U.S. holding Iranians seized in Iraq.
By on Dec 25th, 2006 at 10:44 am
U.S. holding Iranians seized in Iraq.
“The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington…The action comes at a moment of extraordinary tension in the three-way relationship between the United States, Iran and Iraq.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
i almost hear right wing nut jobs saying “the problem is not iraq. the problem is iran.”
merry x-mas btw.
December 25th, 2006 at 10:49 amyeah, just like they had evidence of aluminum centifuges, unmanned ariel drones, saddam’s nuclear program, chem bio weapons. sure, why wouldn’t i believe it?
December 25th, 2006 at 10:49 amI don’t know if any these Iranians were really up to something or not, but a couple of things stand out.
Some of the Iranians were there at the request of the Iraqi government. We just sabotaged the diplomacy efforts of a sovereign nation.
Local Iraqis will probably react to this as another reason to attack Americans. Just because we don’t like Iranians and live half way around the world, doesn’t mean Iraqis have to agree. Its just another reason of why we can’t occupy their country permanently.
We have a large fleet of ships just off the Iranian cost. They don’t have much to do right now and rounding up some Iranians might just give them a reason to attack Iran.
Whatever it takes to put the breaks on President Bush, Pelosi and Reid need to do it on the first day in office. Bush will deliberately create some incident to provoke a response from the Democrats, so they might as well be pro-active towards Bush. Cutting funding comes to mind.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:06 amdaddy,you’re so smart,and i wuv you.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:07 amBTW, bushy usually uses holidays and weekends to roll out ugly recess appointments and administrative policy decisions. This must be the distraction of the moment.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:14 amThat was last week. This is the cons holiday surprise.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amImpeach Bush and Cheney now!
BubbleHead will never act on behalf of the people. Halliburton and the oil companies are his number one priority.
Happy Birthday Jimmy Buffet!
December 25th, 2006 at 11:23 amBush is planning to attack Iran, but nobody knows the exact day he has chosen to ignite global WWIII, and probably the end of America!
December 25th, 2006 at 11:24 amBush is planning to attack Iran, but nobody knows the exact day he has chosen to ignite global WWIII, and probably the end of America!
Comment by Jay Randal
Exactly why this can’t be allowed to happen, Jay. We have to get George and “Dick” out of there ASAP.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:31 amZooey > We can hope that new Congress will do something, but so far Pelosi and Reid do not exude much confidence, so unless they take drastic measures against Bush like impeachment a war on Iran looks very likely sometime next year!
December 25th, 2006 at 11:38 amMaliki will ORDER the US troops to release the Iranians. Whats the problem there? Iran backs Maliki… as if thats a secret.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:46 amJay — Then we need to goose Pelosi & Reid in the ass, and make them move on this.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:48 amZooey > something needs to be done with them, because they act slow witted at times. We all need to concentrate on our families for Christmas, and New Year’s, and hope for the best in 2007, while being prepared for hard times as well!
December 25th, 2006 at 11:58 amWhy now? !! with UN resolutions approving of sanctions put on Iran…the US navy fleet massing a big Armada in the Persian gulf and Arabian Sea,and drill of searching ships..? Starting wars always easy…ending costly wars on a good note is another…as we can see from the Iraqi war we are now trying to figure out what to do next…after many years in it.
December 25th, 2006 at 12:04 pmOh the horror of it. Next they’ll be arresting Syrians, then Democrats. This story was no doubt planted as an excuse for the selected-not-elected, Haliburtonian, rich Texan, simple minded, mispeaking, guard duty evading, conservative, republican cowboy to rain death and destruction upon Iranian religion-of-peace clerics. Then I suspect he’ll complete his destruction of mother earth.
December 25th, 2006 at 12:34 pmuuugh… ditto what e.dodge said…
now i wish i’d not read this… damn the bushco to a special hell…
BUT ! … any BEATLES fans out there?
the newest “remix” LOVE is fantastic !!!
back to it… “here comes the sun… and i say, it’s alright…”
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
December 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm.
Here we go…how many days ’til that psycho is out of office?
December 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pmmy daddy sez we may never get the psycho out of office.
December 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pmYup, guys, the evidence of the coming attack on Iran grows stronger every day. Undoubtedly there are many Iranians in Iraq (why wouldn’t there be?) and our army can round up some of them at any time for whatever political purpose. They will always manipulate the timing of this kind of news if they have to chance to do so, so looking at the timing is everything. The convergence of escalation, the naval build-up in the region, the rapid degradation of relations between Iran and the U.S., the shrill calls by Neocon theorists for a hardline approach, and Bush’s psychological need to act out against the ISG report (his father by proxy) all indicate a coming attack. Given the shortage of our ground troops, I predict a large, brutal, and sustained bombing attack. Those Air Force and Navy guys have just been standing around anyway, and no doubt Bush the War President has been itching to get them into action on some pretense or other. Plus, a big kickass attack against Iran will allow Bush to have another “Mission Accomplished” moment brought to you by Fox News.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:11 pmGovernments throughout history have done this, especially ours.
We also march into a country trying to provoke a first strike from the other side.
I can think of a few off the top of my head:
Spanish-American War when President Polk sent some legions down to Mexico to provoke a first strike, and when they failed, they just lied.
Gulf of Tonkin that escalated the Vietnam War was found out to be a complete lie, fabricated by Lyndon B Johnson and his friends to have an excuse to escalate the war.
They’ve been attacking Iran in secret operations, and we know this from reports from the MSM, especially FOX News, that says we’re already at war with Iran and that we’ve already launched covert operations and such.
So we’re already probably attacking them in many different ways to provoke an attack from Iran, say… inside Iraq, so we can justify not only an escalation in Iraq, but a broader war that stretches to Iran.
The Neo-Cons in power have been wanting this for a long time, and Israels invasion back in June is another example of them trying to expand the war to other parts of the region.
Iran, Syria, Lebanon.
These guys want us to occupy the entire Middle East.
Except for Saudi Arabia, of course.
We already have a puppet government that keeps pretty good control of their populace.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI meant Mexican-American War in 1848, not the Spanish-American War which happened 50 years later in Cuba
December 25th, 2006 at 1:20 pmAll the warmongers need to do is claim that Iranians are killing US troops and the lemmings will scream “On to Tehran!”
Hey, we had a great run as top dog, but King Chimp I is putting an end to that.
Hopefully Pooty Poot won’t decide to launch some nukes at us.
-GSD
December 25th, 2006 at 1:21 pmDoes this matter? People are fleeing the Iraq clusterf*ck civil war zone. Any Iranian in iraq is probably causing trouble.
Either the USA is lying and these iranians werent doing anything wrong.
But maybe they were there to start trouble and ambush American troops.
Ill admit, its almost too convenient for bush to suddenly find iranians in iraq
But im not saying to torture these iranians. Americans used to detain and treat prisoners very well. Hopefully with a Democratic president , that will return.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:31 pmone of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush.
PS….. Russia is building a £400m light-water reactor for Tehran that is exempted in the resolution.
December 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pmIraq protests arrest of Iran diplomats by U.S.
BAGHDAD/TEHRAN (Agencies)- Iraq’s president on Monday protested the arrest by U.S. forces in Iraq of two Iranian diplomats.
Iran said the diplomats seized by the U.S. military had been invited by the Iraqi government and warned that the move will lead to “unpleasant repercussions”, Reuters reported.
“Two Iranian diplomats were detained by the Americans,” said Hiwa Othman, media adviser for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
“The president is unhappy. He is talking to the Americans about it as we speak. The diplomats came to Iraq at the invitation of the president,” Othman told Reuters. He said he was not aware if they had met with Talabani.
“The invitation was within the framework of an agreement between Iran and Iraq to improve the security situation,” Osman told AFP news agency.
Talabani, a Kurd, traveled to Iran last month in the latest of a series of high-level contacts between the two neighbors.
“This action is not compatible with international law and it will have unpleasant repercussions,†Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said in a statement.
“A few days ago, we became aware that U.S. military forces, in a violation of international law, had arrested Iranian diplomats who were invited by the Iraqi government,†Hosseini added.
The diplomats had been sent to Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government to provide help, he noted, adding that the Iraqi government is responsible for obtaining their release and the occupiers should be held accountable according to international law.
He also said that the Swiss ambassador, whose embassy houses the U.S. Interests Section in Tehran, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to receive an official protest.
December 25th, 2006 at 2:21 pmtehrantimes.com
As always the Left sticking up for Iran. I don’t understand the Left’s support of a regime that oppresses women and hangs gays. Can someone explain the Left’s support of Iran?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:33 pmIran is Fascist regime. Why does the Left support Iran?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHell Mr. Troll Dr. Dre. You clumsily set up a straw man argument of the left supporting Iran. No one is saying ths. I think, at this point, all the lefties I read are more interested in avoiding an Iraqistan debacle with Iran. Why are you so gung-ho to provoke an incident with Iran?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:44 pmDr. Dre, I support Peace.
Why does the Right support killing children?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhy does the Right support using chemical weapons?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pmWhy does the Right support using radioactive weapons?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pmWhy does the Right support genocide?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWhy does the Right support creating Dynasties?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:49 pmWhy does the Right support an Islamist Theocracy in Iraq?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:50 pmWhy does the Rigth support torture?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:51 pmWhy does the Right support incarcerating people for life without a hearing?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWhy does the Right support government intrusion into private lives?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmHit_Escape,
December 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmYou guys do support Iran. You guys never condemn the Iranian regime for their Human Rights abuses. You guys attack your own government and show support to an enemy.
Why does the Right support holding people in secret prisons around the world?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm“Why does the Right support government intrusion into private lives?”
So why do you support Iran. Thheir governmnet intruded into people’s lives.
December 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWhy does the Right support a President who has admitted to violating the law?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWhy does the Right support insulating people from criminal prosecutions and civil liability for War Crimes?
December 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pmComment by Dr. Dre — December 25, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
I seem to recall the teachings of Christ which went along the lines of ‘clean up your own house before you cast aspersions against others.’
America is one of the greatest abusers of Human Rights. As an American, I am obliged to work first to clean up my own government before I can address the Human Rights violations of other governments.
Why do you point to the speck in another’s eye, when you do not see the mote in your own?
December 25th, 2006 at 3:01 pmBriseadh na Faire,
December 25th, 2006 at 3:08 pmIf this country is so bad, why do Millions want to come here? I say, bring them here and kick out losers like you.
Briseadh na Faire,
December 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pmYou’re a paranoide delusional fool. What rights of yours have been abused? None I bet.
“Why does the Right support holding people in secret prisons around the world?”
Why not? If they’re our enemies, we should toture them! They would do it to us, so lets do it to them! Screw Muslims!
December 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pmDr. Dre is a pathetic creep who has to make things up to support his delusional and immoral positions on subjects like unjust warmaking and torture.
December 25th, 2006 at 3:24 pmHey Ethiopia has attacked your Islamic allies in Somolia! What do you guys have to say about that!
December 25th, 2006 at 3:30 pmYou’re a paranoide delusional fool. What rights of yours have been abused? None I bet.
Comment by Dr. Dre
Projection. Prognosis: Terminal.
December 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pmSpudge Boy,
Right now the next 10 days are looking endless.
December 25th, 2006 at 3:40 pmBush is my enemy,the hornets are not.
Comment by LiL Leprachaun
Well said.
Sorry about the Lucky Charms…
December 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pmDr Dre you’re confused.Get some real reality transfusion.Your enemy does not exist.Wake up please.
December 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThe Iranians were in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Govt.It’s not like these folks sneeked in to Iraq.Seems like the US press is carrying the WH water again to get us onboard for a strike against Iran.How many more of our sons and daughters are going to die for another lie?
December 25th, 2006 at 3:51 pmDr. Dre- It is the blunt instrument stupidity of the right wing that created this horrible situation in Iraq right now. Before that invasion, the meme was “Why do you support Saddam. He tortures his people.”
Yet, I never supported Iraq. I thought the invasion was wrong for a multitude of reasons…one of them being that it would be bad for my country. How is that supporting an enemy?
If you a course of action will create a worse situation, why should Americans have to blindly accept this action? Why can’t we disagree, especially if we think it will weaken this nation? What is it about this concept that you and other right wingers cannot understand?
After all, we were proven right about Iraq. You were wrong. Bush was wrong. Bush is a consistent liar, as are his comrades in arms (literally.)
Acting like the world’s biggest asshole really isn’t a way to stop terrorism, you know? Diplomacy and negotiation are necessary in this world to create peace. It is idiocy to think that you can bomb the entire world into submission to the American empire…yet that is exactly the mindset among the Bush league…it is incredibly stupid and dangerous. That the right wing denies this is one reason they must be removed from power.
I do not support fundamentalist muslims. However, this doesn’t mean that I support a world war (that will, most likely, btw, bring about the bankruptcy of america…one way or another.) I don’t support an american empire. A nation, among nations is the america that makes me proud…a member of the world community of nations that can work together to deal with the problems we face. This is much more preferable to me than the oil grab that is going on now…and this is an oil grab, whether Iran’s govt is disgusting or not…america has consistently supported murderers, torturers and drug dealers in order to support its perceived interests around the world…including Saddam when it was convenient.
So, stfu about liberals supporting Iran. You reveal yourself to be a imbecile with such “arguments.”
December 25th, 2006 at 3:56 pmIt is time to once again pray that those who know of the crimes of this Administration continue to come forward with evidence and testimony of wrongdoing. May that which was done in darkness be brought to light.
May mankind understand that survival of the species depends not upon sustaining a priviledged class, heaping wealth and power upon the few, but upon love and equality for all.
December 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmYou guys do support Islamo-Fascists. That’s why you guys will soon be bitching about Ethiopia’s attack on Islamo-Fascists in Somolia!
December 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmDr Dre repeat with me (100x) Islamo-Fascist are evil and Jesus our saviour will annihilate them.
December 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pmDr Dre ……..
What did America do to Iran to be in this situation we are in today.
Read this and Start with an Apology for your nation
America itself Has Just Broke the NPT by Supplying Nuclear Help to India
But that itself is not enough , The real reason was to stop a Gas pipeline to run through Pakistan and India to China from Iran…. the real reason Congress passed the Bill
Now America has Pissed China now aswell
Karma is catching up on the USA , Best to change course in its foreign policy soon, But the world has seen how a superpower can switch overnight to a Neocon nation and will never trust the USA forever
December 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pmOf course, we’re not responsible for every twist in this vicious cycle, and we’ve suffered along with everyone else. But we gave it a spin back in 1953, and we’ve torqued it a few times since then. It’s not going to stop until we take a look at what we did in Iran and start doing things differently. An apology might not be a bad start.
What we did to the Iranian people was wrong.
December 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pmI love it how you guys always defend the Muslims. When Muslims are atacked the Left gets unhunged. Go Ethiopia kick some Muslim butt and make these Leftists unhinged!
December 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pmHey Insane, how about Iran apologizing for supporting Hizballa who killed 300 Marines?
December 25th, 2006 at 4:26 pmHey do you support the Holocaust Denial conference your Iranian buddies did?
LiL Leprechaun,
December 25th, 2006 at 4:32 pmAs much as you attack me, I just proved my point. The Left is allied with Iran and supports them. This iste proves it.
Dr Dre went also to the Bush school of denial ………Ha
December 25th, 2006 at 4:58 pm83 U.S. servicemembers have been killed this month because of Dr Dres Mentality
December 25th, 2006 at 5:10 pmHappy Chrsitmas Dr Dre
December 25th, 2006 at 5:12 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcOchTvzZAg&eurl=
I’m reading Ethiopian troops are advancing in Somolia against the Islamo-Fascists. You guys must be upset!
December 25th, 2006 at 5:14 pmIran despised the Taliban and helped us bring about their temporary downfall in Afghanistan
So
Since Dr Dregs despises Iran, it’s obvious that
Dr Dregs Supports the Taliban, which means
Dr Dregs Suppports al-Qaeda, which means
Dr Dregs Supports Usama bin Laden, which means
Dr Dregs Supports another terrorist strike on US Soil, which means
Dr Dregs Supports the terrorists
Good job there, lil’ trooper, backing the President who gave UbL and al-Qaeda a complete free pass for the September 11 attacks
BTW
There’s no way in hell Russia & China allow any US strikes on Iran, and since China holds more US debt than any country-other than Japan-and since China has the same ability to instantly nuke us that we can with any other country, all the neocon ChickenHawks are left with is raging against Iran with their empty verbosity
Too Bad, So Sad
December 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pmKingCranky,
December 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pmIran supports Al-Qaeda. In fact Bin Laden’s son Saad in under the protection of the Iranian government. I hate Iran, Hizballah and Al-Qaeda un like you that supports them.
Sorry, your word alone is NOT proof that Iran supports al-Qaeda, so until you can porovide a link, one that has independently verifiable proof of your neocon ChickenHawk blather, it’s obvious you support another al-Qaeda strike on the US
Try again lil’ trooper
December 25th, 2006 at 5:53 pmPoor lil’ trooper Dregs
Your word alone is NOT proof that Iran supports al-Qaeda, so until you can porovide a link, one that has independently verifiable proof of your neocon ChickenHawk blather, ain’t no one buying any of your reality denials
Try again lil’ trooper
And guess what
Even if you do provide a link, thst still won’t make an attack on Iran any more likely
BTW
Where was your outrage against Iran BEFORE W took office, because the only ones making noise about Iran’s human rights violations were those bleeding heart groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
Oh, that’s right, you neocon ChickenHawks NEVER have a problem with human rights violations with US backed regimes, like the Shah’s was for decades, since the CIA overthrew the democratically eleceted Mossadegh govt in 1953
And you assclowns wonder why no one takes you seriously anymore, if you were ever taken seriously to begin with
Try again lil’ ChickenHawk trooper, because you’re just WAY too easy to shoot down, disprove, mock & ridicule
December 25th, 2006 at 6:00 pmSchool is out and apparently some kids who would normally be drawing tanks in Study Hall are hanging out at TP!
December 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pmDecember 25th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Who do you believe? The US government says these Iranians were helping with attacks on Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi government says these Iranians were guests of the Iraqi government. It is just not plausable that the Iraqi government would invite the Iranians into the country to help coordinate attacks against their own security forces. This means that one government or the other is simply lying. Since neither government has a good track record for truthfulness we can’t yet know which story is correct. But it does show that “a new way forward’ looks an awful lot like “stay the course”.
It is not the slogan that must change but the underlying policy. As this incident shows, the policy has not changed so I’m with Sen. Chuck Hagel, Bush still doesn’t get it. Since the November election another 150 Americans have been killed in Iraq yet Bush is once again dithering around in Crawford, Texas while things fall apart under his feet.
December 25th, 2006 at 10:22 pmThe guy who posts under Dr. Dre is a plain dumb republican moron.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:35 amSomebody should tell the real Dr. Dre about this moron here abusing his name.
Iraq has to have permission from Bush before they can invite some other country to visit. Iraq leaders are not leaders but they were put in office to do as the Bush Administration wants. We have Cheney running the White House while Bush is in charge of running Iraq. The Iraq people have not say in what is done nor does the Iraq leaders.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:35 amRules of 2007….(lets begin)
#1) “From Now On……………..
Anyone with a “swaggerâ€;………………
Cannot be President………….”-ren
#2)”Frank Luntz will be banned to a deserted Island for the rest of his life and will be restricted to no contact with human beings for the rest of his life(and keep no records or written files on his thoughts or ideas to contaminate the rest of humanity)…”-ren
#3)“You cannot declare that there is progress in any country especially Iraq unless “2/3’s†of media sources say that also(that includes economy ,stability, and every other categoryâ€-ren
#4)”Party’s will be asked on the outset of every interview of what they stand for and will be held to account for their hypocrisy if they deviate and squirm…….”-ren
…..(there is no definite order here so please add the rest cause I have to go to bed…..) I really respect you all and may you have good health at the very least, for the new year,,,,,-ren
December 26th, 2006 at 3:41 amThe Meaning of the UNSC Iran Vote
Were Russia and China given private assurances by Bush?
In the aftermath of the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council unanimous vote imposing sanctions or Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment (see text of resolution here), one has to wonder: why did Russia and China go along with it?
Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear purposes is allowed by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the IAEA has found no indication that Iran has diverted any nuclear material to military purposes. While Russia may prefer for its own reasons that Iran not enrich uranium, it fully recognizes that Iran’s pursuit is legal under international law. Furthermore, as the Western news media constantly emphasizes, Russia and China have extensive commercial ties with Iran, and it is not in their interest that Iran be sanctioned. Their support of UNSC 1737 doesn’t seem to make sense.
The UNSC vote is ominous because it allows Bush to cut and paste from his March 17, 2003, speech on the impending Iraq attack, substituting “q” for “n”:
The Iranian regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions
Iran has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda. (See the 9/11 commission report)
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to “hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior.”
America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.
For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the denuclearization of Iran. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.
The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.
The only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.
In the case of Iran, this last statement would be especially ominous, because it would signal that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against Iran. Recall that Bush has explicitly refused to take the option of a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran off the table.
Many other statements in the March 17, 2003, speech apply even better to Iran than they did to Iraq. “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” was false, but it is true that Iran is enriching uranium. Saddam could not get rid of weapons he didn’t have, but Iran could bow to Bush’s demand and stop its nuclear enrichment program – hence the statement that by refusing to do so it would be “choosing” war is somewhat less farfetched. Iran’s alleged threats against Israel will undoubtedly be prominently featured in Bush’s speeches defending military action against Iran.
Iran will not stop its enrichment program, certainly not as a precondition to negotiations. This should be obvious to Bush, as well as to Russia and China. Hence one must ask: why is Bush pursuing this approach, and why are Russia and China, however reluctantly, supporting it?
What Are Bush’s Intentions Toward Iran?
If Bush had any intention of reaching a negotiated agreement with Iran, he had plenty of opportunities to pursue such options, as recently detailed by Flynt Leverett ( complete article here [.pdf]). In the absence of any concession by the U.S., Iran will not submit to U.S. demands, and weak sanctions resolutions do not exert any real pressure on Iran. This has been clear to many observers, including this author, for many months. The only rational explanation to understand the U.S. push to pass resolutions against Iran, no matter how weak, is that its purpose is to lay the ground for planned military action.
If the intention is to attack Iran, it was important for Bush to have this UNSC resolution (and the preceding one of July 31), which makes a demand that Iran will not meet, approved unanimously to provide a fig-leaf argument that “the world” demands action, as UNSC 1441 did in the case of Iraq.
Why Did Russia and China Support Sanctions?
Russia and China could have chosen to veto the resolution, or at least abstain. Instead, after negotiating to water it down, they voted for sanctions. Why?
One could argue that they sincerely would prefer that Iran stops enriching uranium, permanently or at least temporarily, to defuse tensions. That may well be so. However, there has never been any indication that Iran would be inclined to stop enriching uranium if such sanctions are imposed; quite the contrary. These sanctions have essentially no effect on Iran, and Iran is in a position where it could live with even much stronger sanctions without much problem. So Iran’s defiant reaction to the latest UN resolution was entirely predictable.
So I argue that Russia and China’s vote is understandable only under the assumption that private discussions have been going on between them and the U.S. Their vote is understandable if in those private discussions:
Bush strongly indicated that he would use military force if Russia and China didn’t agree to support sanctions;
Bush gave private assurances to Russia and China that he would not initiate military action against Iran without UNSC consent;
Bush demanded that his private assurances remain private, arguing that making them public would undermine the diplomatic effort by reducing the pressure on Iran;
Bush said that if his private assurances were made public deliberately or accidentally after the UNSC vote, they would no longer be binding.
A hint suggesting that such private assurances have been given is that Bush and Putin have publicly stressed the importance of a “unified position” on Iran. As long as there is a “unified position,” Iran will not be attacked, because Putin would never agree to such a course of action.
Are Bush’s Private Assurances Believable?
I will not make a judgment of how trustworthy President Bush is. However, the evidence clearly indicates that any private assurances given by Bush to Russia and China that he will not resort to military action against Iran were only given to induce them to support the UN action, and he has no intention of honoring them.
The reason is simply that there is no other way to understand what Bush’s purpose is in the approach being pursued, other than to reach a diplomatic impasse and subsequently resort to military action. The more sanctions are imposed, the less inclined and the less likely Iran will be to engage in compromise.
On the other hand, any private and public assurances that Bush may have given Israel regarding U.S. support of Israel against Iran are likely to be honored by Bush, with Congress’ full support.
The final conditions for the impending military action are being rapidly put in place as we speak:
Dec. 19: U.S. is sending aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf to “warn” Iran
Dec. 20: Blair singles out Iran as the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East
Dec. 23: UNSC sanctions resolution passes
How will it get started? Either a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident, or an attack by Israel, or an incident in Iraq that will be blamed on Iran. Anything to provoke an Iranian response, argue “self-defense,” and escalate the confrontation until it leads to taking out our big guns, nuclear weapons.
How Can It Be Prevented?
As I and other authors have argued, a military confrontation with Iran is bound to lead to the U.S. use of nuclear weapons. That is the only way the U.S. can hope for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms. In the absence of a “nuclear option,” the U.S. is highly unlikely to attack Iran because it would carry a huge military cost. However, it should be clear to most rational people that the use of nuclear weapons, no matter how small, against Iran would have disastrous consequences for the future of the world.
Consequently, I argue that to prevent a military confrontation with Iran and facilitate a diplomatic solution it is essential to focus on getting the U.S. nuclear option against Iran off the table.
Russia and China may already have privately assured Bush that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would not be acceptable to them under any circumstances, no matter what the “military necessity” or the “surprising military developments” are, and that any U.S. preparations planning for contingency use like forward deployment of tactical nuclear weapons would not be acceptable to them. Russia and China may already have privately warned Bush of actions they may take in response to a U.S. nuclear use against Iran, from diplomatic to economic to military. Russia and China could ask that Bush publicly takes the “nuclear option” off the table as a condition to support any further diplomatic action against Iran. The U.S. nuclear option against Iran is not going to pressure Iran to abandon enrichment, and taking it off the table would certainly help to defuse tension.
The newly elected Democratic Congress could take the U.S. nuclear option against Iran off the table. Congress could pass a law prohibiting the U.S. military from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states. Here is an example of such a bill. While the Constitution makes the president the “commander in chief,” it assigns Congress the responsibility to “make rules for the government and regulation” of the armed forces. Hence Congress could pass a law removing the authority of Bush to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, unless Congress first declares Iran to be a nuclear power.
Members of Congress should bring this issue to the forefront of public attention, call for hearings, and introduce bills addressing the use of nuclear weapons. Rep. Dennis Kucinich has taken the lead by publicly calling for the U.S. to renounce nuclear first-strike policy. Any private assurances that members of Congress may have been given regarding plans for nuclear weapons deployment and use should be made public. The public has a right to know.
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran will affect America for generations to come. It is the responsibility of every member of Congress to do everything possible to remove the possibility that such a momentous decision could be made single-handedly by a president that has earned a record-low approval rating. Just as “obeying orders” is no excuse under international law for committing illegal and immoral acts, each member of Congress will be fully responsible for choosing to ignore this issue.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:37 am