Attack Iran!

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2004)

America’s military commander in Iraq ordered British
troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive
against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and
grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has
disclosed.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open
conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to
resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez
“If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell
would have broken loose,” a defence source said
yesterday.

“We would have had the Iranians to our front and the
Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear.”

The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer
at a conference in London last week and is reported in
today’s edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of
the officer is not given.

“Some Iranian border and observation posts were
re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre
into Iraq,” a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards
pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and
east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy
territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to
prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack
the Revolutionary Guard positions.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers,
making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British
Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured
personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the
Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley
Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen
Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops
into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from
taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to
have said: “I am not going to start World War Three
for you.”

The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was
resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his
Iranian counterpart, British officials said.

“It did look rather nasty at the time,” one official
said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake
and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in
touch with Baghdad and said, ‘Don’t do anything silly;
we are talking to the Iranians.’ "

While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue
peacefully, British military commanders on the ground
were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry
said.

The Revolutionary Guard was believed to be behind the
seizure of eight Royal Navy and Royal Marines
personnel last week after they strayed across the
disputed border between Iraq and Iran.

The eight men, who were delivering patrol boats to the
Iraqi riverine patrol service, were released - but not
before they were paraded blindfolded on Iranian
television.

[quote=“Boomer”]By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/06/2004)

America’s military commander in Iraq ordered British
troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive
against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and
grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has
disclosed.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open
conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to
resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

“Some Iranian border and observation posts were
re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre
into Iraq,” a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards
pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and
east of Basra
in an apparent attempt to reoccupy
territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

…[/quote]

Very interesting, is there a link to this?

BTW, apparently there’s quite a row taking place now, all behind the scenes and officially denied by the Bush administration, among Turkey, Iran, and Israel over control of Kurdish northern Iraq. (see the June 28, 2004, edition of The New Yorker magazine, Plan B by Sy Hersh)

According to Hersh, at this same time, July 2003, Israel approached the Bush administration with warnings that Iran was poised to support a wide-scale insurgency in Iraq (which we’ve seen, obviously).

Plan B refers to Israel’s Plan B. Plan A was, according to Hersh, the establishment of an Israel-friendly Iraq via a successful American war there (Bush’s war, the one that Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” over in May, 2003). :unamused:

According to Hersh, Israel concluded that Bush could not succeed in Iraq - largely due to the fact that Bush refused to employ a force large enough to seal Iraq’s Iranian border - and has therefore moved on to Plan B.* (Hersh writes that it was the failure to close the border, and thus seal out Iranian help with the general insurgency in Iraq, that led to America’s desperate need for military intelligence which, in turn, led to the Abu Ghraib prison-torture scandal.)

Plan B involves training Kurdish insurgents to establish and defend a greater Kurdistan. According to Hersh, Israel has had special-ops forces in northern Iraq now, in addition to providing a heavy financial investment, a foreign transfer if you will, to Iraq’s Kurds. (a stable element of Israel’s foreign policy has always been to nurture alliances with other, non-Arab populations in the Middle East.)

So your story, which is news to me, is even more interesting since it seems to confirm at least one part of Hersh’s. To wit, at the same time of Iran’s mini-invasion (your reference), Israel warned Bush that Iran was prepared to support a general insurgency in Iraq. (think Bush will try to blame the Brits, now, for the insurgency we’ve seen to date? :wink: )

*-Best quote from Hersh’s article, in a blackly, not ha-ha funny way, is this:

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point [November 2003] to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.” Cheney did not respond to Barak’s assessment. (Cheney’s office declined to comment.)

I guess it’s more bemusing than amusing; spook has identified this trend of Bush’s, inspiring sad bemusement in many observers, rather than something more hopeful or useful (this trend is, of course, [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/french-washing-instructions/10614/8 open secret[/url]).

:frowning: