Monday, December 25, 2006

IRANIAN military seized in raid on Iraqi insurgents - (and the NYT Times depolores it)

The American Military captured four Iranians in raids against terrorists targeting American and Iraqi forces, including Iranians described as senior military officials.

Apparently,Iran's arming the jihadis and training them has now progressed to getting Iran's military directly involved. I frankly don't know what else it's going to take to convince some people that Iran is at war with us...even if we haven't acknowledged it for some bizarre reason.

Speaking of bizarre, here is the NYT's take on this dated 12/24/06, in it's entirety..with my comments. Notice also, if you will, how the Iraqi government is shilling for their jihadi brothers and pushing the US to release them.

I wouldn't give another dime or a single drop of American blood to these ingrates.

BAGHDAD, Dec. 24 — The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

(`Politically delicate'? According to whom, Pinch Sulzberger? Ahmadinejad?)

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

(Huh? Why would the Iraqi government have a problem with men involved inkilling their security forces - not to mention OURS? And what is this `detainees' horse manure? These are POW's)

It was unclear what kind of evidence American officials possessed that the Iranians were planning attacks, and the officials would not identify those being held. One official said that “a lot of material” was seized in the raid, but would not say if it included arms or documents that pointed to planning for attacks. Much of the material was still being examined, the official said.

(Given the jihadi friendly nature of the Maliki government - not to mention a certain New York based newspaper - our government is better off not revealing anything)

Nonetheless, the two raids, in central Baghdad, have deeply upset Iraqi government officials, who have been making strenuous efforts to engage Iran on matters of security. At least two of the Iranians were in this country on an invitation extended by Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, during a visit to Tehran earlier this month. It was particularly awkward for the Iraqis that one of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush.

Over the past four days, the Iraqis and Iranians have engaged in intense behind-the-scenes efforts to secure the release of the remaining detainees. One Iraqi government official said, “The Iranian ambassador has been running around from office to office.”

Iraqi leaders appealed to the American military, including to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American ground commander in Iraq, to release the Iranians, according to an Iraqi politician familiar with the efforts. The debate about what to do next has also engaged officials in the White House and the State Department. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, has been fully briefed, officials said, though they would not say what Mr. Bush has been told about the seizure or the identity of the detainees.

(Like I said, I N G R A T E S who are just waiting to stab us in the back the moment it is turned.)

A senior Western official in Baghdad said the raids were conducted after American officials received information that the people detained had been involved in attacks on official security forces in Iraq. “We conduct operations against those who threaten Iraqi and coalition forces,” the official said. “This was based on information.”

A spokesman for Mr. Hakim, who heads a Shiite political party called Sciri, which began as an exile group in Iran that opposed Saddam Hussein, declined to comment. In Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, had no comment about the case on Sunday other than to say it was under examination.

( Maliki, yet another Iraqi leader who spent the Saddam years cuddled up with our enemies)

The action comes at a moment of extraordinary tension in the three-way relationship between the United States, Iran and Iraq. On Saturday, even as American officials were trying to determine the identity of some of the Iranians, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution imposing mild sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has rejected pressure to open talks with Iran about its actions in Iraq.

Much about the raids and the identities of the Iranians remained unclear on Sunday. American officials offered few details. They said that an investigation was under way and that they wanted to give the Iraqi government time to figure out its position. A Bush administration official said the Iranian military officials held in custody were suspected of being members of the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It has been involved in training members of Hezbollah and other groups that the Americans regard as terrorist organizations.

American and Iraqi officials have long accused Iran of interfering in this country’s internal affairs, but have rarely produced evidence. The administration presented last week’s arrests as a potential confirmation of the link. Mr. Johndroe said, “We suspect this event validates our claims about Iranian meddling, but we want to finish our investigation of the detained Iranians before characterizing their activities.”

( Another blatant lie. Both Iran, al Sadr and his Mahdi Army and the Badr force have publicly acknowledged receiving arms, financing and training from the Mullahs. And explosives and arms used in the attacks are clearly marked as coming from Iran. Not to mention Iran's involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing, with Hezbollah, and a bunch of other attacks on US citizens.)

He added: “We will be better able to explain what this means about the larger picture after we finish our investigation.”

In the raids, the Americans also detained a number of Iraqis. Western and Iraqi officials said that following normal protocol, the two Iranian diplomats were turned over to the Iraqi government after being questioned. The Iraqis, in turn, released them to the Iranian Embassy. An Iraqi official said his government had strained to keep the affair out of the public eye to avoid scuttling the talks with Iran that were now under way.

The raids and arrests were confirmed by at least seven officials and politicians in Baghdad and Washington. Still, the development was being viewed skeptically on Sunday by some Iraqis, who said that they suspected that the timing was intended to reinforce arguments by some in the administration that direct talks with Iran would be futile.

An administration official in Washington disputed that, saying, “When the military conducted the raids, they really didn’t know who they were going to find.”

(Oh, I think they had a pretty good inkling..or they wouldn't have risked upsetting our jihadi friendly allies))

The United States is now holding, apparently for the first time, Iranians who it suspects of planning attacks. One senior administration official said, “This is going to be a tense but clarifying moment.”

“It’s our position that the Iraqis have to seize this opportunity to sort out with the Iranians just what kind of behavior they are going to tolerate,” the official said, declining to speak on the record because the details of the raid and investigation were not yet public. “They are going to have to confront the evidence that the Iranians are deeply involved in some of the acts of violence.”

(Guess what, Mr. Not-on-the -record - the Iran-friendly Iraqi government your administration allowd to take power have already decided which side they're on...and it's not ours.)

The events that led to the arrests of the Iranians began on Thursday, although details are sketchy.

In one raid, which took place around 7 p.m. that day, American forces stopped an official Iranian Embassy car carrying the two Iranian diplomats, one or two Iranian guards and an Iraqi driver. Iraqi officials said that the diplomats had been praying at the Buratha mosque and that when it was stopped, the car was in the Allawi neighborhood, a few minutes from the Iranian Embassy to the west of the Tigris River.

All in the car were detained by the Americans. The mosque’s imam, Sheik Jalal al-deen al-Sageir, a member of Parliament from Mr. Hakim’s party, said the Iranians had come to pray during the last day of mourning for his mother, who recently died. He said that after the Iranians left, the Iranian Embassy phoned to say that they had not arrived as expected. “We were afraid they were kidnapped,” Sheik Sageir said.

But he said he was later informed that the diplomats, whom he said that he did not know well, were in the custody of Americans. “I had nothing to do with that,” Sheik Sageir said. “I don’t know why the Americans took them.”

The predawn raid on Mr. Hakim’s compound, on the east side of the Tigris, was perhaps the most startling part of the American operation. The arrests were made inside the house of Hadi al-Ameri, the chairman of the Iraqi Parliament’s security committee and leader of the Badr Organization, the armed wing of Mr. Hakim’s political party.

(`startling', oh clone of little Pinch? Why? When you're fishing, you go where the fish are. I realize that you and your pals would rather our military did nothing but July 4th parades, but this IS how a military normally operates during war time)

Many Shiite political groups are now suspected of having ties to Iran, and Sciri is no exception. Senior party leaders lived in exile in Iran for years plotting the overthrow of Mr. Hussein. Some married Iranians and raised their children there.

Mr. Hakim has emerged as the central Iraqi Shiite who is backing a new bloc made up of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds that would isolate more radical politicians. Americans back the new bloc, and Mr. Hakim traveled to Washington earlier this month to discuss its formation with Mr. Bush. It was not clear how the arrests, embarrassing to Mr. Hakim, would affect those political efforts.

( Meanwhile, that mythical bloc isn't happening. Both Iran and the Head Iraqi Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Sistani said no - so it ain't happening. Keep up with the news, Mr. Professional's what you get paid for, at least nominally)

Hiwa Osman, a news media adviser to Mr. Talabani, said, “The president is unhappy with the arrests.” .

(I'll just bet he is - and so is his master Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sadr's masters, the Iranians)

The politician familiar with the efforts said the Iranians in the compound had been in Iraq for four days. He said Iraqi officials expected that two more of the Iranians would be released soon.

The disagreement will further irritate relations between Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq and his American supporters. The Shiite-led government has begun to chafe under the control of the Americans, pressing for more control of its army and for greater independence from what it says is unilateral American decision making.

( I say give these scum T O T A L control of their part of Iraq - after we pull out, take everything that's not nailed down, redeploy our troops to Kurdistan and team up with our real allies in Iraq, the Kurds)

The Americans are concerned that the Shiite-led government would not respect the rights of the minority Sunni Arab population, and, in the worst case, would use the largely Shiite security forces as a weapon in this country’s deepening sectarian war.

Since the borders opened after the invasion, it has not been uncommon for Iranian pilgrims to visit Iraq. Many come to worship in religious places holy to Shiites."

(I according to the Paper of Refuse, these military personel were just their as simple religious pilgrims?)

I'm frankly sick and tired of this kind of nonsense. The NYT is one thing. I expect them to endorse borderline treason, leak classified material and print nonsense. But the way the Bush Administration continues to play games in Iraq in an attempt to clean up the mess they've made there in a politically advantageous way is another.

Simply because they're afraid to confront Iran or the Iranian controlled Shiite Iraq government they stupidly allowed to take power is no reason for this futility to continue.

It's time we pulled out and did something that makes sense.

The Kurds look on us as liberators and love America and Americans. They are our loyal allies and would welcome our bases with open arms, as they've said many times. What's more, the Kurdish Pesh Merga has successfully defended the Kurdish borders and are the best fighting force in Iraq next to ours - one of my pals in the IDF spent three years there helping train and arm them.

If we help them establish a strong, independent Kurdistan that includes Kirkuk,our combat strength would double, without a single extra US soldier being sent over there. Our troops would have a secure base to fight our enemies from, and a strategic location within easy flying distance of Iran for that inevitable confrontation. Plus, it borders our ally Jordan and is close to our ally Israel.

What's more, a strong independent Kurdish nation would likely create a great deal of domestic unrest for Iran and Syria...a plus fo rthe `regime change' advocates.

The Saudis won't like it - which is probably why it hasn't happened yet - but in terms of strategy it is the best move we could make.

The War on Jihad has gone on for five years now, longer than World War II, largely because we have refused to clearly identify who our enemies are or to focus on victory.

It's high time we did.


Anonymous said...

"Our ally Jordan"?

Wow, that's news to me.

Anonymous said...

"Stupidly allowed to take power.."

The US could not find enough Sunnis or Shias in Iraq who like us to form a local citizens council,much less a national government.Buchanan warned about this before the war. The US is regarded as owned by Israel by the Arab world writ large. And it's not far from wrong. We should have become energy self-sufficient twenty years ago and cleared out of the region.

Anonymous said...

The mullahs fear that the Kurds might present a viable threat to the complete dominance of Shiites in Iraq and are thus aiming to propel Iraq into a civil war whereby nobody is spared - since the Sunnis are being so efficiently cleansed away, why not the Kurds as well?

Are the Iranians attempting to force the Kurds from their splendid isolationism - to what end? If this backfires and leads to secessionism, the Iranians might be looking forward to an almost homogenous Shiite territory - Kurdistan would be sandwiched between Iran and Iraq. Turkey would be infuriated, but Iran probably wouldn't even blink an eye.

Perhaps the long-term possibility of Baluch, Azeri and Kurdish seceding from Iran hasn't registered in the minds of the mullahs, but it is there and it is potentially destabilising for Iran itself. An independent Kurdistan actually runs counter to Iranian interests of Shiite hegemony in the Middle East, but the mullahs seem too fixated at stirring the pot of violence to make things difficult for us.

Perhaps this is what they call "overplaying one's hand."

Freedom Fighter said...

Anonymous - I have very little patience for Pat Buchanan and his ilk, which might include you.

1)If Israel `owns' the US, they certainly have a curious way of exercising that ownership, considering all the arms we've sold and all the aid we give to the Arabs..including $430M to the Palestinians alone!

The foreign nations that are the closest to `owning' America are the Saudis and the UAE. Buchanan is no idiot, so his fixation on Israel and the Jews is a tad

2) I totally favor the idea of us being energy self sufficient. But it isn't going to make the nasty jihadis leave us alone, just as `clearing out of the rgion' or selling out our ally Israel won't.

The Arabs will simply sell their oil elsewhere and continue to use the profits to fund jihad worldwide...including in your home town. They need to be defeated. End of story.

Use your mind and do some critical thinking.

Harrison, ol' buddy you are exactly right when you say the Kurds are next. Except there are more of them than the Sunnis, they're better armed and they will fight. The Pesh Mergah has ruthlessly destroyed any Arab attempts to infiltrate their territory.

The mullahs are definitely aware of the fact that Iran is only 50% Persian, and have ruthlessly suppressed the Kurds, Balouchis and Azeris.

They are also aware that Iran's oil production is decreasing by 12 1/2 per cent or so each year, and they are facing rampant economic short, they need Iraq's oil more than we do.

Kurdistan would be sandwiched between Iran and Iraq, but would also have an outlet via Jordan/Israel. And with US toops and bases there, the Mullahs would be forced to attack head on into US firepower.

If you think the Iran/Iraq war was costly for them, wait until the Iranians try a frontal assault on us and the Kurds.

Actually, it need never come to that. Check the site tommorow on how we could militarily stymie Iraq with ease and halt their military in its tracks...IF we have the guts to go for victory.

Thanks for dropping by.

Freedom Fighter said...

PS, Harrison, killer article by you, BTW. I will link to it tommorow.

Mizgîn said...

Someone needs to check a map. There is no part of Kurdistan that comes anywhere close to Jordan or Israel, so there exists no "outlet".

It would be foolish for the pêşmerge to rely on US military assistance in the event of any invasion by Iran. The US has consistently betrayed the Kurdish people in the past and has done so again this year.

If the US wants bases in Iraq, it should talk nicely with its Iraqi Sunni allies, the ones it helped to keep in power for so many years. Seriously, what else are the Sunnis going to do with al-Anbar?

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Mizgin,
Thanks for dropping in.

First of all, the outlet all depends on where the lines get drawn. There is no problem withthe Kurds annexing enough territory to make a border with Jordan.

Secondly, the Kurdish leadership disagrees with you regarding being a US ally...and they've said so many times. I think you know that,though I understand your bitterness at what you quite rightly call the betrayal of the Kurdish people by the US. Both President Bush's have been far too close to the Sunnis thanks to their friendship with the Saudis.

The reason the Kurds want the US as an ally and want bases is that they are intelligent enough to understand that (a) what's past is past and (b)US bases in their country would guarantee a strong, independent Kurdistan, which is something I think both of us want.

Anonymous said...

Except, "freedom fighter," your stand favoring permanant bases against the wishes of the Iraqis, and your "they're coming to get us, better fight them there" attitude mirror's Israel wishes for America .As does your ignoring the amount of the foreign aid handouts to those whom oppress Palestinians which far eclipse aid to any other country in the world, the second recipient being Egypt, bribed into a peace treaty with Israel. Most all Arab/Moslem Mideast leaders have put Bush on notice to rein in Israel if America wishes to retain a modicum of influence there ; Richard Haas says we have very little left
and our future there is bleak.

Interestingly enough, Natan Scharansky who Bush says guided him to bring "democracy"
to the region has rejected the premise of allowing
Palestinians the right of return and a democratic vote to influence
Israel's form of government...

Mizgîn said...

There are only two leaders in South Kurdistan, but millions of us. On the other hand, you are inconsistent in your support for those two corrupt leaders, because in your own comments to the NYTimes article, regarding one of those leaders (Talabanî) you say:

I'll just bet he is - and so is his master Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sadr's masters, the Iranians

And that's even more telling in light of the fact that Talabanî, known for being a major media blabber, has suddenly fallen off the face of the earth since the US-Shi'a execution of Saddam (for murdering a mere 148 Shi'a). The US did this in order to cover up its own complicity in the Ba'athist genocide of Kurds and to protect its great NATO ally, Turkey, which, according to documents produced at the Anfal trial, was also complicit in that genocide.

So, the US has buried the past genocide of Kurds . . . literally.

US bases in South Kurdistan would guarantee a federal South Kurdistan under continued Arab occupation--only a fraction of the world's total Kurdish population. There are more Kurds under Iranian-occupation than in South Kurdistan, but the majority of the world's Kurds suffer gross human rights abuses under Turkish occupation for that last 80+ years. For more than 50 of those years, the US has armed Turkey to carry out those abuses against Kurds. The US continues to do the same thing today.

American bases do absolutely nothing for the majority of Kurds. Besides, the US is going to allow genocidal client Turkey to invade South Kurdistan this year anyway, just as it allowed genocidal client state Turkey to bomb Kurdish civilians in the South during that vastly overrated Operation Norhern Watch.

The Americans can keep dirty Anbar for themselves. We want no part of it. It is not Kurdistan. Never has been, never will be.