previous post next post  

Iranians invading Iraq...

By The Armorer on June 26, 2007 | | Comments (6)

From several sources, I've been sent this.

From Breitbart:

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday. Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

Okay.

You *know* there's a but, right?

Bob Owens, of Confederate Yankee, apparently doesn't sleep at night so that I can...

Anonymous Sources: Iranian Forces Invade Iraq

Well, we saw this coming:

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday. Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

[Heh - great minds - same bit I excerpted for my post before I checked in with Bob... Bob continues]

No doubt, certain harpies will "question the timing" before the sun comes up.

Jimmy Buffett Update: Searching for that lost shaker of salt.

Preferably, that salt will come in large grains.

I was careful last night when this claim was made to note in the headline that this story was linked to anonymous sources within the British government, and now that the Sun article has been published, I see nothing solid to which we could hang a credible claim on, other than the names of two British soldiers said killed by Iranian-placed bombs, Corporal Ben Leaning, 24, and Trooper Kristen Turton, 27.

According to Defence Internet these two soldiers were part of The Queen's Royal Lancers Battle Group, in Maysan Province, Southern Iraq, on Thursday 19 April 2007.

Bob concludes...

Nothing in Yon's account of that day or his follow-up dispatch mentioned suspected Iranian involvement.

Independent of Yon's account, I contacted a senior U.S. officer in Iraq last night, and he was unable to confirm anything about the Sun story, other than that he had read it.

Like the "smoking gun" story I burned as groundless from the Independent, this story does not have any credible supporting evidence to date.

I'll post more updates as I have them.

To get those missing details - and those updates - visit Confederate Yankee by clicking here.


Share This Article:

Categories:

6 Comments

By MajMike on June 26, 2007 8:48 AM
oh, let's just say it was 'round about Mother's Day 2003 time frame when i first had need of a Farsi speaking interpreter.
 
By BillT on June 26, 2007 8:57 AM
Time and *past* time to shut 'em off from all that lovely petrol they have to import. Then tell the Persian Populace, "When the mullahs and the IRG are history, we'll uncork your ports."
 
By ry on June 26, 2007 1:18 PM
That's a non-starter Chief. As much as I'd love to do it, it is a KISS(I'm stupid, not you) solution, it's totally unworkable. YOu going to tell the Euros they can't have that oil? The ChiCom? Japan? India? We aren't reliant on Iranian or Saudi crude but they are. They have an interest in seeing that spigot stay open. That's not only an act of war against Iran, but that extended list as well. The War Against Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812 was fought over similar reasons(economic interference). India's navy is no joke, even if it is puny by our standards(but then, who isn't tiny when compared to the USN?). It'd all go down to DJL if it came to a shooting war, along with the others, but a tanker escort scenario ala 1988-89 is something they can do credibly and with some teeth to the growl. I don't see any Pres, this one or the next one, giving orders to shoot at say the Chucky deGaul to maintain an embargo, or any of the Russian built but Hindu-manned destroyers in the region. It simply doesn't occur in a box detached from everything else. I hate the world wholistic as much as everyone else, but non-"word I won't use" solutions just aren't workable IMNSHO.
 
By BillT on June 26, 2007 4:31 PM
Ry -- I didn't say keep the oil in, I said keep the gasoline *out*. The Iranian government subsidizes gasoline -- the average Teheran resident pays seventeen cents per gallon to tank up. Gasoline is so artificially cheap that smuggling it *out* is a cottage industry. And Iran can only refine enough for half of its daily consumption. Shut off the imported gas at the pump and the price either triples or the state institutes massive rationing. Neither of which will sit well with people who presently don't care that their cars only get 10km to the liter. As for the fuel sellers, well, I think they'd be willing to sell to us. Or, if they choose, they can sell it to the rest of their Western European neighbors...
 
By ry on June 27, 2007 7:26 AM
But Iran is like India or China. Some of its population is very modern. The urban elements. But major sections are still agrarian. What if the IRG takes the Euro-environmentalist approach and simply says that driving is bad and then launches a by fiat campaign to restrict driving(everbody takes the bus)? Similar was done to the USSR back in the day. It teetered on for quite a while because of it. I'm not seeing it as a dagger to the heart because there are workarounds that don't cause economic or societal implosions.
 
By BillT on June 27, 2007 10:45 AM
What if the IRG takes the Euro-environmentalist approach and simply says that driving is bad and then launches a by fiat campaign to restrict driving(everbody takes the bus)? In one major respect, Iran is a lot more modernized than India or China -- you're forgetting the suburbanites. The urban population tends to work in the same areas in which they live, but the Iranian commuting population is faced with the same problem the commuting poulation of New Jersey has -- unless you live in a major city and work in another, nearby major city, there is, effectively, no mass transit system. If you don't own a car, "you can't get there from here." Come drive time, the volume of traffic around the major cities looks exactly like that on the LA Freeway, but with fewer lanes. Bus travel outside urban areas is pretty dicey, too -- if your usual ride to the city is suddenly filled by a relocating (or visiting) family, you don't get to work that day. No work, no paycheck. *grin* Don't even *ask* about the rail infrastructure...