A war with Iran that is already underway
October 23rd, 2007 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
According to The Sunday Times a couple of days ago, the war with Iran has already begun:
BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.
There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen.
*****
An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops.
The fighting comes amid an increase in US and British intelligence operations against Iran. Britain’s forces have more than 70 Farsi experts monitoring Iranian communications, and the intelligence is shared with the United States.
Seven American U2 spy planes have passed through RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire this year on their way to Akrotiri in Cyprus or Al-Dhafra in Abu Dhabi, the bases for flights over Iran.
Interesting. Al-Quds may very well be supplying arms to Iraqi militias, as well as to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and, if so, it is possible, if not likely, that the Iranian government not only knows what’s going on but approves as well. If so — that is, if arms are being supplied, and especially if Iran is directly behind that supply — the case for some sort of military response is strong. And I say that as a persistent critic of the Cheney-led escalation of warmongering words that seems to be driving the U.S. and her allies, whatever allies may be left, in the direction of a significant military confrontation with Iran, specifically, a large-scale attack on key Iranian targets. But is the story credible? And, even if it is, are we getting the whole truth? Likely not.
The question remains, is Iran directly behind the smuggling of arms into Iraq? This question needs to be answered before this war goes any further. Even if Iran is behind the smuggling, is the goal to stop the smuggling or to go to war with Iran? The two can be separated. Stopping the smuggling does not mean going to war with Iran, does not require going to war with Iran. War is what Cheney and his fellow warmongers want, but what would be the consequences of going to war with Iran? They would be dire, I predict — and many others, too. So, then, a war, of sorts, has begin, but to what end?
As Cernig has pointed out, U2 spy planes “aren’t all that good for spotting transient stuff like smugglers — but great for targeting fixed targets for airstrikes.” This may not be entirely true. Spy planes may indeed be able to be used effectively to track arms smuggling into Iraq. Still, he makes a good point. Furthermore, as Larisa Alexandrovna has remarked, the use of U2 spy planes may mean that the U.S. has, is, or will soon be “invad[ing] Iranian air space,” this in addition to special-forces operations over the border in Iran. Whatever Iran has done, or is doing, what this means is that the U.S. has committed acts of war against Iran. It may be argued whether or not war is justified, and to what degree it ought to be waged, if at all, but there seems to be little or no doubt that war has already begun. If so, I ask with Larisa, where is Congress?
Congress may have approved intelligence and special-forces operations, or perhaps the U.S. is acting without congressional approval. Either way, what we need is a public debate, not congressional rubber-stamping, and certainly not Bush initiating a war without any outside approval at all. There is the Iraq debacle to consider, after all, not to mention an American public that may not be so eager to go to war with Iran, yet another war in the Middle East, possibly a bloodier and even more disastrous war than the one ongoing in Iraq.
Finally, what is true and what is spin? The warmongers have long been trying to make the case that Iran is directly behind the smuggling of arms to Iraqi militias, an act of war that would allow them to make the childish playground case for war with Iran: “They started it.” And although the Times article was written by a credible reporter, Mick Smith, who broke The Downing Street Memo story, the newspaper itself is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, the media giant behind Fox News and The Weekly Standard, that is, the man who funds neocon and other right-wing propaganda in the U.S. and around the world, a man who may have an interest in fomenting war with Iran and who certainly has an interest in supporting those who do. There is good reason, it seems to me, to be skeptical.
(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm and is filed under United Kingdom, Neoconservatives, Rupert Murdoch, Media, Dick Cheney, Military, Iran, Iraq, Middle East. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I would only add that US has apparently been running ops into Iran for a few years now, and fermenting unrest with support of the MEK and so on if reports are to be believed. So, both sides might be sticking forks in each others eyes.
That said, I am not sure this constitues war. It if either side wishes it to be the cause of war, sure.. But actual war as opposed to ‘cold war’ scenarios? Not quite yet IMHO.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“what is true and what is spun” - a phrase in the post encapsulates the dlemma.
After the spin element in the runup to invading Iraq, even the bare an unvarnished truth would be met with scepticism. And it should be, if we are to avoid making the same mistake twice.
But how to avoid the oppostie mistake, ignoring the truth because of excessive scepticim?
I, for one, would take the President more seriously, if he wasn’t so obvious and repetivice in his advocacy. Urgency can be better conveyed by the rare and carefully chosen word than by a steady drumbeat of seductive messaging.
Once again, the scarcity of in-depth news resporting
is creating a gullible audience among the citizenry.
We will be relying on instinct and gut reactions instead of hard information.
This post, at least,, provides some information.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
[…] war with Iran that is already underway Michael Stickings placed an observative post today on A war with Iran that is already underwayHere’s a quick […]
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
[…] House A war with Iran that is already underway » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news […]
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Wow, so much hyperbole, where to begin?
First of all, Cernig is flat wrong on his assessment of the U-2.
Secondly, the U2 has been flying in Iraq since 1991. The idea that the US would send an aircraft into Iran that can be shot down with cutting-edge 1960’s air defense technology is ludicrous, and U2’s are certainly not needed for target development.
And I’m not sure what the poster here is talking about Congressional approval. Since when do British soldiers need permission from our Congress to do anything - even if this silly story had even a remote amount of credibility or evidence to back it up.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Entropy - Remember Laos and Cambodia, hot pursuit is one thing, using the MEK, Mossad and black ops is completely different.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
If by “warmongers” you mean the US military, then you’d be right! For those of us who follow such things, there is a wealth of evidence and pretty sound agreement all around that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq. It’s quite surprising to find that some still believe this might still be in doubt. In fact, it would be quite surprising if Iran were not sending weapons. Even “warmongers” like Pat Lang agree.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Observations of bush talking about World War 3 last week ; his whole character was saying ready to go to war , his voice and attitude was a determined to go to war attitude . not seen since Pre Iraq War .
Not only this but also Syria’s mysterious weapons cache or building that had something to do with nukes was bombed by the isrealis also unconfirmed reports of isrealy commandos being involved in all of this .
Then you have the whole It was Nkorea who somehow either build something in syria or their were weapons from Nkoriea ,it is still not very clear .
You then have the axis of evil that bush had talked about in one of his state of the union speeches , if I am not mistaken his first .
Nkorea ,Iran Russia ? , world war 3
Also what is the deal with Russia not wanting the US to build a defense shield in Europe ?
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
i think we should go to war with iran. look, if we don’t attack iran, than there would be a mushroom cloud. anyways, i predict that after we attack iran, the iranian 1 million standing men would attack the troops in iraq and afghanistan, than iran allies, russia and china would attack the united states for attacking iran, and china would cash in their chips because we own a hugh debt to china. when china cash in their chips, they would make the great depression look like a picnic.
so, image paying 100 dollar for a bottle of water (depression cause by our debtor, china), while getting bomb by china and russia (image 9/11 for every single day) for attacking iran, while the soldiers can’t help you because they are fighting 1 million standing men iran, iraq, and afghanistan but hey, we prevented iran from attack us right?
October 24th, 2007 at 5:25 am
More wag the dog, what’s it going to be this time- explosive hummus from Nigeria?
Stop reading/watching the Murdoch fomented propaganda, or at least read it with one eye on the truth.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:35 am
It is neither moderate, nor realistic, to ignore the acts of war of one side when looking at the acts of a state. By framing things this way, you take part in the great “don’t take the non-westerners seriously” soft bigotry so popular with our liberal elites. The current Iranian regime committed its first act of war against the US in 1979. They have committed a large list of them since then. One of my childhood friends lived in a house whose previous occupants left suddenly after an Iranian hit squad tracked them down to Westchester county NY and shot the place up full of holes. It certainly was not the only such incident.
We do not respond within our rights because it is not in the national interest of the United States to do so at this time. That is the basic reality of our relationship with the mullah regime of Iran. To ignore that is to take up the “white man’s burden”. No thanks.
We rightly hope that the iranian people will recover from this mad regime and choose themselves a better form of government. By protecting Sistani’s right of free speech, by assisting the free Iraqi government in keeping Shiite pilgrimage sites open, by fighting as best we can for peace in a free Iraq, we’re striking powerful blows against the mullah regime’s claim to be the only way forward for Shia Islam. Without this, they lack legitimacy and the Khomeinite mullahs don’t like it. Sistani’s dream, eventually Sistani himself has to go for the imams in Tehran to be happy. That’s what is really on the table when we negotiate with Iran. Is that a price that moderates are willing to pay? I think not, at least not when it’s put out in an open, honest way. Open betrayal is for the “realists”, the moderates seem to want theirs couched in nice, disguised language that hides the stink.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:17 am
What an odd bunch of ducks we have in charge these days. With regard to Iran, it would probably be a mistake to assume they will be any more astute in making military calculations now than they’ve been in the past. All that can be said is they know what they want to do; everything else is mere detail as far as they are concerned.
To some degree it’s true of all administrations that policies and problems are seen more as fixing the PR around the decisions rather than offering convincing rationales, but this group seems to have taken that to an extreme. There is probably more pressure against an Iran adventure from Republican aparatchiks concerned with salvaging future power than from any other source. Bush is, however, the Decider and will do what he wishes.
What remains to be seen is what form the PR will take as we launch into another war and whether or not nuclear weapons will be used.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:39 am
TMLutas - If you consider 1979 to be the first battle in an Iran/US war - what do you consider the 1953 CIA coup of Prime Minister Mosaddeq?