Britain, Iran came close to conflict in Iraq: report

[He219]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040630/capt.sge.jft82.300604134352.photo00.default-317x384.jpg

Britain, Iran came close to conflict in Iraq: report (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/iraq_iran_us_britain)

LONDON (AFP) - British forces, under pressure from US commanders, almost launched major combat operations against Iranian troops who had encroached over the southeastern Iraqi border in July last year, a leading defence publication said.

"Iranian troops -- reportedly from the more radical Revolutionary Guard rather than the regular army -- moved across the border to the north and east of Basra," said an article in Defence Analysis magazine.

Some 9,000 British forces are based in and around the southern Iraqi town of Basra, charged with maintaining security in the south of the country.

"Iranian forces were said to have moved across one of the disputed borderlines, and were digging in," the magazine said quoting senior defence sources.

"US General Ricardo Sanchez ... reportedly requested British forces in the area to prepare plans for offensive operations, if it proved that the Iranians were unwilling to pull back behind the internationally recognised borders," the article said.

"Eventually diplomatic negotiations managed to achieve a pull-back of Iranian forces, so offensive use of British troops was not needed," it said.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported Wednesday that British troops on the ground had to calm down their Iranian counterparts after US commanders almost provoked a conflict with Iran.

The incident, which lasted about a week, was resolved in by a telephone call between British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi, the newspaper said.

Defence Analysis said the United Nations finally mediated a resolution between the two nations and installed new border markers.

"I think the Telegraph has spun it a wee bit heavily," Defence Analysis editor Francis Tusa told AFP.

"The comments from the senior (British) officer involved were the Iranians were digging in, putting up defences, watchtowers," he said.

"I think you'll find (the British) chose to be very diplomatic and sort of assumed that the Iranians had misread their maps."

Wednesday's reports come hot on the heels of last week's crisis between Iran and Britain when eight British servicemen were detained for three days by the Islamic Republic for straying into Iranian waters.

The team had been taking a boat back to Basra after repairs in the port of Umm Qasr when they were detained on the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides southern Iraq from Iran.

The team has been training Iraqis to patrol the country's waterways to keep out smugglers and militants seeking to infiltrate Iraq to fight against the US-led coalition.

The border incident at one point threatened to spiral into a major crisis when Iran said it could put the men on trial and came amid a fresh downturn in relations between Tehran and London. The men were finally handed over on Thursday.

[W(M)D]

When it comes down to it, the average squaddie would rather go to war with the French!

[usa320]

Then what are we waiting for???

:lol:

In all seriousness though, its not the first or last time Iran has tried to cause trouble for progress in Iraq.

Iranian agents have been in Iraq since the very start, influencing people like Moqutada Al-Sadr.

Giving them money and guns.

I think we should have just flown some B-52's a few feet over their heads a few times...they would have been quick to pull back...

[A Soldier]

Lets Roll!!!!!

[Secret Squirrel]

Just looks like Iran was trying to extend it's boarder a little.

[vmpsmII]

It's so interesting to see how people that are not on the front lines are the first to say "lets roll" "lets get them", "lets kill'em all!!!"

[usa320]

So how long have you been in Iraq?

[WolverineBlue]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3146529

6:07pm (UK)
British Sailors Forced into Iranian Waters, Says Hoon

By Nick Mead, Political Staff, PA News


The eight British servicemen seized by Iran last week were “forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters” before they were detained, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors were captured after their patrol boats were said to have strayed by mistake into the Iranian side of the Shatt al Arab waterway – sparking a tense three-day stand-off.

It was thought the men had accidentally entered Iranian waters on their way to Basra to deliver one of the patrol boats to the new Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service.

But in a written statement Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said: “In a recent debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

“Our assessment continues and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the Global Positioning System equipment carried by the crews.

“We are very concerned about the blindfolding of the men and have made representations to the government of Iran.

“We have made it clear that we do not expect a recurrence of this incident.”

He said British personnel were issued with modern charts and equipment which should be sufficient to prevent straying across the border.

Mr Hoon also disclosed that the Iranians have failed to comply with yesterday’s deadline set for the return of the British equipment, including three boats, weapons, ammunition, radios and navigational equipment.

After the men’s release last Friday, Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said his country would return the equipment.

One of the men returned home today for medical reasons associated with the incident and another two returned as their tour of duty ended.

The remaining five continue to work in Iraq, Mr Hoon said.

[vmpsmII]

So how long have you been in Iraq?

none, that's exactly my point!

[martinexsquaddie]

my brother saw the iranians on the border a few times did'nt seem very happy to see them but they did out number them :lol:
the problem with iranian armed forces is you have the regular forces and the revoluntary Guardand the guard are not really under anybodys sane control :lol:

[ibstolidude]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=334190&highlight=iran#334190 - hmmm

also the lands referenced in the article have long been contested; much once belonged to Iran - also in that area Iran claimed that Iraq had conducted drilling into their land for oil reserves (sounds like Iraq - kuwait claims circa 1990)

[Secret Squirrel]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=334190&highlight=iran#334190 - hmmm

also the lands referenced in the article have long been contested; much once belonged to Iran - also in that area Iran claimed that Iraq had conducted drilling into their land for oil reserves (sounds like Iraq - kuwait claims circa 1990)

yea good point. The border has been a focal point of tension in past. I still say Iran was just trying to be oppurnistic and grab a little more land while they thought no one was looking. Either that or they actually believe their border should be extended to where the troops were.

[usa320]

Iran needs to stop it...they are looking for a fight, which isnt a good thing for them to do right now.

Because unlike iraq, we would have the UN's support to take action against Iran.

And rankly, it will happen, its just an issue of when.

[DPGLAW]

We should of dropped a MOAB on them. I think that would of taken care of any massing Iranian troops. It would of turned them into a mess of Iranian soup...lol I know that is a news story I would of liked to see on my nightly news. Iran has been antagonizing the world with respect to their "secret" nuclear weapons program and their attempts to influence, encourage, and assist the terrorists in Iraq so they would of deserved a MOAB.....

[He219]

Something of interest:


And that power derives from massive assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has helped Sadr build up his "Mahdi's Army" during the last eight months, Iranian dissidents tell Insight.

"Moqtada Sadr is the nephew of President Mohammad Khatami's wife," a prominent dissident based in Germany told this magazine recently in Europe, making him Khatami's uncle in the Islamic scheme of things. "Khatami's wife, Zohreh, is the sister of Moqtada Sadr's father." The sisters are siblings of the famed Iranian cleric, Imam Moussa Sadr, who "disappeared" while on a visit to Libya in 1978. Moussa Sadr is credited among terrorists with having launched Lebanon's Amal Movement, a precursor of today's Hezbollah. Those family ties have helped Moqtada Sadr reach deep into the clerical regime in Iran for assistance in his yearlong effort to build a private militia to challenge the coalition authority.

In addition, Insight sources say, the young Sadr is receiving money and weapons from a top Sunni cleric, Mullah Qusi, as well as from former intelligence officers from Saddam Hussein's regime - altogether a toxic brew which this magazine is the first to report.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/13/World/Breaking.News.Who.Is.Moqtada.Sadr-653765.shtml

Related:
The young cleric has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3131330.stm)

[Pille1234]

Something of interest:


And that power derives from massive assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has helped Sadr build up his "Mahdi's Army" during the last eight months, Iranian dissidents tell Insight.

"Moqtada Sadr is the nephew of President Mohammad Khatami's wife," a prominent dissident based in Germany told this magazine recently in Europe, making him Khatami's uncle in the Islamic scheme of things. "Khatami's wife, Zohreh, is the sister of Moqtada Sadr's father." The sisters are siblings of the famed Iranian cleric, Imam Moussa Sadr, who "disappeared" while on a visit to Libya in 1978. Moussa Sadr is credited among terrorists with having launched Lebanon's Amal Movement, a precursor of today's Hezbollah. Those family ties have helped Moqtada Sadr reach deep into the clerical regime in Iran for assistance in his yearlong effort to build a private militia to challenge the coalition authority.

In addition, Insight sources say, the young Sadr is receiving money and weapons from a top Sunni cleric, Mullah Qusi, as well as from former intelligence officers from Saddam Hussein's regime - altogether a toxic brew which this magazine is the first to report.

I have no doubt that Sadr is supported by Iran, however this sounds a bit like another Mr Tschalabi with insider information. There are many anti Mullah exile iranians in Germany. They of course have their own agenda.

[Gringo]

Iran is probably paranoid as it is somewhat surrounded. US in Iraq to the west, and US in Afghanistan to the east.

I also read reports that the Iranian intelligence service had been helping top Taliban officials in Herat escape to Iran.

Iran is probably paranoid as it is somewhat surrounded. US in Iraq to the west, and US in Afghanistan to the east.

I also read reports that the Iranian intelligence service had been helping top Taliban officials in Herat escape to Iran.

Do you have a link to those reports?

[usa320]

I tell you what if i was Osama, i would sure as hell be in Iran.

[A Soldier]

It's so interesting to see how people that are not on the front lines are the first to say "lets roll" "lets get them", "lets kill'em all!!!"
If we were to go to war against Iran, I would be on the front lines and my exact words to my men would be "Lets get them!!" b/c when your there its them or you. Its pretty easy for you to question others bravery sitting in front of your computer programming, think before you type.... thankyou

[usa320]

Weve gotta hit Iran eventually- we cannot win the war on terror unless Iran is dealt with severely.

[n4292936]

It's so interesting to see how people that are not on the front lines are the first to say "lets roll" "lets get them", "lets kill'em all!!!"
Welcome to Washington!

Weve gotta hit Iran eventually- we cannot win the war on terror unless Iran is dealt with severely.

What does Iran have to do with the war on Terror?

[usa320]

what doesnt Iran have to do with the war on terror?

FACT: Iran=number one state sponsor of terrorism since 1981.

[n4292936]

It's so interesting to see how people that are not on the front lines are the first to say "lets roll" "lets get them", "lets kill'em all!!!"
Welcome to Washington!
oh ya, you forgot "bring'em on!"

[Kilgor]

yeah.. whats a hardline Islamic state got to do with terrorism

:roll:

does a bear **** in the woods ?

[-=P=-]

Nobody would risk a war with Iran these days, maybe in a few years but not now.

The next point is that these news could be come from Saudi or exile Iranian sources both are not really serious sources.

[UoUo]

Nobody would risk a war with Iran these days, maybe in a few years but not now.

The next point is that these news could be come from Saudi or exile Iranian sources both are not really serious sources.

Nato will risk a war with Iran if Iran will break rhe rules.

[n4292936]

...yes...... the rules...... the international community are such sticklers for the rules arent they? :roll:

[UoUo]

D.P

[UoUo]

...yes...... the rules...... the international community are such sticklers for the rules arent they? :roll:

Bulding Nukes will break the rules and continuation of support terror will break the rules....

[Gringo]

Iran is probably paranoid as it is somewhat surrounded. US in Iraq to the west, and US in Afghanistan to the east.

I also read reports that the Iranian intelligence service had been helping top Taliban officials in Herat escape to Iran.

Do you have a link to those reports?

Sorry, I don't have any links. It was in a book. Give me a few minutes and i'll find it.

edit: ok the book is Task Force Dagger, Chapter 14 Northern Alliance - Ismail Khan, pages 171 - 178.

[n4292936]

...yes...... the rules...... the international community are such sticklers for the rules arent they? :roll:

Bulding Nukes will break the rules and continuation of support terror will break the rules....
There are few objective rules states must abide by when engaging with one another - and unless you are signators to the relevant treaties most of those don't apply.... and remember there are also no objective definitions of "terrorism", certainly not in the UN or NATO. Iran only supports "freedom fighters" accoriding to its own accounts - and those who say otherwise are resorting to their own subjective definitions - definitions which nearly every country in the region will disagree with. As the highest bodies in a chaotic system of interaction - nation states are an authority unto themselves, and abide by only the rules they set for themselves. America's rules are not everyone's.

[usa320]

Let me explain something- the international community- the UN and to a lesser extent- NATO- could give a flying rats ass about their own "rules". The body passes resolution after resolution, but no one, with the exception of the US and Britain have the balls to back any of them up...

The UN has become corrupt IMHO- after the oil for food for money scandal its become even more evident. A replacement is needed. I say the UN should be closed down and instead NATO should take a leading role in international security issues. Diplomacy should be between two countries...direct diplomacy seems to get things done quicker and better (see Libya) than the months that are spent fumbling around at the UN changing the "wording" in a resolution to please the French and Russians...

[vmpsmII]

A Soldier wrote:

Its pretty easy for you to question others bravery sitting in front of your computer programming

Could not agree more with your words! In fact that was exactly what I was trying to say when I whrote that comment.

It's pretty easy for us here in this forum say "let's get them". I suppose for that british troops there with the boots on the desert sand, facing the Iranians it's a all diferent thing (and I'm not questioning their bravery).

[Gringo]

A Soldier wrote:

Its pretty easy for you to question others bravery sitting in front of your computer programming

Could not agree more with your words! In fact that was exactly what I was trying to say when I whrote that comment.

It's pretty easy for us here in this forum say "let's get them". I suppose for that british troops there with the boots on the desert sand, facing the Iranians it's a all diferent thing (and I'm not questioning their bravery).

Well it could be for someone who can launch nukes at the push of a button without moving from his armchair.
"I can press the button! I can press the button" ;) :P

[n4292936]

Let me explain something- the international community- the UN and to a lesser extent- NATO- could give a flying rats ass about their own "rules". The body passes resolution after resolution, but no one, with the exception of the US and Britain have the balls to back any of them up...

The UN has become corrupt IMHO- after the oil for food for money scandal its become even more evident. A replacement is needed. I say the UN should be closed down and instead NATO should take a leading role in international security issues. Diplomacy should be between two countries...direct diplomacy seems to get things done quicker and better (see Libya) than the months that are spent fumbling around at the UN changing the "wording" in a resolution to please the French and Russians...
Israel is in breach of more than one resolution and as its principal sponsor the US has steadfastly refused to demand implimentation of those resolutions. Niether America or Israel has the stellar record with respect to UN resolutions which you have refered to. Each are nations, just any other, and consequently cannot but act in their own best interest. On occassion this will entail ignoring a UN resolution. Most SEA countries and others like Russia, India and China are, according to their track record, no less dismissive of UN resolutions than the west is.

The UN is probably no more corrupt now than at any other time in the past and I dont think that one incident is just enough reason to condemn an organisation that has served the international community well for over half a century. Besides, your proposed replacement NATO, while a fine institution in itself, is hardly the all inclusive diplomatic body that counts the entire world as its membership. NATO was originially, and remains, a Militaristic body. If anything the OSCE would be a better replacement but even that is left wanting - the world after all does include more than just Europe and North America. There is no body that can replace the UN at the moment. What is needed in the UN is reform - not absolute rejection.

what doesnt Iran have to do with the war on terror?

FACT: Iran=number one state sponsor of terrorism since 1981.

I seriously wonder where you guys get these information....

[usa320]

lets see- what has Iran done...

1. Iran takes Americans hostage for in excess of 400 days.

2. Iran taken over by hardline islamic regime.

3. Threats to Freedom of the seas.

4. Attack on the USS Stark

5. Material and monetary support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda.

6. aided fugitive taliban fighters.

7. Sent illegal arms to terrorist groups.

8. Stockpiles of Chemical weapons.

9. a hotbed for extremism and hate.

10. Active nuclear weapons program

11. Supporting, through intelligence agents, Mucktard Al-Sadr in his efforts to kill Americans, in an effort to disrupt progress in Iraq.

12. Pissing off the British.

13. Massing troops on and across the Iraqi border.

The Iranians not only have been ****ing with us since the 1970's, but they continue to be a safe haven for terrorists.

We cant win this war unless Iran is reformed in one way or another.

[n4292936]

lets see- what has Iran done...

1. Iran takes Americans hostage for in excess of 400 days.
because after the revolution the Iranians thought that the CIA would impose on Iran another one of its puppets, just as it did after it deposed Mossedeq - the democratically elected Prime Minister. Naturally they wanted bargaining chips to ensure that there wasnt a repeat of that. Imagine for a second what Iran would be like if the US hadn't deposed the Mossadeq. The Iranian oil industry would have been nationalised 25 years earlier than it was but meybe Iran would still be a democracy like it was before Eisenhower decided to be a hypocritical asshole.


2. Iran taken over by hardline islamic regime. in place of the despot "Shah" who America put in place - see above


3. Threats to Freedom of the seas. what are you refering to here? source?



5. Material and monetary support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda. The first two, yes definately - the latter is highly debatable. State sponsorship of AQ is highly unlikely given its ideological alignment


6. aided fugitive taliban fighters. source? Iran has been a longstanding opponent of Talib rule in AStan. It supported a faction within the NA, not the Taliban.


7. Sent illegal arms to terrorist groups. true enough - though they will ofcourse refer to these groups as a legitimate movement of liberation from Israel who is occupying Palestinian land.


8. Stockpiles of Chemical weapons. that is just so passe. I dont recall intel reports to this effect being leaked... or are you refering to remnant stocks from the Iran-Iraq war?


9. a hotbed for extremism and hate. so are some parts of America, Nigeria, China, Australia, Burma, Somolia, France, Britian etc etc you get the idea. Last time I was in Iran ( when were you there last again?) there was resentment of America for having imposed on them a military dictator in place of their democratically elected government - but I dont recall being hated because I was American.



11. Supporting, through intelligence agents, Mucktard Al-Sadr in his efforts to kill Americans, in an effort to disrupt progress in Iraq. ya he is a bit of an ass isnt he.


12. Pissing off the British. This is a national pasttime in Australia


13. Massing troops on and across the Iraqi border. this is generally what nations do when there is a war in a neighboring country - its called acting in ones best interest - every nation does it.

[WolverineBlue]

3. Threats to Freedom of the seas. what are you refering to here? source?

Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti (US-flagged) oil tankers during Iran-Iraq war





12. Pissing off the British. This is a national pasttime in Australia

LOL

[usa320]

The Iranians nailed a us Frigate, the USS Stark back in the late 80's with an exocet missile.

[He219]

Ahm, that would have been the Iraqis that nailed the USS Stark ...

;)


While deployed to the Arabian Gulf, the USS STARK is hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles but only one of them detonates. Both missiles were accidentally fired by an Iraqi F-1 Mirage aircraft, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others. The pilot later claims that he had mistaken the STARK for an Iranian oil tanker.
http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG31.HTM

[A Soldier]

A Soldier wrote:

Its pretty easy for you to question others bravery sitting in front of your computer programming

Could not agree more with your words! In fact that was exactly what I was trying to say when I whrote that comment.

It's pretty easy for us here in this forum say "let's get them". I suppose for that british troops there with the boots on the desert sand, facing the Iranians it's a all diferent thing (and I'm not questioning their bravery).

Well it could be for someone who can launch nukes at the push of a button without moving from his armchair.
"I can press the button! I can press the button" ;) :P

HAHAHAHA Very true
;)

[usa320]

i stand corrected He219...

[-=P=-]

The first Persian Gulf War was a war against the Arabs, Iran had all rights to attack Kuwaiti ships, these fools supported Saddam with their money and Saddam invaded them in 1990, that was their pay check.

As next there are proofs that Iran supported Hizbollah but could you bring anything on Iran helping Hamas or even Al Qaida ? In informed circles it is widely known that Iran was anti Taliban, it was the US ally Pakistan which supported them.

[UoUo]

The first Persian Gulf War was a war against the Arabs, Iran had all rights to attack Kuwaiti ships, these fools supported Saddam with their money and Saddam invaded them in 1990, that was their pay check.

As next there are proofs that Iran supported Hizbollah but could you bring anything on Iran helping Hamas or even Al Qaida ? In informed circles it is widely known that Iran was anti Taliban, it was the US ally Pakistan which supported them.

War against araba? you forgot how much countries heloed USA to attak sadam...

BTW...Iran not arab country.

[Gringo]

12. Pissing off the British. This is a national pasttime in Australia.
Bloody Australian wanker. ;)

[-=P=-]

@UoUo

The First Persian Gulf War is the official name of the Iran-Iraq war, in that war Iran fought against Iraq backed by all Arab countrys expect Lebanon, Libya and Syria, thats why I said Iran fought against the Arabs. Ah and America, Russia and most Europe were supporting Iraq and the Arabs.

[UoUo]

@UoUo

The First Persian Gulf War is the official name of the Iran-Iraq war, in that war Iran fought against Iraq backed by all Arab countrys expect Lebanon, Libya and Syria, thats why I said Iran fought against the Arabs. Ah and America, Russia and most Europe were supporting Iraq and the Arabs.

Ok..soory..didn't know that. :D thank for the info..