British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent



British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.
A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.


General Petraeus: recent attacks on the green zone used Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets


The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency is dramatically diminished, Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country.

"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.

"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."

Tension between Washington and Tehran is already high over Iran's covert nuclear programme. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes.

In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, will answer questions from American political leaders at the US Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday before travelling to London to brief Gordon Brown.

The Wall Street Journal said last week that the US war effort in Iraq must have a double goal.

"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan.

There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."

Well we shall see how this plays out but i can say that if u attack Iran youll have bigger problems more than u can handle.

I think to attack Iran would be pushing the limits of US power they already said it would take an estimated 300,000 troops to successfully invade Iran. Where would we get such a number and be able to sustain them? By the way fishman where did you get this information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

Well we shall see how this plays out but i can say that if u attack Iran youll have bigger problems more than u can handle.

---

Lol...at least we don't have to hide in our closets while our neighbors defend our rights and freedoms for us. :jointsmile:

After all the bullshit from Iran the past thirty years...from Ahmadinijad being involved with the Munich hostage crisis, to funding/arming/supporting other terror groups all over the world, to attacking US and allied troops daily in Iraq. Fuck em. Let 'em burn. I'll light the fuse. You wonder what we're doing across the border in Iraq? Biding time is likely not the right answer. We are now, just a hop-skip-and jump from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...go ahead...fuck with us some more...

I personally can't wait till the Israeli's destroy the Iranian nuke facilities.
Actually, it's a great policy...let 'em build till nearing completion...maybe what...a few billion dollars worth of investment in materials and infrastructure...then lob a few hundred bunker-busters over, and see how many of those sites still remain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Lol...at least we don't have to hide in our closets while our neighbors defend our rights and freedoms for us. :jointsmile:

After all the bullshit from Iran the past thirty years...from Ahmadinijad being involved with the Munich hostage crisis, to funding/arming/supporting other terror groups all over the world, to attacking US and allied troops daily in Iraq. Fuck em. Let 'em burn. I'll light the fuse. You wonder what we're doing across the border in Iraq? Biding time is likely not the right answer. We are now, just a hop-skip-and jump from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...go ahead...fuck with us some more...

I personally can't wait till the Israeli's destroy the Iranian nuke facilities.
Actually, it's a great policy...let 'em build till nearing completion...maybe what...a few billion dollars worth of investment in materials and infrastructure...then lob a few hundred bunker-busters over, and see how many of those sites still remain.

---

I don't believe that Ahmadinejad was involved in the Munich hostage crisis, rather he was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis when the Iranian "students" held American Embassy personnel hostage for 444 days, ending when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. Other than that I agree with your sentiment and statement.

After 200 years of non-aggression...American conquistadors are on the move....black gold?....:thumbsup:

Put that in your pipe and smoke it....:detective1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iguana

I don't believe that Ahmadinejad was involved in the Munich hostage crisis, rather he was involved in the Iranian hostage crisis when the Iranian "students" held American Embassy personnel hostage for 444 days, ending when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

---

Oops. Nice catch. I stand corrected. :jointsmile:

At my age, all these cowardly terror attacks kinda blur all together.
I hang my head in shame. :stoned:

Dutch: I don't remember...how much oil have we gotten as a result of the war in Iraq? Has it lowered the costs on the open market? Has it lowered global demand, in a supply and demand market? Are they pumping more oil now? If not...where do you think oil plays into all of this?

Quote:

---

Dutch: I don't remember...how much oil have we gotten as a result of the war in Iraq? Has it lowered the costs on the open market? Has it lowered global demand, in a supply and demand market? Are they pumping more oil now? If not...where do you think oil plays into all of this?

---

I don't know......maybe, diverting it away from the China people? They use a lot now...will use more later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

I don't know......maybe, diverting it away from the China people? They use a lot now...will use more later.

---

Not only the Chinese, the Indians are using more oil, too. If oil is/was a consideration in the military actions in the Middle East, it was/is so that meglomaniacs like Ahmadinejad and Hussein aren't controlling it. At some point they would have strangled the rest of the world. The USA is the best friend the civilized world has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Oops. Nice catch. I stand corrected. :jointsmile:

At my age, all these cowardly terror attacks kinda blur all together.
I hang my head in shame. :stoned:

---

No need to hang anything in shame, Rusty!:thumbsup: I totally understand the getting older and having things blur together, as I'm 48. Just wanted to catch that before someone who didn't agree with the rest of your post did. Have a good one!

I guess Iran would have been justified in attacking U.S in the 80's when hundreds of thousands of Iranians died as a result of american made weponry supplied to your buddy saddam.But NO ONE is stupid enough to invade a third country in the middle east at the same time....ESPECIALLY one that...you know...can actually fight back.that would truly be the most stupid decision of the modern era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

I guess Iran would have been justified in attacking U.S in the 80's when hundreds of thousands of Iranians died as a result of american made weponry supplied to your buddy saddam.

---

France and Russia were Iraqs primary weapon suppliers.......:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

While their is no doubt in my mind that we would be able to destroy the Iranian army the same as with Iraq but, we won't be able to sustain another occupation. We are already stretched thin as it is.

300,000 troops to invade iran? last time i checked the army was at 500,000. thats not including the air force navy and marines. but i do agree it would be a bad idea.

also as ive said a thousand times before this war has nothing to do with oil but OIL PRICES. you think the driving forces in this country want billions and billions of barrels of free oil to go to america? no they want the price as high as possible so year after year they can report record earnings.

BINGO give that man a cigar,Yokinazu is right on the mark,oil companies are reaping record profits from oil wich they would not be doing if oil was 30$ a barrel.Its also got to do with who controls the oil is it going to be Western oil companies who will do the bidding of America or is it going to be a dictator like saddam?