From the Independent UK:
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.
Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil – and the angry Iranian response to it – should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf.
Exactly! Of course, by this logic, the Iranians should have expected that their attempts to subvert Iraqi democracy would lead the US to plan such countermeasures—which in turn should have given the US pause, knowing as they must have that the Iranians would expect their interference to draw US ire, and so lead, inevitably, to a retaliation, making it necessary for the Iranians to retaliate.
Naturally, however, the Iranians should have been able to predict that their prediction that the US would retaliate, causing them to retaliate, would be predicted by the US—making it necessary that the Americans try to counter this counter by way of a third (or is it fourth?)-level countering to the predictable counter counter.
None of which would have been necessary, of course, had George Bush Senior never thrown a hump into ol’ Barbara.
So there.
The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.
US bastards! Ever notice how they are always spread like naked cowboys across the fulcrum of blame? Particularly when they are Republicans? And when you can control where the genesis of the blowback “begins”?
Protests Dan Collins at Bloody Scott:
Which, of course, explains exactly why British sailors were abducted under the same pretext in 2004, and why American embassy officials and staff were held hostage for 444 days back in the seventies.
Feh.
Look more closely, Dan. Anyone could have predicted those incidents. After all, didn’t Ben Franklin once get drunk on homebrew and disparage Persian rugs?
Of course, not everybody recognizes blowback when it’s staring them right in their little brown faces.
Poor, deluded wogs. Pip pip!
“Once”…?
“launched without informing the Kurdish authorities,”
And once again we’re treated to another installmwent of, ‘we care about the feelings and wishes of the people of Iraq when we think that we can score a point against the US’. Otherwise, their support of the Kurds has been lower than, well lower than Alphies’.
Well, of course it’s the Americans’ fault, you silly persons! Why, I have it on good authority that it all stems from the Great Satan’s notorious CIA coup that put whatisname on the Peacock Throne. After that, anything the Iranians want to do is justified. Equivalence, you see.
There, Alpo. Now you don’t have to post. Go back to playing with your McDonald’s picture cash register.
Are you saying alfi’s a fast-food operative, slack?
Well, Rosie says that the US orchestrated the entire thing anyway -you know, as an excuse to start a war with Iran. Basically, the Bushies planned on the blowback.
If only Bush weren’t so stupid, he’d be a genius.
Ah yes, but the Iranians planned on the bushies’ planning on the blowback!
Abnormal psychology needs to upgrade it’s terminology. Someone’s going to have to invent a term to describe those among us who are suicidal but wish to goad someone else, through their passive-aggressive behavior, into pulling the trigger all the while blaming the whole mess on members of a third party who were trying to prevent the whole sick scenario from playing out in the first place.
What does blowback have to do with the humanized horse guy? Oh. Nevermind.
Sticky,
I think you’re right – “asshat” doesn’t quite cover it.
BRD
Interesting place, Iran: the very heart of their security establishment is located in another country!
But just remember, when you rollback the blowback it never leads to the man that got blown.
It’s so sad, because it all could have been avoided if all the votes had been counted in 2000.
Warming, clicking on that link WILL make you dumber. The Dec 15, 2004 entry is a special kind of stupid.
See, I’m so dumb now, I can’t even link properly.
I’m impressed by the Iranians’ subtlety, sense of ethics, and restraint. That, or else we finally know the answer to the question of what happens if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it.
BRD,
Agree. “Asshat” has been commonly applied to a wide variety of crazy. This particular syndrome needs some good greek and latin prefixes and suffixes and shit.
Furriskey:
No, he simply displayed a suspicious familiarity with said device in one of his previous omments.
Hey if they humanized horse guy can get some love, why can’t we break a little something off for the Brits … who are getting the same kind of love from the Iranians … umm I mean the USA
It’s called the “little-sister gambit.” Little sister goads the older sibling relentlessly until older sibling hauls off and smacks little sister in the kisser, dislodging her two already loose front teeth. She swallows one, and then gets to go howling to “Moooooooommmmmmm!” to say how mean and awful the older sibling has been to her. Older sibling, being stronger than little sister, gets the blame.
It works especially well when your audience comprises folks who think that power=evil and powerlessness=good.
–Signed, Older Sibling, whose mother wasn’t that gullible
So how did the Iranians know the Royal Navy would surrender without a shot fired?
Wretchard, with an apt comment on this:
And regards 2000 votecounting…
I commend to your attention a recent WaPo article about “The Decoy Effect” that argues that Nader actually brought votes to Gore in 2000.
Both the Independent and FDL items represent examples of the left believing it can, with impunity, bite the hand that ultimately feeds it.
At least we’ve already got the colloquialism/common name for this kind of frustrated death whish: BDS.
Abnormal psychology needs to upgrade it’s terminology. Someone’s going to have to invent a term to describe those among us who are suicidal but wish to goad someone else, through their passive-aggressive behavior, into pulling the trigger all the while blaming the whole mess on members of a third party who were trying to prevent the whole sick scenario from playing out in the first place.
“Suicide by world cop”
Sorry – I meant “fhish”.
The U.S. is also the economic security Central Banker for all investments in the U.S., including those of citizen savings – basic accounts, retirement plans, physical holdings, etc.. The weaker U.S. National Security is, the weaker the savings.
You took my post, tachyonshuggy. I might go so far to say “societal suicide by cop”, though.
If only the legal votes had been counted in 2000, Gore would not have been close and thus no controversy.
And if the British sailors get swapped for the Iranians we nabbed in Iraq?
Pure coincidence?
42, alphie.
Or, if the kidnapping was so easily predictable, the British should have update their Navy’s engagement rules accordingly. While the ship present on the scene held fire while the kidnapping was in progress. Just like the British ships that hunted down the Bismarck did…
Iranians nabbed in Iraq (by coalition forces), versus, Brits nabbed in Iraqi water by Iranians…
You’re going to have to explain how these two things are equivalent to any other, but the Iranian, mind.
British sailors in Iraqi waters on a UN mission are attacked by Iranians, while Iranians are ‘nabbed In Iraq and you’re referring to coincidence?
Where’s your respect for international law you fascist?
God made alphie with fingers to type, but no brain to think and alphie’s an atheist.
Pure coincidence?
He has none.
Or rather, he has infinite respect for what he believes international law to be, but none for what it actually is.
I don’t remember the Kurds being too happy about us knocking over their local Iranian liason office, BH.
In fact, there was a spot of bother involving guns while we were making the snatch IIRC.
Ah well, our raid made Bush’s speech that day seem almost, er, coherent.
I don’t think you’re entitled to refer to anything done on behalf of civilization with the first-person possessive, al’phuckhead.
Gee Alph, then Maybe the Kurds can complain to the US or the UN. This time, they won’t be gassed when they file their complaint, which is better than your buddy Saddam would have responded to it. That still conveniently leaves out Iranians grabbing British forces who were conducting a UN mission.
Once again Alphie.
Why don’t you go to Kurdistan and deliver the apology for the ‘snatch’? To show your sincerity, you can recite some of your posts advocating abandoning the Kurds and the rest of the Iraqis.
I presume that your reception would be, ‘warm’.
I don’t recall the Kurds getting too bent out of shape about this raid. Anyone?
I’ll save my apology to the Kurds until America’s dithering on Iraqi oil revenue and the disposition of Kirkuk have taken their toll on “peaceful Kurdistan” BH.
Not long to wait now.
Geez, BRD,
Where do you get your news from?
Here you go.
The other raid was at the Irbil airport, where U.S. forces tried to detain people until Kurdish troops intervened—and almost ended up in a confrontation with U.S. troops, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. “A massacre was avoided at the last minute,” he said. A U.S. official confirmed that the incident nearly resulted in U.S. and Kurdish allies firing at one another.
1. It’s interesting that you would sneer at the notion of Kurdistan not being peaceful, since you’ve been advocating the prevention of peace and freedom for the Kurds.
2. So you do admit that you owe Kurds an apology for arguing in favor of their abandonment, but somehow that’s related to the dreaded, war for oil!?!
3. You continue to ignore that fact that Iranians attacked British forces who were conducting a UN mission.
4. You at least shed the false pretense of caring for service personnel. That’s refreshing.
So you have no regard for the safety and rights of others or the authority of the UN. You do still hold in high regard the canard of war for oil.
Some people have suffered during this conflict, and others have learned much. Others, very little. You’ve managed to somehow shed knowldege and awareness, so as to be able to cling to your suspicions and prejudices. You’re not merely an idiot. You’re a twisted dog gnawing on the same bone.
That’s rather sad.
A whole field of straw men, BH?
Is it plantin’ season where y’all live?
At 1:26, jihadi boy went for the thread hijack. Put up his straw man, doused him with a liberal splash of US bashing to entice response, and nearly every subsequent comment addresses his drival.
So…he succeeded. And now considers himself just the cleverest thing.
You want to think about the role if any you want to play in his gaming, gents.
That is the definitive answer, how’s the fijord business.
JPT,
How can discussing our grabbing of Iranians in Irbil be “off topic” when it’s the topic of Jeff’s OP?
His post caused me to post mine.
Got causality?
“a” is just here to act as the Iranian POV…slightly related to the topic, I guess.
JPT,
Your observation is actually kind of interesting, considering that it’s in a thread about causation and selective critical thinking.
I’m too dense right now to figure out how exactly, but still interesting.
BRD
Major John;
In that jihadi boys first shot across the bow merely proved him the type of fool Jeff’s post was about.
BRD,
If jihadi boy flaps his useless mouth, is that the cause of the thread veering into whether or not the Kurds hate the US as much as jihadi boy would argue – which is exactly where it was going – or is it the gents responding to his hijack attempt?
I submit that jihadi boy’s agenda – hijack the thread into another crack at all things jihadi being at root cause the US’ fault – is being enabled. He’s not convincing anyone of his take on cause and effect, nor is he likely to. In all the threads I’ve ever seen him pollute, he has never convinced anyone of anything nor contributed anything on import. Then again, his purpose is to hijack every thread and skew to his purpose, not contribute to it.
And here I am, playing a role in this asshole’s game along with everyone else, dammit.
JPT,
Well, for my part, there was a comment made the other day or so that kind of solidified things for me with respect to Alphie. I realized that he hasn’t – at least as far as I can recall – actually provided anything other than sideline sniping and Monday-morning quarterbacking. I can only think of two instances in which he actually made good on the request of actually providing information that substantively supported his points.
So, meh, not worth it.
I tried. I failed. Screw it.
BRD
Oh, my,
Cause and effect?
This just in:
Earlier, Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi arrived in Tehran, hours after he was freed by his captors in Iraq, officials said. He was seized Feb. 4 by uniformed gunmen in Karradah, a Shiite-controlled district of Baghdad.
His release also suggests the standoff over the captive Britons may end with a de facto prisoner swap  something both Tehran and London have publicly discounted.
Iran alleged the diplomat had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by U.S. forces  a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.
I guess we may have to put away our horoscopes, tea leaves and goat entrails for another day.
My favoritest part is how the EU really came through for their English compatriots. That’s the sort of thing that lingers long after the defacto whatnot becomes a footnote in a Chomsky screed.
It is British Government policy never to accede to the demands of kidnappers, even in the case of diplomats or civilians.
In this case, where the Britons abducted were armed and uniformed, I can see no reason why that long standing position should be abandoned.
Other than a Carteresque attempt by Blair to go out on the lowest note achievable.
I hope that the US will remain resolute in refusing to release Iranian agents held by their forces. If Britain were to seek close air support for a punitive raid on Iranian assets, on the other hand, I am sure that the US would be happy to oblige.
alfi, you are an ignorant pillock.
Happyfeet, Yes. That gave me a warm fuzzy feeling too.
Last week, the Independent ran an issue touting 50 Great Benefits for the United Kingdom in being a part of the Brussels Sleaze Sausage.
One was that membership gave us greater ‘real’ sovereignty’, another was that membership conferred greater military and diplomatic clout.
Scott Burgess eviscerated their pathtic lies on The Daily Ablution, a site I commend to you all.
Except alfi.
He still refuses to answer anything put to him, and tries obfuscation. His presence in this thread and his activites are relevant in a way. This article may very well serve no other purpose than to pop off jerks like Alph who are eager to blame the West, blame the victims of violence, and blame anyone that violent Islamists target. The idiot’s obvious enthusiasm is telling. He thus clings to this and blithely ignores what actually happened (UN forces were attacked and seized). He and the paper treat this as having some sort of perverse equivalence. And in the case of a tie, terrorism wins.
One day, people will come to read this blog and it won’t be about an obtuse contrarian nitwit.
And the children will sing!
Uh, Pablo–in case you haven’t noticed, I’m hardly posting here, anymore.