, and the incessant Beeb, Al Guardian, et al anti-American mantra has worn some of the armor from our alliance. I have absolute confidence the the UK troopers, but good reason to doubt the current collection of their superiors, given the UK political situation. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 9:01:42 AM |
| #11 so you did... |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-18 8:57:53 AM |
| #10 precisely I really do need to use the little spell-checker thingy, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 8:56:18 AM |
| #9 And I did preciesly that in #3. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 8:55:23 AM |
| #8 whoa! Please note that the article is from our good friend, and blood relative of Bagdad Bob, Sources Say. Not a single real quote to be found. The Brits may not want to continue with Iran, but only the elusive "british officer" is whining. So before we start a transatlantic rift, let's all agree that it's a given that the British fighters (as opposed to some politicos - and please note - we also have plenty of those whiners here in the US) are very brave, competent and played a crucial role in the fall of Sadaam. ok...carry on... |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-18 8:53:32 AM |
| #7 Almost all of what you cite is from Days of Yore - co-security arrangements made when the Soviet wolf came knocking. Iraq and Afghanistan are more current - and yes, Tony Blair has been a marvel from the US POV regards Iraq, since on the domestic front he's a card-carrying looney. I'd wager the Foreign Office does not decide such things as NATO participation (Afghanistan) nor invasion of hostile regimes (Iraq) - independently as you imply. Straw is, last I checked, serving Blair, is he not? The anti-American bias is, indeed, present in Blair's party - is it not? His cabinet has been, how shall I put it? - a colorful lot? The historic reference is the key. Indeed, American and the UK are and have been strong allies, militarily, historically. Politically, however, the UK situation is far more nuanced and complicated, and I have no doubt that the UK regulars are far better equipped to respond regards the myriad nuances that have led to support in Iraq while the "voice" of UK public is decidedly and stridently anti-American. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 8:49:48 AM |
| #6 Ok, would an anti-american body 1) have joined NATO, an american lead alliance 2) have allowed |
| Posted by: Shaiter Hupuns3681 2005-01-18 8:37:16 AM |
| #5 And that simply isn't sufficient to dissuade, in the face of evidence to the contrary. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 8:25:44 AM |
| #4 "The Foreign Office is also traditionally anti-American" That simply isn't true. |
| Posted by: Shaiter Hupuns3681 2005-01-18 8:22:46 AM |
| #3 It's sad that fine troops are led by such a breed of losers and whiners. How far down the chain does the rot go? I'll leave that to the RB Cousins to say. I don't have any doubts about the men and women at the pointy end. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-18 8:01:26 AM |
| #2 The British Foreign Office and the British Army are traditionally Arabophile, EoZ. The Foreign Office is also traditionally anti-American, in the common, stupidly elitist way. On the other hand, it seems to me the British forces are pretty nearly over-extended, between the Yugoslav countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and their normal responsibilities. So maybe that sparked the comment. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-18 7:06:11 AM |
| #1 Do I smell a change of wind direction on the British Foreign Office ??? Dont the British understand that, left alone, the Iranians are going to strike sooner or later ? |
| Posted by: EoZ 2005-01-18 4:53:49 AM |