Iran attacks Iraq

The BBC is reporting that Iranian troops entered Northern Iraq and shelled Kurdish rebels, according to Iraqi officials. The Iraqi defense ministry says that Iranian forces made a similar incursion on April 21:

Iraqi Kurdish officials had said Iranian forces shelled Iranian Kurdish rebel positions inside northern Iraq on April 21 to repel an attack, wounding at least four civilians.

"Iranian forces bombed border areas in the Haj Umran area, the Iranian forces crossed 5 km over the border and bombed Lolan with more than 180 heavy artillery shells targeting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)," a ministry statement said. [Reuters]

The Iranians were targeting PKK guerrillas, not Iraqi or US forces. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Washington and Tehran have to say about these incidents.

Comments

[mudkitty]

Oh shit, we're all gonna die.

[Alon Levy]

Well, it depends on how much fuss Iraq will make. Wikipedia says the PKK has committed terrorist activities in Iraq, too, so if Iraq starts a brouhaha, it'll be just on general principle.

[almostinfamous]

by iraq, you people mean the US, right?

cause the iraqi army is currently scared of, in no particular order:

a)it's own shadow
b)the americans
c)the turks
d)the iranians

[mudkitty]

Like I said...

[axel]

am i the only hopeless paranoid with images of cia paying of iraq military squads to wander off over the horizon launch some shells, shoot up some equipment and cry Iran?

[Trystero]

Casus belli, anyone?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'd be surprised if Washington seized on this incident as a pretext for war with Iran. Technically, Iraq isn't an American colony. Washington wants to pretend that Iraq can defend itself, at least sort of, sometimes. The fact that Iraq can't control its own borders is an embarrassment for the US.

[ballgame]

It's conceivable that the incident occurred exactly as described. It's conceivable that it was entirely invented. With this admin, you have to "trust but verify" ... minus the "trust" part because only an idiot would trust this admin or the corporate stenographers who cover him.

[ballgame]

Uh, Lindsay, I hope that last comment didn't imply that I think you're a gullible idiot or something because nothing could be further from the truth. Somehow when I reread my comment after posting, it suggested an interpretation completely foreign to my intent. Your writings suggest you're extraordinarily intelligent and I actually presume you're as skeptical as anyone when it comes to Bush and the media.

[Norman Costa]

Lindsay,

I doubt very much that this is an opportune incident that is ripe for the seizing. In my opinion, it is part of the general propaganda that is being unfolded in preparation for the justification of coming military action against Iran. [Actually, I agree with you, Lindsay. I just see it as less a fortunate occurence than part of a more intentional laying of the ground work for a justification of force.] Statements by both Bush, Cheney, and Rice in just the past week make it very clear that the press release offensive has started with no ambiguity and with stepped up frequency. This is no secret, and Iran understands this better than anyone. Ahmadinejad has stepped up his own communications offensive. It is no accident that he is trying to isolate the U.S. from U.N. support by offering to have the IAEA resume inspections if the U.N. drops the U.S. led Security Council action. This is accompanied with clear threats of retaliation.

What have we learned from countries that planned to go to war across their borders. Initially, the rhetoric of propaganda is used to characterize the enemy with how evil, dangerous, and ill intentioned they are. Then the propaganda changes to detailing the enemy's preparations for war. Sometimes the potential aggressor tells of horror stories and atrocities suffered by the civilian victims of the enemy. Remember the sworn testimony by Kuwaiti eyewitnesses before Congress about the murdering of premies in neonatal ICU when Iraqi troops unplugged life sustaining equipment? This was later exposed as a total fabrication. The last step is charging the intended target of military action/war with actual military aggressions that have gone beyond their borders and are provoking a response. Need proof? There's the German invasion of Poland in 1939; The Russian invasion of Finland in 1938; The Gulf of Tonkin concoction by the U.S. in 1964; The Chinese invasions of Tibet circa 1950, and of Vietnam circa 1977; The U.S. invasions of the Philippines and Cuba in 1898; and, The invasions of Manchuria by Japan and Ethiopia by Italy in the 1930s.

By all historical precedent, the next act will be military action against Iran to neutralize it's nuclear capabilties now and forever. The only thing that will forstall the inevitable is a total capitulation by Iran on their nukes.

I've tried to lay this out without editorializing or saying what is right or wrong. Quite frankly, the public is not asking for a full discussion and debate on the matter. Indeed, the only significant opposition in Congress is to the use of Nuclear Bunker Busters (NBBs). Why, because no one will miss Ahmadinejad and his nukes. If Bush had gone to war with Iraq with sufficient resources and planning, as proposed by his generals and Secretary Powell, he would have been forgiven quickly for being wrong [actually, lying] about WMD. The use of NBBs by Bush, Chaney, and Rumsfeld to accomplish the task is still a big question. It is my understanding that if the decision is to use NBBs, then we will see immediate resignations by top Brass at DOD. The recent outspokenness of retired military generals against Rumsfeld is clearly a first shot over the bow. The price the Brass will exact from Rumsfeld in return for no NBBs is overwhelming force, boots-on-the-ground intelligence (now called force protection), massive destruction, sufficient planning, and unrelenting action until the job is done or Iran capitulates.

[etaoing]

so, if someone attacks our enemy, does that make them our ally?

[Norman Costa]

etaoing,

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or tongue-in-cheek. President Jimmy Carter's nod to Saddam to OK his invasion of Iran in 22 September 1980, was a perfect example of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[John]

mudkitty:

I'm afraid you're right

[etaoing]

Norman,
well, both, really. but if we're at war with Iraq, and Iran attacks Iraq, that makes Iran our ally, no?

[Norman Costa]

ETAOING,

Only if Cheney thinks he can get some great prices on hand-made Persian rugs, with guaranteed natural vegetable dyes (no chemical-based colors).

[mudkitt]

Get yee your rugs whilw yee can.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Not so sure, Lindsay. Everyone agrees with the pretense that Iraq is "independent", but that's just it--we agree together to pretend that we believe it and no one does. Propaganda about this will be aimed at people's actual understanding that they are attacking our colony.

[etaoing]

Norman,
natural rugs! of course.