THREATS AND
LIES
Iran Update: US Military Threats Continue as British 'Seized
Sailors' Lies Unravel
JNV Anti-War Briefing 114
2 May 2008 |
This
briefing is available as a pdf here
Posted: 16 May 2008 |
US ESCALATES GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY
On 30 April, US Defence Secretary Robert
Gates denied that the arrival of a second US aircraft carrier
in the Persian Gulf represented an escalation of the US-Iran confrontation,
describing it instead as a 'reminder' to Iran. (Guardian, 1 May,
p.19) Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, Director of Operations at the Pentagon,
said it was not a message directed solely at Iran: 'It's a message
to all nations that the United States possesses the capability
and the will to operate global[ly].' (Reuters,
30 April)
As well as providing additional airpower
for strikes and reconnaissance, Gen. Ham said the brief overlap
between the outgoing and incoming carriers 'allows us, also, to
demonstrate to our friends and allies in the region a commitment
to security in the region.' (Washington
Post, 1 May, p.A04)
The Chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Michael G. Mullen told the Washington Post (same article)
that 'Iran is not going away... We need to be strong and really
in the deterrent mode, to not be very predictable' regarding Iran.
He claimed that Iran was supplying weapons, training and financing
to insurgents not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.
According to CBS News, a major US television
news programme, 'the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop
new options for attacking Iran': 'Targets would include everything
from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of
the organization known as the Quds Force which [allegedly] directs
operations in Iraq.' (29 April)
IRAQ-IRAN—THE HAND OF FRIENDSHIP?
The same CBS report stated: 'Later this week
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the
Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.' There
are a number of problems with this gambit, and this way of reporting
it, not the least of which is that Maliki has just relied on Iranian
assistance in bringing to an end his disastrous assault on Basra,
Iraq's second city.
Relations between Iraq and Iran are at something
of an all-time high. At the beginning of March, Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed to Baghdad by Maliki himself:
'He announced a $1 billion low-interest loan to help reconstruct
Iraq, and he was welcomed with a red-carpet ceremony, a marching
band and much fanfare.' Abbas Bayati, a Shiite legislator close
to Maliki, said: 'The Iranian role in Iraq, this role is seen
by the majority of the people as being a positive one.' (Washington
Post, 3 March p.A01)
'Ahmadinejad also took a dig at President
George W. Bush, who typically travels into Iraq unannounced and
often visits military bases. The Iranian's trip was known well
in advance, and he traveled through the streets of Baghdad, though
under heavy guard. "We have nothing to hide from the people
of Iran and Iraq," he said. "All those who come on stealth
visits, we should ask them why they visit this country in a stealth
manner." ' (Associated
Press, 3 March)
Then in April, when the Iraqi government's
assault on Muqtada al-Sadr's forces in Basra ran into the ground
despite the Prime Minister declaring that he was in 'a fight to
the end', Tehran played a crucial role in rescuing Maliki. According
to the
BBC account, 'a delegation from the United Iraqi Alliance,
the parliamentary bloc that supports Mr Maliki, flew to Tehran',
and enlisted the Iranian leadership's help in bringing the fighting
to an end. 'The Iranian leadership, according to the source, then
brought Moqtada Sadr to Tehran. There, late on Saturday night,
he crafted the statement that would order his Mehdi Army militiamen
off the streets, the source said.' The BBC comments: 'In this
version of events, the Iraqi prime minister retains the ability
to deny entering talks with Moqtada Sadr. In effect, it appears
to have been done for him, with Iranian influence brought to bear.'
A different version of events appears in
the Asia Times: 'The deal was brokered after negotiations in the
holy city of Qom in Iran involving the two Shi'ite factions—the
Da'wa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC)—which
have been locked in conflict with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army
in southern Iraq. It appears that one of the most shadowy figures
of the Iranian security establishment, General Qassem Suleimani,
commander of the Quds Force of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps
(IRGC) personally mediated in the intra-Iraqi Shi'ite negotiations.
Suleimani is in charge of the IRGC's operations abroad. US military
commanders routinely blame the Quds for all their woes in Iraq.
The fact that the representatives of Da'wa and SIIC secretly traveled
to Qom under the very nose of American and British intelligence
and sought Quds mediation to broker a deal conveys a huge political
message.' (Former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar, Asia
Times, 3 April)
However the deal was achieved, the result
was that, on the one hand, Al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia withdrew
from the streets of Basra undefeated, holding onto all their weapons,
defying Maliki's demand for them to give up their medium and heavy
weapons; and, on the other, Iran had saved the honour of the Maliki
coalition and government.
IRAQ-IRAN—MALIKI THE TRIGGER
MAN?
Given Iranian sponsorship of two of the key
components of the Iraqi government, expecting Maliki to confront
Iran over its alleged support for Iraqi militias publicly is a
very ambitious US goal. Enormous pressure has been put on the
Prime Minister nonetheless: 'The United States is said to have
been planning for weeks to conduct a briefing in Baghdad to present
new evidence of Iranian involvement. But it has held off to give
Iraqi officials a chance to present their concerns directly to
Iranian officials.' (New York
Times, 1 May)
Under the gun, Maliki sent a delegation on
1 May to discuss the US allegations with Tehran. 'An Iraqi official
said the delegation included two of Mr. Maliki's long-time political
allies and a powerful member of another Shiite political party
that backs him. All of them have ties to Iran. The official said
the group would raise the issue of the Iranian arms shipments
that have been found and other indications that Tehran is meddling
in Iraq's internal affairs. The delegation is expected to visit
influential ayatollahs in Qom and to go to Tehran. One Iraqi official
said he expected the group to meet with Brig. Gen. Qassen Suleimani,
the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, a
paramilitary group that American officials say is backing Shiite
militias in Iraq.' (NYT, 1 May, as above) The same man said to
have negotiated the end of the Basra fighting!
DISPUTED WATERS: BRITISH LIES UNRAVEL
On another front, there are new revelations
about Britain-Iran relations. On 23 March 2007, 15 British sailors
and Marines were captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the
waters of the northern Gulf; they were eventually released unconditionally.
British Defence Secretary Des Browne stated unequivocally in Parliament
on 19 June (among other occasions) that: 'There is no doubt that
HMS Cornwall was operating in Iraqi waters and that the incident
itself took place in Iraqi waters.'
On 17 April, The Times published excerpts
from two Ministry of Defence (MOD) documents obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act which showed that according to the
MOD itself: the 15 British sailors and Marines were in waters
that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi; the US and UK unilaterally
drew a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters—without
informing Iran where it was; and that Iranian Revolutionary Guard
vessels were crossing this invisible line three times a week at
the time of the incident.
Declassified MOD report to the Chief of the Defence Staff titled:
'Why the incident occurred' (13 April 2007): 'Since the outset
of the Iraq-Iran War there has been no formal ratified TTW [territorial
waters] agreement in force between Iraq and Iran . . . In the
absence of any formal agreement, the coalition tactical demarcation
(the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT
[US Naval Forces Central Command] construct based on an extension
of the Algiers accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the
Shatt al-Arab [waterway] into the NAG [northern Arabian Gulf].
While it may be assumed that the Iranians must be aware of some
form of operational boundary, the exact coordinates to the Op
Line have not been published to Iran." (Times,
17 April, p.4)
JNV
^ back
to the top
|
