Iran

[Daemon_in_a_Box]

Originally Posted by fryonator

I dont understand why Iraq and Iran aren't trying to draw clearer boundaries because of this incident. I have heard nothing about this at all

I think the boundaries are clear enough, it's just that Iran likes to misbehave whenever possible.

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by Overdose

This has to be a political ploy.

Iran will want something for their 'favour' to Britain, not in the case of actual demands, but in terms of spinning public opinion of the citizens of not just Iran but also the rest of the world in their favour. Furthermore this will put pressure on Britain especially in regards to Iran's nuclear issue.

Or there may have been some kind of deal, although Britain is denying it.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

... speculation of a secret deal was raised by a US announcement yesterday that Iranian diplomats might be given access to five Iranians arrested by American soldiers in Iraq, after three months in detention. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who has been negotiating consular access to the five Iranians, told the Guardian he had pursued the issue for weeks and there was "no connection whatsoever" to the release of the Britons.

I'm just glad it was resolved peacefully and the British leadership kept their heads about it and stayed diplomatic.

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Mr Blair emerged from 10 Downing Street with Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, to hail the ending to the crisis as a victory for tightrope diplomacy. "We have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting either," the prime minister said. Addressing the Iranian people directly, he said Britain respected and admired Iran's "ancient civilisation" and "proud and dignified history".

"We bear you no ill will," he said. "The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue."

Is it any wonder I like him far more than I do Bush?

[Mundungus Fletc]

The sailors are now well clear of Iranian airspace. I was amused when Blair said "This will not happen again" The Iranians have apparently taken that to mean that British ships will not enter their sea space. Alternatively it means the rules of engagement have been changed so that if Iranian pirates attempt to kidnap British sailors from Iraqi waters again the navy has the right to fight back.

I have no doubt they were in Iraqi waters because the reaction this time was so different from two years ago when there was an intrusion into Iranian waters. Then the British government apologised profusely.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

Or there may have been some kind of deal, although Britain is denying it.


I'm just glad it was resolved peacefully and the British leadership kept their heads about it and stayed diplomatic.

Is it any wonder I like him far more than I do Bush?

Bush wouldn't have initiated an attack in this short of time either, and contrary to the rhetorically endorsed view of Bush detractors, his history does indicate that similar diplomacy would have been employed by the President if the situation had been Americans instead of British sailors. See prior to Iraqi invasion, Korea negotiations and several other diplomatic operations and the durations of them for evidence of this.

[adam_12]

I couldn't believe the gall of Ahmedinejad to claim that he was releasing the prisoners because he was in the Easter spirit. Ahmedinejad has absolutely zero "Easter spirit." I don't know who he thinks he's kidding. I'm not sure what went on behind the scenes, but he definately didn't release those sailors because he's a nice guy.

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

Bush wouldn't have initiated an attack in this short of time either, and contrary to the rhetorically endorsed view of Bush detractors, his history does indicate that similar diplomacy would have been employed by the President if the situation had been Americans instead of British sailors. See prior to Iraqi invasion, Korea negotiations and several other diplomatic operations and the durations of them for evidence of this.

Bush's style of rhetoric ("axis of evil" et al) and absolutists stances do nothing to aid diplomatic efforts, and plenty to hinder them. That kind of approach might not have led to war, but it also wouldn't have led to the release of the sailors. In contrast, the calm diplomacy that has been used during this crisis, and that is seen in Blair's speech, has produced results quickly without need for any increase in animosity. The diplomatic and friendly note struck by the statement are just the kind of thing that's needed.

The period leading up to the Iraq War and the breakdown of negotiations with North Korea until the nukes forced everyone to start paying attention again are the complete opposite of the style that has prevailed during this incident.

[Lord Godric]

What do people think the United States would do if a ship of an enemy country came anywhere near the United States?

[adam_12]

Originally Posted by Lord_Godric

What do people think the United States would do if a ship of an enemy country came anywhere near the United States?

I don't think we'd go up to Canada to take them prisoner.

[Discordia]

It seems more like the US's olicy with everything now a days is miltary action. Sometimes I really wonder if they do a little thing called RESEARCH first. The last thing we need is for them to get the bright idea that we should just torch Iran to the ground rather than attempt to use diplomacy.

I couldn't believe the gall of Ahmedinejad to claim that he was releasing the prisoners because he was in the Easter spirit.

He sure as hell wouldn't have released them if they were a bunch of Israeli's. You wouldn't suddenly see him overcome with a Passover Spirit.

[adam_12]

Originally Posted by Discordia

It seems more like the US's olicy with everything now a days is miltary action. Sometimes I really wonder if they do a little thing called RESEARCH first.

If that was what the administration thought, we'd already be in Iran. They've certainly given us reason to take action.

Originally Posted by Discordia

He sure as hell wouldn't have released them if they were a bunch of Israeli's. You wouldn't suddenly see him overcome with a Passover Spirit.

You can say that again...

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by Discordia

He sure as hell wouldn't have released them if they were a bunch of Israeli's. You wouldn't suddenly see him overcome with a Passover Spirit.

Ha, the Israelis would love a chance to show they are still a force to be reckoned with. They would have either staged an Entebbe-like raid, taken out all the Iranian nuclear facilities or the only Iranian oil refinery long previous.

[Alastor]

Maybe a return to the topic could be in order.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

Or there may have been some kind of deal, although Britain is denying it.

That the Red Cross finally gained access to the five Iranian diplomats captured in Iraq on the day the release was announced pretty well proves there was a deal.

As for the event itself, the hardliners in Iran have been strengthened as they played their hand without any consequences and, in the process, highlighted the impotency of the US and UK to act against them.

" As an Englishman who has been settled in America for some time let me vent my first response: this was a national humiliation.

You could see it on Tony Blair’s face: his recognition that he had been bested in global public relations by a psychopathic religious fanatic."

...

"But there was another response as well. Americans in the centre of the debate about the war...saw something new in this incident. They saw actual, sophisticated, calm diplomacy. I don’t think anyone has any illusions about the nature of the regime in Tehran... But many Americans outside the Bush inner circle also grasp one other central fact: the Iraq debacle has profoundly weakened the leverage the United States has against Iran."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1626533.ece

[DJ_Asfand]

Iran has a full right to make a nuclear weapon..The US,UK,France and Germany have no right to stop us.Did Muslims stop them from making a nuclear weapon?
They're just afraid of Muslims that's all.They maybe able to defeat a dis-united Muslim region but never a unified nuclear reign empire like Iran..Never..

The reason why Iran captured the soldiers was that they were in the border line because they retaliated to a FAILED US attempt of the capture of the General of the Irani Revolutionary Guards in the Irani Embassy in Baghdad...They were to take revenge on either of the US or Uk forces...

[Staff edit]

[Hes]

Originally Posted by DJ_Asfand

The reason why Iran captured the soldiers was that they were in the border line because they retaliated to a FAILED US attempt of the capture of the General of the Irani Revolutionary Guards in the Irani Embassy in Baghdad...They were to take revenge on either of the US or Uk forces...

Do you have a source for your claim that the US made an attempt to capture the General of the Irani Revolutionary Guards in Iraq? I have never heard of this.

[DJ_Asfand]

Originally Posted by HesHPfan

Do you have a source for your claim that the US made an attempt to capture the General of the Irani Revolutionary Guards in Iraq? I have never heard of this.

Here it goes then:

the link : http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick04032007.html

The Botched Raid on Arbil
US's Bungled Plan to Kidnap Iran's Top Spook Prompted Hostage Taking
By PATRICK COCKBURN

Arbil, Iraq.

A failed US attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that ten weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and marines.

Early in the morning of 11 January helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil -- and the angry Iranian response to it -- should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable navy search parties in the Gulf.

The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani at his house beside Dokan lake and later saw Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, at his mountain headquarters at Salahudin overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he (Jafari) was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second very senior Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guard)," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad, in a separate interview. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdisan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize two senior Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian newsagency IRNA that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid. In a little noticed remark Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the agency: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop cooperation in the area of bilateral security."

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, and have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces." This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there vare no Sunni Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President Bush making an Address to the Nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations asking: "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country? Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries in the region."

It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flaunt the authority of both the Iraqi President Mr Talabani and the head of the KRG Mr Barzani simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials as Mr Jafari and Gen Frouzanda.

For over a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.

But the raid on Arbil and the attempt to capture two such senior Iranian officials was a far more serious and aggressive act by the US than in any of these cases. Unlike them it was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive raid Arbil raid provokd a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and marines.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.

[Staff edit]

[Tenshi]

For that the marines and soldiers were captured because of that, they were released very soon and without much tamtam.


I read on different websites that the USA planned an attack on the 6th April. Operation: Bite.

[DJ_Asfand]

What was Operation Bite after all?....smiley

[rotsiepots]

From Wikipedia:

Operation Bite There were claims, mainly from Russian intelligence sources, leading up to early April 2007, that a 12-hour aerial attack against Iran would occur during the first fortnight of April, possibly on Good Friday, April 6, 2007. The name of the would-be attacks was given as "Operation Bite". No such attack occurred on the suggested date. The primary source of the claim of the date and the name of the operation appeared to be an article by Andrei Uglanov in the Russian tabloid Argumenty Nedeli[30]. RIA Novosti carried a series of closely related stories, without confirming claims of the particular date or operation name.[31][32]

I can't attest to the reliability of the Russian paper in question.

[guad]

Sorry to pop in this thread and apologize for maybe being slightly off topic. I've heard the other day in the radio that the Irani government complained about the movie 300 and the negative portrayel of the persian army. Has anybody heard that?