IRAN WAR ALL BUT IMMINENT: UK Troops are Sent to Iranian Border

[The Cleaner]

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.

The deployment came within a week of British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside Basra city, and withdrawing to the airport for a widely expected final departure from Iraq. Brigadier James Bashall, commander of 1 Mechanised Brigade, based at Basra said: "We have been asked to help at the Iranian border to stop the flow of weapons and I am willing to do so. We know the points of entry and I am sure we can do what needs to be done. The US forces are, as we know, engaged in the 'surge' and the border is of particular concern to them."

The mission will include the King's Royal Hussars battle group, 250 of whom were told at the weekend that they would be returning to the UK as part of a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2953462.ece

[rocktivity]

1. And we thought the UK were going to send the troops home.

I hope the 30,000 solders that Bush plans to draw down next summer aren't getting any ideas.

:(
rocknation

[htuttle]

2. It probably kind of sucks to be used as a tripwire

Hope that 'Brigadier James Bashall' has no illusions about why his troops are being ordered to sit there...

[porphyrian]

3. I don't think 350 UK troops makes an Iran war imminent, but whatever. - n/t

Edit: spelling

[The Cleaner]

4. I said this because I wanted to add something else about 3 more carrier

groups being sent to the Persian gulf - but now I can't find the damn article! Oh well.

[porphyrian]

6. Don't get baited by the New Cold War saber-rattling.

This administration may want another World War, but most people don't, and that would likely be the last straw that spells their demise. They may be fanatics, but they do have some sense of self-preservation.

[bdamomma]

7. Do you really believe that they believe in self-preservation

we are dealing with some sick fundamentalists and I am talking about Cheney and Bush, they believe they are doing the right thing, which makes them very dangerous.

[porphyrian]

11. You can't spend the money you've stolen if you destroy the world first.

I don't know how strong their "faith" really is or isn't, but I trust that they'll put off mutually assured destruction until they've had a chance to enjoy what they've taken from all of us.

[txaslftist]

10. You equate "the administration" with the folks who want this war.

I think that's a mistake. I think the folks who want war with Iran could give a rats whether Democrats or Republicans prosecute it. I'm talking about folks like Rupert Murdoch, Exxon-Mobil, AIPAC, and lots and lots of others with various vested interests in an Iran war, such as access to Iranian oil, returning petro-euros to petrodollars, the removal of a threat to Israel and increased military expenditures.

If Bush kicks off a war with Iran, you can bet your bottom dollar that whomever succeeds him in the White House, whether it's Hilary or Obama or Thompson or whomever, will carry the war to its ghastly conclusion. Ask yourself which major candidates have taken nukes off the table in dealing with Iran. Ask yourself which ones have ruled out invading Iran or bombing Iran.

Then ask yourself who the frontrunners in this election are. Hint: None of the frontrunners have ruled out starting, completing or otherwise prosecuting a war with Iran.

[porphyrian]

12. War with Iran would mean a World War, and that isn't profitable for anyone.

Don't you remember the Cold War? They're starting another Cold War, one where profits are maximized and long-lating, not a real war that could mean the destruction of everything profitable.

[txaslftist]

16. You don't think so?

Oil prices would temporarily hit the roof (profitable); military equipment demand would hit the roof (profitable); ancillary military services (aka Halliburton, etc) would be in high demand (profitable)...

The same people who got filthy, filthy rich during WWI and WWII would get filthy rich off of a WWIII fought in the Middle East with other peoples' kids, count on it. As for the "destruction of everything profitable", why would you assume they care about enterprises other than their own? WWII certainly caused the destruction of everything profitable in places like Russia and Germany and Japan, but industries in the US made out like bandits.

As for the millions killed in the war, beleive me, these folks can rationalize that away like it didn't happen. Certainly they'd never take responsibility for it.

[porphyrian]

18. A new World War would be nothing like the previous two.

That's why we haven't seen it yet. That's why war profiteers have opted for third world civil wars and the Cold War - a world war with nukes ends the game. But, another thirty years of cold war keeps them in money with a world in which to spend it.

So, you see, I am completely aware of how motivated by greed they are - there's more profit in cold war than world war today.

[LSK]

13. 3 more? how many do we have???

:shrug:

[progressive_realist]

17. That article is out-of-date anyways

As much as I can tell, the only carrier currently in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf is the Enterprise. The Kitty Hawk is in the eastern Indian Ocean and could support Middle Eastern operations if needed. And I have no idea where the Nimitz is, although it was in Guam a month ago.

But the other eight carrier fleets appear to be here in U.S. waters. Scarcely an ideal deployment if the U.S. was intending to go to war right away.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

[baby_mouse]

5. Pathetic.

Truly pathetic.

[txaslftist]

8. Can't believe we are dumb enough to do this with groundpounders.

If they're hell-bent on starting a war with Iran, why use our most vulnerable assets?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[NightWatcher]

9. These guys are gonna get a vicious sun tan

when we start using 'tactical nukes' in the theatre. I guess the DU (depleted uranium, not dem. under.) wasn't killing the troops fast enough. I was at least hoping that we would move our troops AWAY from the border before we started hitting Iran.

This news goes hand in hand with the news that the US is building a base near the border with Iran.

[snappyturtle]

15. Yep. This is so scary sounding to me. We haven't finished the 2

wars we're engaged in, why a third?

[EVDebs]

14. James Fallows 'Will Iran Be Next ?' in Atlantic shows this is another fiasco

Wargamed, and hopefully wargamed at DoD, and found to be a failure, Iran--even if it gets the bomb--will regret doing it since they are having gasoline rioting right now. What kind of rioting do you think will occur if the mullahs are shown to have blown all their chips on nuclear bombs rather than nuclear power (such as the deal the Russians offered them) ?

Time is really on the West's side, not Iran's. In fact, energy, as the North Koreans have also found out, is worth more than threats and bluster. Let's hope our military gets that lesson too !

[HuffleClaw]

19. i rather doubt that the UK has the slightest interest in participating in a war with Iran

sounds to me like they are just tossing a bone to the US before leaving.