Iran Orders Secret War against US and UK

[M.Dancer]

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2085193,00.html

What troubles me most is this.....

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq

Simon Tisdall

Tuesday May 22, 2007

The Guardian

US soldiers visit an Iraqi army base in Amiriya, a Sunni neighbourhood in west Baghdad. Photograph: Sean Smith

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."

Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.

US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.

You have to but admire the patience of the US. The Soviets would have made short work of it all and probably messed it up.

[sharkman]

True about the Americans' patience, though it is wearing thin.

Now that the two participants have declared their intentions, it will be interesting to see if it spills over into border clashes or worse. I believe the U.S., with their black ops, will land heavy blows on Iran, who will turn to those who dislike the U.S. for assistance. France, China, Russia, North Korea and others may all give assistance and draw the ire of the U.S., who could then respond with escalations of their own.

This could be the next cold war which has already been joined by Muslim extremists and their sympathizers. It is not really good news. If Iran gets nukes, the game could be over, what with their proclivities regarding the Israel 'problem'.

[myata]

After Iraq debacle all claims of imminent threats by US / UK (e.g. the infamous 45 min ballistic missile attack? WMD? Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...) will be taken with a big grain of salt. Until there's iron clad evidence (way stronger than that unassuming "US officials say", that Iran is involved in Iraq, I wouldn't even bother noticing these reports. Who knows - maybe it's simply a propaganda round like the one before the Iraq war? Then, if such evidence does appear, one would have to analyse whether Iran would be justified in actively resisting a hostile armed power on its borders.

---

oops

[geoffrey]

Al-Kaeda

What is with everyone's funky new spellings of al-Qaeda?

[AshNazg]

You have to but admire the patience of the US. The Soviets would have made short work of it all and probably messed it up.

I don't think its possible to mess it up any more than the Americans did. If their position from the start was to inflict as many casualties as possible and frequently use collective punishment, the whole place would be pacified by now.

Too bad for them they thought they could win the war in the white gloves - goes to show how little experience in ground combat and occupation they have.

[Higgly]

What is with everyone's funky new spellings of al-Qaeda?

Ah, the illiterate soul of the modern day chicken little. These are W's people. Personally, I'd like to hear them all say the word "nuclear". Thieving murderous baby-killer, why don't you go first?

[scribblet]

Al-Kaeda

What is with everyone's funky new spellings of al-Qaeda?

Is it Spanish ?

[Higgly]

Is it Spanish ?

I think it's idiomatics

[bush_cheney2004]

....Too bad for them they thought they could win the war in the white gloves - goes to show how little experience in ground combat and occupation they have.

Compared to who? Canada? The world trembles at the thought.

[Higgly]

Compared to who? Canada? The world trembles at the thought.

So what are you doing here? If you can't respect our voice, then go somewhere else. What a democrat!

[bush_cheney2004]

So what are you doing here? If you can't respect our voice, then go somewhere else. What a democrat!

Who died and left you king? "Respect" is a two way street. Your voice is no better than mine.

[B. Max]

Compared to who? Canada? The world trembles at the thought.

It's sad. At the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest military in the world, and just as important, knew how to use it.

[Higgly]

...new how to use it.

hmmm....

[Argus]

After Iraq debacle all claims of imminent threats by US / UK (e.g. the infamous 45 min ballistic missile attack? WMD? Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...) will be taken with a big grain of salt.

It was never in Iran's interests - or rather, the interests of the Iranian regime - to have a functioning democracy next door. Far too easy for its people to make comparisons. It was inevitable that they would be involved from the beginning with efforts to destabilize any such government and put in place one they are more comfortable: ie, a shiite theocracy which takes its cues from Iran.

For that matter, it is not in the interests of the Syrian or Saudi regimes to have a stable democracy next door either. I would be surprised if both regimes were not involved with funding, if not actually organizing efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.

[Higgly]

It was never in Iran's interests - or rather, the interests of the Iranian regime - to have a functioning democracy next door. Far too easy for its people to make comparisons. It was inevitable that they would be involved from the beginning with efforts to destabilize any such government and put in place one they are more comfortable: ie, a shiite theocracy which takes its cues from Iran.

For that matter, it is not in the interests of the Syrian or Saudi regimes to have a stable democracy next door either. I would be surprised if both regimes were not involved with funding, if not actually organizing efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.

I love it when people like you throw stones at Iran with respect to democracy. Do you rmember a guy named Mossadegh? In any case, any democratic government that the US doesn't like gets immediately attacked and starved out of existence. Democracy my eye.

[Argus]

It was never in Iran's interests - or rather, the interests of the Iranian regime - to have a functioning democracy next door. Far too easy for its people to make comparisons. It was inevitable that they would be involved from the beginning with efforts to destabilize any such government and put in place one they are more comfortable: ie, a shiite theocracy which takes its cues from Iran.

For that matter, it is not in the interests of the Syrian or Saudi regimes to have a stable democracy next door either. I would be surprised if both regimes were not involved with funding, if not actually organizing efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.

I love it when people like you throw stones at Iran with respect to democracy. Do you rmember a guy named Mossadegh? In any case, any democratic government that the US doesn't like gets immediately attacked and starved out of existence. Democracy my eye.

This guy?

Due to a multitude of disagreements with his former allies, especially the communists and islamists, and disagreements with the Shah and with the parliament over his handling of the talks regarding compensation of the British side, he dissolved the parliament using a referendum to avoid impeachment. This act was characterized as unconstitutional by some of his closest allies as well as opponents [2], and led to the Shah dismissing him from office on August 16, 1953. Mossadegh resisted, and was removed from power on August 19, 1953 by military intervention, in a CIA orchestrated coup[4

The West was fairly heavy handed back in the fifties. But that's history. Your attempting to use that to excuse the Iranian regime's contempt for democracy today is telling.

[myata]

For that matter, it is not in the interests of the Syrian or Saudi regimes to have a stable democracy next door either. I would be surprised if both regimes were not involved with funding, if not actually organizing efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.

Let's get it right: on one side we have 150,000 (or what is the latest count?) of most advanced and heavilty armed forces that can be found on this planet. One the other - possibility (not proven in any credible way just yet) of some low level smuggling operations on the level of handguns and carry-on explosives.

Do you seriously believe that if that overpowering zeal for democracy actually existed, #2 would have been any meaningful match for #1? To the extent that the whole democracy mission being on the brink of failure?

[sharkman]

Let's get it right: on one side we have 150,000 (or what is the latest count?) of most advanced and heavilty armed forces that can be found on this planet. One the other - possibility (not proven in any credible way just yet) of some low level smuggling operations on the level of handguns and carry-on explosives.

Do you seriously believe that if that overpowering zeal for democracy actually existed, #2 would have been any meaningful match for #1? To the extent that the whole democracy mission being on the brink of failure?

You seriously underrepresent the side that opposes the U.S. in Iraq. Who do you think is doing all of the bombing of innocent Iraqis? Terrorists from many Arab nations who hate America, that's who. They gotta get their weapons from somewhere, don't they?

[Argus]

For that matter, it is not in the interests of the Syrian or Saudi regimes to have a stable democracy next door either. I would be surprised if both regimes were not involved with funding, if not actually organizing efforts to destabilize the Iraqi government.

Let's get it right: on one side we have 150,000 (or what is the latest count?) of most advanced and heavilty armed forces that can be found on this planet. One the other - possibility (not proven in any credible way just yet) of some low level smuggling operations on the level of handguns and carry-on explosives.

I think you seriously underestimate the efforts of the regimes in the neighbourhood. I think it consists of funneling radicals through their territory and into Iraq, funding them, providing them with weapons, money, intelligence and training, and includes agents in Iraq seeking out small groups to encourage, fund and provide with training, intelligence and money, as well as encouraging different religious sects and political groups to act against each other as violently as possible in order to destabilize Iraq and kill as many Americans as possible.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's get it right: on one side we have 150,000 (or what is the latest count?) of most advanced and heavilty armed forces that can be found on this planet. One the other - possibility (not proven in any credible way just yet) of some low level smuggling operations on the level of handguns and carry-on explosives.

It would seem that Canada is no more successful against handguns coming across the border....(wink)...not proven in any credible way just yet.

[B. Max]

...new how to use it.

hmmm....

Corrected.

[myata]

I think you seriously underestimate the efforts of the regimes in the neighbourhood. I think it consists of funneling radicals through their territory and into Iraq, funding them, providing them with weapons, money, intelligence and training, and includes agents in Iraq seeking out small groups to encourage, fund and provide with training, intelligence and money, as well as encouraging different religious sects and political groups to act against each other as violently as possible in order to destabilize Iraq and kill as many Americans as possible.

And I believe you seriously overstretch credibility of these statements whatever remains of it (or existed in the first place). How would such massive supply operations be possible with coalitions' commanding position on land, sea and in the air? And why the best evidence we've got of it are some unsubstantiated statements of unknown US officials? Surely they would be able to show satellite pics of suppy vehicles and columns of foreign mercenaries marching into Iraq?

Without very strong evidence of massive foreign involvement all attempts to blame others for coalitions' failures sound plain and simple - lame. It's much easier to believe that they simply stumbled on their own rakes, again as many times before.

[M.Dancer]

Al-Kaeda

What is with everyone's funky new spellings of al-Qaeda?

Is it Spanish ?

El Caydaj