POL- Are We Starting a War With Iran?

[JPhillips]

This seems like a pretty big story that isn't getting much play. Aren't consulates officially national territory?

US forces storm Iranian consulate
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.

The raid comes amid high Iran-US tension. The US accuses Iran of helping to fuel violence in Iraq and seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies both charges.

Tehran counters that US military involvement in the Middle East endangers the whole region.

A local TV station said Kurdish security forces had taken over the building after the Americans had left.

Irbil lies in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north, about 350km (220 miles) from the capital Baghdad.

Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits.

Pressure

Iranian media said the country's embassy in Baghdad had sent a letter of protest about the raid to the Iraqi foreign ministry.

One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.

Woman injured in Samarra bombing
Dozens of casualties resulted from a truck bombing in Samarra
It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed.

In December, US troops detained a number of Iranians in Iraq, including two with diplomatic immunity who were later released.

Thursday's raid came as US President George W Bush unveiled his new strategy in Iraq, which included increasing troop numbers and a commitment to stop Iranian support for "our enemies in Iraq".

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the raid could signal a ratcheting-up of pressure on the Iranians, in line with the rhetorical thrust of his speech.

Meanwhile in the Iraqi capital, the five off-duty policemen were killed in an ambush in the western al-Khadra neighbourhood, hospital officials said

Security sources said another man was killed wounded in an attack on a money changer in downtown Baghdad.

In the restive Anbar province, the US military said that one of its troops was killed on Tuesday by a roadside bombing.

Other violence was reported in Mosul, where gunmen killed a professor driving home from work, and Samarra where a suicide truck bomber attacked the mayor's house, killing three people and wounding 33, including the mayor.

[sachmo71]

Sounds like the raid was meant to send a message to Iran, considering that Condi made statements about how Iran and Syria were still working to destabilize Iraq.

[st.cronin]

I heard something about this on the radio this morning, and it actually sounded like there weren't any Iranians there, but that instead some Kurds were using the site for nefarious purposes. I may have misunderstood what I heard, it was pretty confusing.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I heard something about this on the radio this morning, and it actually sounded like there weren't any Iranians there, but that instead some Kurds were using the site for nefarious purposes. I may have misunderstood what I heard, it was pretty confusing.

Could be. I thought I caught Bush last night making a nebulous statement about helping to "resolve issues between Turkey and Iraq". Keeping a reference to the PKK veiled so as not to piss off the Kurds?

As for attacking Iran--highly doubtful unless the Iranians do something over the top. US power projection capability does not seem adequate to successfully defeat and occupy Iran at this time. A low intensity strategy (manifested by raids such as this one, if true) may be useful in keeping some heat on Iran without too much threat of escalation...

[Bee]

Good thing we're the good guys.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Could be. I thought I caught Bush last night making a nebulous statement about helping to "resolve issues between Turkey and Iraq". Keeping a reference to the PKK veiled so as not to piss off the Kurds?

As for attacking Iran--highly doubtful unless the Iranians do something over the top. US power projection capability does not seem adequate to successfully defeat and occupy Iran at this time. A low intensity strategy (manifested by raids such as this one, if true) may be useful in keeping some heat on Iran without too much threat of escalation...

If so, Condi spilled the beans this morning, directly referencing the Kurdish Workers party as a problem that needs to be resolved. Maybe it was Gates, but I heard it on the press conference this morning.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Aren't consulates officially national territory?

So are embassies.

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Could be. I thought I caught Bush last night making a nebulous statement about helping to "resolve issues between Turkey and Iraq". Keeping a reference to the PKK veiled so as not to piss off the Kurds?

Probably. Turkey and Iran have been shelling seperatist positions in Kurdistan for years now (pre-US invasion), and I've even seen reports of Turkish troops crossing the border in the hundreds or even thousands at times. Longer-term, there's also the Turkish opposition to Iraq becoming strong enough to enforce water rights along the Tigris/Euphrates to worry about.

As for attacking Iran--highly doubtful unless the Iranians do something over the top. US power projection capability does not seem adequate to successfully defeat and occupy Iran at this time. A low intensity strategy (manifested by raids such as this one, if true) may be useful in keeping some heat on Iran without too much threat of escalation...

I'm not really sure at this point what the Iranians could do that would be over the top - they've blown up our barracks in the past, and we're finding factory made IED's and weapons directly from Iranian factories, along with Pasdaran officers in Iraq. At least now it seems like we're at least going after their proxies in al-Sadr, etc, which is a start. Also might be useful to note there are at least 4 different seperatist factions in Iran - the Kurds in the NW, the Khuzestani Arabs in the SW (sitting on the oil), the Azeris up north and the Baluchis near Pakistan/Afghanistan - and the Iranians have accused the British soldiers in Basra of stirring up the Arabs in the SW.

[gottimd]

Didn't this happen on 24 already?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This seems like a pretty big story that isn't getting much play. Aren't consulates officially national territory?

I think the chances of the USA starting a war with Iran are almost zero.

I think that there is a very good chance that the USA is drawn into a war with Iran, most likely prompted by either an unprovoked Iranian attack on Israel or an Iranian response to Israel bombing their nuclear facilities.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Aren't consulates officially national territory?

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So are embassies.

Nope, this is a popular misconception. They are not sovereign, but do have special rights. Here is a link describing their status.

hxxp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070110055033AArqDLB

The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow transmuted into UK (or other) soil or legal territory for purposes of law enforcement.

[JW]

Considering the Iranians are actively training and supplying insurgents killing American soldiers, and that in some cases Iranian operatives may be employing devices directly against US troops, I would say that you have your question backwards.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Bee

Good thing we're the good guys.

LOL! That's just made my day

[JW]

Hey, Mac, stop with the political comments and get back to work on your game.

Seriously, the new version, SAAP 2007, looks interesting. I haven't really given it a spin yet, but I have downloaded. It has some things I think I'll like.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Bee

Good thing we're the good guys.

I don't think so.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I think the chances of the USA starting a war with Iran are almost zero.

I think that there is a very good chance that the USA is drawn into a war with Iran, most likely prompted by either an unprovoked Iranian attack on Israel or an Iranian response to Israel bombing their nuclear facilities.

President Bush:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq...We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region

So Bush says he will attack Iran and Syria, says he has already ordered carrier groups to the area, then attacks Iranian consulates. What more can he do to imply that we are going to attack them? Bush has already launched an ill-conceived, disasterous war against a country one letter off. I don't see how the odds of starting a war with Iran is zero.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't see how the odds of starting a war with Iran is zero.

Even if President Bush were desperate for a war with Iran, he knows that the odds are extremely high that the USA will be drawn into an Israel-Iran war within the next few years.

If the US is drawn into a war to defend an ally, it can then rely on more international support and the President will not take the heat for starting the war.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

POL - Is Iran Starting a War with the West?

Fixed it for ya.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Even if President Bush were desperate for a war with Iran, he knows that the odds are extremely high that the USA will be drawn into an Israel-Iran war within the next few years.

Israel and Iran don't share a border. Neither has the desire nor the ability to occupy nor invade the other. The odds of an Israel/Iran war in the next decade, let alone the next couple of years, that we would need to be drawn into are extremely small. I could see Israel conducting air raids into Iran, and maybe Iran lobbing missiles into Israel in response. But neither side wants a full scale war, there is nothing to gain from it. So the odds of it happening are extremely small.

Similarly, Iran doesn't want war with the US. They have nothing to gain, it would be stupid. If a war happens, it's because we want it to happen. Look, if we are going to constantly threaten Iran, invade its neighbors, openly call our goal there regime change, and have our President in a national speech say that Iranian "interference" in Iraq won't be tolerated, it shouldn't be a surprise that Iran gets pissed and works with Iraqi elements to attack US forces in Iraq.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The US and Iran don't share a border. Neither has the desire nor the ability to occupy nor invade the other. The odds of a US/Iran war in the next decade, let alone the next couple of years, are extremely small. I could see the US conducting air raids into Iran, and maybe Iran lobbing missiles at US forces in response. But neither side wants a full scale war, there is nothing to gain from it. So the odds of it happening are extremely small.

fixed

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

fixed

Only thing is that the people in charge of US foreign policy have the desire and THINK that they have the ability to invade and occupy Iran. Moreover, those same people think that chaos in the middle east is a good thing. The neocon plan all along was to attack Iran, so while I don't think an attack is imminent, you can't discount it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Only thing is that the people in charge of US foreign policy have the desire and THINK that they have the ability to invade and occupy Iran. Moreover, those same people think that chaos in the middle east is a good thing. The neocon plan all along was to attack Iran, so while I don't think an attack is imminent, you can't discount it.

I do discount it, utterly. It's a liberal fantasy, not a neocon fantasy.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Only thing is that the people in charge of US foreign policy have the desire and THINK that they have the ability to invade and occupy Iran. Moreover, those same people think that chaos in the middle east is a good thing. The neocon plan all along was to attack Iran, so while I don't think an attack is imminent, you can't discount it.

I seriously doubt that many in the foreign policy community really believe that a conventional war with Iran can be won quickly or decisively. Foreign policy decision-making is done with a calculus that involves desire and feasibility. If the latter is lacking, the former is rendered moot.

If the US were to actually attempt an ejection of the theocrats in Teheran, I would suspect that destabilization attempts via sponsorship of assorted dissident, insurgent and even terrorist groups in Iran would be more likely than direct US involvement. A low-reward strategy to be sure, but it is also low-cost and low-risk.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I seriously doubt that many in the foreign policy community really believe that a conventional war with Iran can be won quickly or decisively. Foreign policy decision-making is done with a calculus that involves desire and feasibility. If the latter is lacking, the former is rendered moot.

If the US were to actually attempt an ejection of the theocrats in Teheran, I would suspect that destabilization attempts via sponsorship of assorted dissident, insurgent and even terrorist groups in Iran would be more likely than direct US involvement. A low-reward strategy to be sure, but it is also low-cost and low-risk.

I'm not talking about the foreign policy community. The foreign policy community thinks that we should withdraw from Iraq and negotiate with Iran and North Korea. What we are doing is escalating things in Iraq, threatening Iran, and ignoring North Korea. The foreign policy community is not in control. When has the current administration ever taken a low-risk, low-cost foreign policy action?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Bee

Good thing we're the good guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Fixed it for ya.

Excellent

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JW

Hey, Mac, stop with the political comments and get back to work on your game.

Hey, something in the American constitution says game designers or Australians do not have a right to free speech? That's the second time I've been told to get back to game design

In fact, it was not so much a political comment, JW, but applauding a delicious piece of irony. I probably disagree with Bee on Iraq/Iran but I burst out laughing when I saw his post.

And besides I was working at 2 o'clock this morning on new figures for the match presentation