UK Troops Are Moving To Iranian Border
by angelique van engelen
Article for Global Politician.
Deadline: 15 September
Questions:
UK troops are moving in the direction of the Iran border, from Basra Iraq.
-People are saying that this is a token effort mostly. 200 to 250 people can barely cover the vast expanse of border area meaningfully. What do you think the troops are really sent there for?
-What is Brown's idea of a withdrawal from Iraq and might the troops have been sent to the border because of suggestions of his to President Bush?
-What kind of scenario is most likely in the next few months regarding Iran and will the British be involved again?
Thank you for your comments. I will mail you the article once it's published.
You can leave your comments in the fool proof box to the right.
I am considering using these quotes:
Said Jalili, Iran's deputy foreign minister: "I think [the US and its allies] are going to prevaricate with the truth because they know they have been defeated in Iraq and they have not been successful. And so they are going to put the blame on us, on the other side.”
“This is not a sufficient number of troops to actually interdict any arms smuggling from Iran. They are simply there as bait, as sitting ducks for any Iranian response to the continuing campaign of sanctions, covert ops and terrorist attacks that the Bushists are conducting against Tehran.” Chris Floyd (Brits join Bush-Push for Iran Confrontation)
------
I COMPLETED AND PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE:
Iranian Nuclear Issue Is Hotting Up
Iran’s recently struck agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might be too late, but judging from IAEA officials’ comments, what Iran brought to the table is certainly not classifiable as too little. IAEA top officials say that Iran has offered it access to information that goes even beyond requirements of the additional protocol that Iran failed to fulfill earlier on.
Despite Iran’s compliance with IAEA obligations, US and some UN Security Council members do not appear to pay heed to IAEA calls for a "double timeout". Instead, they have urged tougher sanctions against Iran, something they’ll discuss September 21. Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s top official wants a simultaneous halt to UN sanctions and to Iran's nuclear-fuel-cycle program, to give diplomacy a "breathing chance”. This has the support of the 118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
It is not immediately clear what is behind the US and European drive to respond to the August 23 deal between the Iranians and the IAEA with calls for an even tougher treatment of Iran. But top US officials are increasingly linking Iran to the violence in Iraq and have said that action within Iran’s borders is necessary.
At his progress report to US congress earlier this week, the US top army commander David Petraeus reiterated previous claims that Iran is behind a lot of the violence in Iraq. It’s a message that is increasingly heard. If a next US move is intervention within Iranian borders, then this almost will come across as logical. Despite huge opposition both in the US and internationally. And also despite Iran’s increased compliance on the nuclear issue.
Tension on the ground is building up too. Some 200 to 250 British troops have just joined the US soldiers patrolling the Iran-Iraq border. They are technically within ‘rifle reach’ of Iranian troops now, something the Iranians have said they won’t tolerate. What exactly the British troops are doing, is not really clear but their mission somehow is translated in the media as something like a near-desertion scandal stroke Iran provocation act. The Brits were under more than close attack from Shiite villages in areas surrounding Basra in Iraq. They sped up their departure from Basra city despite pressure from the US army to stay a little longer. Some analysts say that the troops’ stationing near the border is to make up for this.
How sanctions are affecting the Iranians is hardly worth checking out. This is a nation without the ‘peanuts’ it scorned when refusing to abide by the IAEA additional protocol imposed on it by other nations aghast at their discovery of previously undisclosed nuclear issues. You get the impression that either Iranians hate peanuts with a vehemence, or they have really struck a deal with Al Qaeda smugglers that according to US sources are sourcing them a variety of goodies (centrifuges?) along ancient routes. Iranians are affected by the sanctions, but it’s hard to bring a youthful population down.
The US stance on the Iranian nuclear issue would classify perhaps as the clearest of indications to the Bush administration’s next moves. Would the US be as keen for any agression against this country if it was not involved in a nuclear program? There are so many reports indicating the wildest things that this seems almost a legitimate question. But it isn’t.
Those US attack plans that are circulating publicly indicate that eliminating the nuclear threat is priority number one. Iranian inspired incursions in Iraq? They’re excuses for an attack at most. If the US were to deal with every nation that is meddling in Iraq, it would have a long list of enemies, most notably those that support the Sunni minority’s extremist elements that the US has so much trouble to stamp out.
The September 21 meeting of the five permanent members of the UN security Council and Germany (which reportedly was not in favor of increased sanctions) is going to show nations’ true colors.
An important stage has been reached in the nuclear issue; the Iranians have forged a collaboration deal with the IAEA that the latter party says is truly workable. The US has been pressuring the other UN council members not to buy it.
The documents published by the AIEA show that there’s a tonne of willingness on the part of the Iranians to comply. Iranians appear keen to explain their program to unprecedented degree.
Tougher action against Iran involves a third phase of sanctions. The sanctions regime started off last December when the Security Council endorsed it on the basis that Iran is breaking international laws by continuing its nuclear proliferation program. This followed the breakdown of the working agreement between the IAEA officials and the Iranians.
If all that the Security Council will take into consideration is whether the Iranians will stop their experiments, a huge opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the crisis is lost. Unless UN members call for a review of the decision, matters can really turn explosive.
Meanwhile, Tehran believes that the August agreement with the IAEA is the only thing that counts. And it’s no mean feat. Even Olli Heinonen, the agency’s top dog, says in an article on the agency’s website that the deal goes beyond requirements of the additional protocol that Iran failed to fulfil earlier on.
The Iranian official response to Western calls for stepping up the sanctions regime has been to threaten an abandonment of its cooperation with the IAEA. Any move by the Security Council outside the IAEA framework jeopardizes the cooperation between Tehran and the IAEA, Ali Larijani, Iran’s nuclear negotiator, was telling the Tehran Times earlier this week.
What is bound to happen in the near future regarding the Iranian talks remains an open issue for the moment. What if the Iranians really make good on their threat to abandon all IAEA cooperation? Then we’d really be in the dark.
The fact that the September 21 meeting is organised by the US could be an encouraging sign. The US has hardly had any direct hand in the nuclear Iranian negotiations, something that the Iranians appear to virtually have begged for on a number of occasions.
The most recent occasion was in March 2006, when the US ambassador to Iraq followed up on calls by Iraqi Shi'i leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. The U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, received support from his bosses in Washington, but they said they would not allow him to discuss the Iran nuclear file. Other Iranians efforts to deal with the Bush administration have been rejected out right. But that did not stop the Iranians from trying. In the wake of the US ambassador to Iraq’s talks with the Iranians, Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, sent his deputy Mohammad Nahavandian to Washington to "lobby" for direct talks.
Shame on US diplomacy for cold shouldering genuine Iranian goodwill? Perhaps. But who is to say that the Iranian enthusiasm isn’t inspired by a drive to appear compliant internationally and simply continuing to break their promises, just like the official US stance is to reject the Iranians but make it appear it is pursuing efforts to negotiate. It is difficult to get the hang of this type of diplomatic warfare. Not a lot of talking had been done by the US ambassador to Iraq, when by May 2006, US officials went on the record as saying they ruled out direct negotiations with Iran concerning Iraq. A White House official stated "we have decided not to pursue it". No more explanation. So much for diplomatic initiative taking.
“Officially, they [the US and European countries] are committed to a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear crisis, and yet their behavior - of refusing to endorse fully the Iran-IAEA agreement and rushing toward another sanctions resolution at the United Nations Security Council - speaks louder about the true intentions of the US government and some of its European allies”, says Iran expert dr Kaveh L Afrasiabi, in an article in the Asia Times.
The Bush administration appears to be unwilling to deviate from its chosen path to deal with Iran by means of staying behind the scenes as the Europeans conduct direct multinational talks. Officials for the last few years have simply reiterated their condition that Iran needed to suspend all its nuclear activities before they will conduct direct talks. This stance can only be explained as a ploy to save time and create an atmosphere in which the ‘unknown’ factor works their favor. Despite/in spite/thanks to all the scare mongering.
Iran’s officials meanwhile keep repeating that they want direct talks but that they won’t give up on their right to develop nuclear capacities. So boring. The US approach to (apparently) stay on the sidelines in the international community’s dealings with Iran’s regime might be effecting something. It sure is cheap PR. Even if President Bush has been considering employing a public campaign to justify unilateral action agains Iran’s army, he barely needs to do so; by being vague the Bush administration has all the time in the world to figure out what the consequences of such action would be, which is likely quite a new lead up to a war.
Stories about an imminent war in Iran have been circulating for the last three years, but by now US officials’ comments somehow appear more natural than the lack of information about the plans is perceived as illogical. It’s called assymatric warfare. It might now be deployed against the public. Scary times we (might (see?)) live in.
It would be an easy conjecture to say that the Yanks have hollowed out the international community’s resilience sufficiently by now, to bet that it can profess to go this route whilst all the while preparing for a hoist of violations of international laws that the UN was set up to protect. We’ll simply have to see.
US army commander Petraeus said in an interview with FOX News that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. "There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation" according to Petraeus on Fox. Why didn’t that sound like a cat’s finally out of the bag statement?
Playing the media has become a sophisticated game, it appears. The commander’s presentation to US Congress followed his and other senior US officials’ strong condemnation of Iran’s supposed violent acts in Iraq. Recently, US senior army personnel and top officials alike have taken to singling out Iran as the source behind a lot of the violence in Iraq. This might be a natural moment for such accusations to be made, but there is an undeniable agenda setting element to them too. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in response to Petraeus presentation in Congress that it made clear Iraq's security had improved, but Iran was a "troublesome neighbour".
The BBC writes that Secretary General Rice warned against US troops leaving prematurely, pointing out that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said his country was "prepared to fill the vacuum". Perhaps that was an extremely good choice of words on the part of Ahmadinejad. Let’s hope he doesn’t volunteer to foot the bill.
Just how right those observers are that believe the US and UK troops are out to provoke a battle, remains to be seen. Perhaps the US is after kickstarting a conventional war.
There is no way in which any of these actions can be attributed to official policy other than how they appear at the surface. Some analysts are quoting war plans by the US that indicate that the US is causing insurgence in Iran– it’s a tactic that has been going on for years. But it is difficult to get secret acts confirmed officially.
The Iranians, maybe dubbing US tactics, are beginning to link their nuclear status to Iraqi citizens’ safety as well. In an interview with the Tehran Times, Ali Larijani said that Iran would only welcome the US initiated nuclear talks if they ‘aimed at reinforcing the Iraqi government’. This is a frightening development.
| Created: |
September 12, 2007 17:45 GMT |
| Published: |
Global Politician
Ohmy News (using the money to buy a round of drinks for Amsterdam based Reportwitters)
Up for Sale for USD75 non exclusive rights.
|
| Twittered: |
30 |
| Fool Proofed: |
3 |
Twitter Lifeline
follow on twitter.com
|
Fool Proof:
Wanna leave a comment on this Reportwitter's endeavors? Something don't stack up? Typo? Grammatical error? Don't agree?
|
