Serious Provocations in Iran???

[Dead Money]

HomeNEWSWorldMiddle East My ProfileOffersSitemapFrom The Sunday TimesMarch 18, 2007

Iran to hit back at US ?kidnaps?Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran?s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard?s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

?We?ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,? he said. ?Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.?

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard?s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari?s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing ? the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.

?This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,? said an Israeli source.

Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.

?The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,? said an American official with knowledge of the operation.

One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.

The Iranians have also accused the United States of being behind an attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran last month in which at least 17 were killed.

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah?s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.

?In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American ? and British ? officers,? said a Jordanian intelligence source.

 

[THE KOD]

Not sure what to think about this.

My first thought is that the US is kidnapping these Generals so they can go back and overthrow
Armajacket.

Before its too late.

 

[Dead Money]

This in my mind, ties a few things together...are we holding kidnapped Iranians?

This in my mind, ties a few things together...are we holding kidnapped Iranians?

Posted On: Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 11:21:00 PM EST

Weighing The Options For The Iranian Naval Incident

Author: Jim Sinclair











Today the BBC offered opinions on the options that GB has in the Iranian naval incident.

According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial.

The best the British government can probably hope for is that in due course Iran will make its point and then make the release.

The Jimmy Carter scenario is one that London does not want to think about.

"The atmosphere is not conducive to compromise. It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial"



Paul Reynolds who is the World affairs correspondent
BBC News website offered the following:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation.

According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.

'Different phase'





There has been talk in Iran, denied by the foreign ministry, that Iran is looking for the release of five of its officials detained by the Americans in Iraq and accused of being secret agents.






Part of President Carter's problem was that he sounded weak and the American public did not like that, though he argued that his priority was the safety of the captives.

So Tony Blair might well ratchet up the language to sound tougher if this goes on. He has already said that the row will move to a "different phase" if there is no breakthrough.

So what options are open to him?

GPS data

Force is out. But if he wanted to take private diplomacy public, Mr Blair could release the data, from GPS satellite locators and radar traces, which should show where the British party was when it was taken.

The British government insists that its personnel were inside Iraqi territorial waters at the time and not on the Iranian side as Iran claims. The ship the boarding party was inspecting is still said to be at the same localtion. Data might not convince the Iranians but it might convince the rest of the world.

The demarcation line is vague, so Iran might dispute any data. The line was supposed to have been laid down along the middle of the channel in a treaty in 1975 but this incident happened in the Gulf itself where the line peters out.

In any event, the treaty was broken when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran across the same waterway, known to the Arabs as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Trivandrum, the River Armand.

Louder voices

Mr Blair could call on other countries to make stronger representations, on the grounds that the British were on the right side of the line and the right side of the law, acting under a UN resolution allowing for foreign forces to be in Iraq.

The EU has already made a statement. A Russian or Chinese comment might be more helpful but both countries are reluctant to take sides. He could turn to the UN itself.

The Iraqi government's request for the release of the detainees might also count as Iran has reasonably good relations with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Britain could expel Iranian diplomats and even break off relations. That, however, could be matched move for move and might leave the UK damagingly out of contacts with Iran over the larger issue of its nuclear activities.

Domestic pressure

Such measures might help satisfy domestic critics like The Times, whose editorial line is that the British government has been "pusillanimous".

It wants a deadline set for a release and unspecified sanctions applied thereafter by the UK and its allies, including possibly the Iraqi government.

But setting a deadline is unlikely to impress Iran. It is currently ignoring a UN deadline on enrichment.

An apology by Britain might get the men and the woman sailor, now named as Faye Turney, released. The last time this happened, in 2004, the British personnel did say sorry on Iranian TV and were freed.

To an extent this is out of Mr Blair's hands. The British personnelmight indicate regret on their own initiative.

It is unlikely that the British government would do so.

Relations worse

The reason for this is that things have soured with Iran since 2004. A new government is in power there and for the last 18 months the UK and the US have accused Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guards who detained the British sailors, of helping Shia guerrillas with bomb technology.

The atmosphere therefore is not conducive to compromise.

It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial.

The best the British government can probably hope for is that in due course Iran will make its point and then make the release.

The Jimmy Carter scenario is one that London does not want to think about.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

 

[Pujo21]

The truth is IRAN has to be dealt with

They bloddy well have it coming

And nothing elaborate. Just an old fashion nite and day conventional bombing Dresden Style of Tehran et al.They are an insigating breed of scumbags .

This is how you deal with extortionist .

I have no problem if Mr. Bush wants to decimate these Iranian Pigs.

 

[StevieD]

The truth is IRAN has to be dealt with

They bloddy well have it coming

And nothing elaborate. Just an old fashion nite and day conventional bombing Dresden Style of Tehran et al.They are an insigating breed of scumbags .

This is how you deal with extortionist .

I have no problem if Mr. Bush wants to decimate these Iranian Pigs.

My only problem is if he wants to rebuild them.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard?s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

?We?ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,? he said.

Hmm. Does that sentence register on anyone else's gaydar?

I also heard that they want to release the female british sailor. Hmm.

 

[Pujo21]

Bush would be looking to rebuild..he's always angling for money instead of just U.S. Security.

GET READY FOR THOUSANDS OF IRAQUIS TO FLOOD INTO THIS COUNTRY..THANK YOU MR. BUSH.

AND HE WOULD DO THE SAME WITH THE IRANIANS JUST LIKE HE BROKERS FOR ALL THESE SAUDIS TO COME INTO THE USA

 

[smurphy]

Saddam Hussein used to be able to keep Iran in check.:142smilie

Dear President Bush,

I'd like to introduce you to my good friend, Mr. Balance O'Power. He used to help keep things relatively stable. ...But you wouldn't know anything about that would you, dummy?

Sincerely,
The World

Oh well, what's the worst that could happen?:com:

I feel bad for the Iranian people. Most of them want to open up more to the west. If only Muslims would get over this disease they call a religion, then maybe there's a chance of progress.

 

[Chadman]

I have a feeling that smurphs last post will turn this thread into a three pager...:wall:

 

[RAYMOND]

The truth is IRAN has to be dealt with

They bloddy well have it coming

And nothing elaborate. Just an old fashion nite and day conventional bombing Dresden Style of Tehran et al.They are an insigating breed of scumbags .

This is how you deal with extortionist .

I have no problem if Mr. Bush wants to decimate these Iranian Pigs.

like your style:00hour

 

[smurphy]

Yes, we should kill millions of inncocent civilians simply because Iran is provoking us. That would teach them. ....And we should brace for economic collapse as well. It would be nice to run a parallel universe and see what would happen if all overly aggresive hawks suddenly got what they wanted.

 

[The Sponge]

My only problem is if he wants to rebuild them.

You can't rebuild there because of sanctions. Oh wait Halliburton left the Country.

 

[StevieD]

You can't rebuild there because of sanctions. Oh wait Halliburton left the Country.

Sanctions didn't stop Cheney when he had Brown and Root work in Iran and as a result help prop up Saddam. But somehow the MSM doesn't hold his feet to fire over that. Go figure.:shrug:

 

[The Sponge]

Sanctions didn't stop Cheney when he had Brown and Root work in Iran and as a result help prop up Saddam. But somehow the MSM doesn't hold his feet to fire over that. Go figure.:shrug:

Sad to say Stevie these guys are just above the law. You got these rotten pricks all over Clinton for eight years and they come up with a blow job and these criminals blatantly abuse the constitution basically flaunting their crimes and we have to settle with a party that half of them, truly have no balls to go after him.

 

[flapjack]

No need to do anything about this. It is a sign of desperation by Armanijaket. Its a gift if anything. The UK should use this to rally the International community against Iran even more than it is already. International pressure/sanctions seems to be working causing alot of friction within Iran. Its also rumored that there is the possibility that the hard line faction in Iran did this without the knowledge of the other factions.

They will be released and Iran will say they are being magnanimous or the sailors showed remorse or some bs other story. If not, the crisis and power struggle in Iran will only get worse, sanctions will get worse and this whole thing will blow up in there face.

 

[smurphy]

No need to do anything about this. It is a sign of desperation by Armanijaket. Its a gift if anything. The UK should use this to rally the International community against Iran even more than it is already. International pressure/sanctions seems to be working causing alot of friction within Iran. Its also rumored that there is the possibility that the hard line faction in Iran did this without the knowledge of the other factions.

They will be released and Iran will say they are being magnanimous or the sailors showed remorse or some bs other story. If not, the crisis and power struggle in Iran will only get worse, sanctions will get worse and this whole thing will blow up in there face.

yep....

 

[THE KOD]

So the Brits say:

We have GPS readings that show our service people were not in your waters at the time of seizure.

Iran - We show co-oridinates as follows.

Brits - That is still 2 miles outside your boundary.

Iran - Oh OK then it was these co-ordinates.

Geez Louise.

You wouldnt think that Iran would lie about international incidents.

Or would they ? hmmmmm

Wonder if the nuke plants for electricity is a bunch of hooey. Naw , Iran wouldnt lie about that.

hmmmmm

Iran will probably keep them until they finish making the bomb. They know they will not be attacked while they are still in custody.

I wonder if we should worry about Global warming.

 

[Chadman]

Not to be serious about this situation or anything, but how can the U.S. take a strong role in this kind of hostage situation, when we have taken so many hostages without being charged and held them for years - and admitting several had no certifiable reason for being held after the fact? I mean, seriously, this is EXACTLY where the credibility damage to our country comes into play.

We can probably pick up the hostages on our retreat out of Iraq, through Iran, though. Literally killing two birds with the proverbial single stone, ya know.

 

[AR182]

Not to be serious about this situation or anything, but how can the U.S. take a strong role in this kind of hostage situation, when we have taken so many hostages without being charged and held them for years - and admitting several had no certifiable reason for being held after the fact? I mean, seriously, this is EXACTLY where the credibility damage to our country comes into play.

aren't the ones that the u.s. have considered battlefield combatants ?

where did you see that the u.s. admitted that there was no certifiable reason to hold some of there prisoners ?

tell me chad...do you feel sorry for some of these prisoners that the u.s. are holding ?

 

[Chadman]

O.K., let me put it this way, AR. We label these people enemy combatants, right? We hold them indefinitely, without giving any reason for doing so, other than because we label them enemy combatants. We let them go, without charging them with anything, producing any evidence of being terrorists, doing anything of note against our country. I could search, I suppose, but seems to me if we are holding these people to see if they are bad guys, and end up just letting them go, or just continuing to hold them without showing any proof of anything, then I can probably assume there was no good or provable reason. I think the world knows at this point, that with this administration, their word simply is not good enough, which is my point.

Do I feel bad for these people? Essentially, no. But I do have some issues with how we have done this, and think damage has been done moving foward in looking at situations just like this one. We have no - or very little - credibility when we do the same kind of thing that our enemies do.