Wider Iranian threat is feared

[sabra]

Source: LA Times

Many U.S. officials believe small conflicts on the ground or at sea are potentially riskier than a nuclear program.

WASHINGTON -- While the White House dwells on Iran's nuclear program, senior U.S. diplomats and military officers fear that an incident on the ground in Iraq is a more likely trigger for a possible confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

In one sign of their concern, U.S. military policymakers are weighing whether to release some of the Iranian personnel they have taken into custody in Iraq. Doing so could reduce the risk that radical Iranian elements might seize U.S. military or diplomatic personnel to retaliate, thus raising the danger of an escalation, a senior Defense official said.

The Bush administration has charged that Iran is funding anti-American fighters in Iraq and sending in sophisticated explosives to bleed the U.S. mission, although some of the administration's charges are disputed by Iraqis as well as the Iranians. Still, the diplomatic and military officials say they fear that the overreaching of a confident Iran, combined with growing U.S. frustrations, could set off a dangerous collision.

An unintended clash over Iraq "is very much on people's minds," said an American diplomat, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly express his views.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fg-usiran31oct31,0,3529708.story?coll=la-home-center

[RufusEarl]

1. Bu$h is looking for any excuse, it just takes a spark!

Peace!

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Preposterous

[ixion]

3. blah blah blah terror blah blah

:eyes:

[leftchick]

4. mr. annonymous needs to chill out

I wish we had someone sane in power who would read this and take heed...http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK01Ak02.html

<snip>

The CIA-backed coup, code-named Operation Ajaz, was carried out during president Dwight D Eisenhower's tenure and was supported by Britain. Using widespread bribery, the CIA overthrew Mossadeq and his cabinet and reinstalled Iran's unpopular pro-US dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

And had it not been for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 1981 invasion of Iran (and US support for that invasion), the mullahs may not have been able to consolidate their political power, according to Iran specialist Trita Parsi.

" Khomeini survived, not in spite of, but because of the Iraqi invasion," said Parsi. "War with Iran would result in Iranians rallying around the flag turning away. The government would be strengthened instead of toppled. The Iranian nuclear program would more likely accelerate than be destroyed."

Kinzer also criticized the US mainstream press, which he argued "has played a very shameful role in helping to fan the flames of war, just as we did in Iraq".

"We truly have failed because we have always presented the problems with the US and Iran through the official US paradigm," said Kinzer. "This is a classic failure of the press, which is why people so easily leap to support policies that are fundamentally against our own country."

[sam sarrha]

5. this is just typical drum beat propaganda..surely this wasn't posted to actually 'Inform' us ??

[Strelnikov_]

6. Sounds like the military brass is not part of the 52%

who feel we should attack Iran.

IMHO, reading between the lines, this article is more confirmation that the military feels that a direct attack on Iran is unnecessary and would be a quagmire they would rather not traverse. By parsing through the typical journalistic sturm and drang, the article appears to paint a picture of a General Staff that is nervous that the political leadership will escalate an incident into an execute order for an attack on Iran, an order they apparently dread.

Not really much to be positive about in this article. If the military is so loath to take on Iran directly . . . does this mean it won't be the 'cakewalk' the Iran hawks imply?


In one sign of their concern, U.S. military policymakers are weighing whether to release some of the Iranian personnel they have taken into custody in Iraq. Doing so could reduce the risk that radical Iranian elements might seize U.S. military or diplomatic personnel to retaliate, thus raising the danger of an escalation, a senior Defense official said.

. . .

One senior U.S. military official said the risk of war was now ever present in the Persian Gulf region. He described it as a "sleeping dog" that could be all too easily roused. This current of thinking appears to be widely shared among many operational-level U.S. diplomats and military officers. Though these American officials are not among the handful of senior aides with whom President Bush consults in making final policy decisions on Iran, they are nonetheless influential as debate continues between hawks and moderates on how to handle the issue.

. . .

"The risk is that events on the ground can get out of the control of policy planners in Washington or Tehran and can create explosive situations that may go further than anyone on either side wanted," Riedel said.

. . .

"The military is going to be cautious about going after Iranians in Iraq, operations on the border or training camps in Iran itself," said Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department Iran analyst now at the Saban Center. "I think they realize this could escalate; it's the kind of war the military itself doesn't want."

[Turbineguy]

7. Supposedly Hezbollah

is setting up cells all over the world.

So on the one hand you have military scholars analyzing the situation and counseling against war. On the other hand we have a few nut cases in the Whitehouse who want war.

Then you have the American Military which is happy to lolly-gag on their US bases and a bunch of crazed militants itching to get those 72 virgins.

[aquart]

8. WH gibbering again?

[Megahurtz]

9. Blah blah blah Iran blah blah blah blah...

:boring: