PDA

View Full Version : Iran Shells Iraq - Threatens Hot Pursuit


ORAC
10th Sep 2007, 06:32
New York Times: Iranian Raises Possibility of an Intrusion Into Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html)

BAGHDAD, Sept. 9 — In a sharp escalation of a dispute over border fighting, an official Iranian delegation at a diplomatic conference here warned Sunday that if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks, the Iranian authorities would respond militarily. The Iranian delegation, led by a deputy foreign minister, Mohammad R. Baqiri, also charged that the United States was supporting groups believed to be mounting attacks from Iraqi territory in the Kurdish north.

Mr. Baqiri did not specifically say that Iran would enter Iraq militarily, but his statements, couched in diplomatic terms, raised the clear possibility that Iranian forces could cross the border in pursuit of the militants. But however carefully phrased his statements, many of those distinctions are likely to be lost on hundreds of families on the Iraqi side who have been driven from their villages by weeks of intermittent shelling from Iran.

Hundreds of Kurds demonstrated Sunday against the shelling in the northern provincial capital of Erbil. They gathered outside the Kurdish Parliament building and asked that the northern government and the United Nations intervene.

Senior Iranian officials have privately acknowledged to their Iraqi counterparts that the shelling is taking place in response to guerrilla attacks by a group opposed to the Iranian government that has bases on the Iraqi side of the border. At the conference on Sunday, at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, Mr. Baqiri did not directly address the shelling, but he told officials from 16 nations, the Arab League, the Islamic Conference and the United Nations that it was time for Iraq to take action.

“Supporting military and political actions by terrorist elements in Iraq against neighboring countries is considered dangerous behavior that we cannot tolerate, and a major factor in the chaotic security situation and instability in the region,” Mr. Baqiri told the assembled delegates, according to an Arabic translation of his remarks, which were made in Persian. “We are waiting for the Iraqi government to do what it takes to resolve this issue.” Later, asked at a briefing about the shelling, Mr. Baqiri said that in dealing with “terrorists who want to enter Iranian soil,” the Iranian government “will confront them and stop them.” “We have a long history in standing against terrorist groups,” Mr. Baqiri said. “We have made many sacrifices because of this, and we know how to confront these groups.”.

Mr. Baqiri’s comments are likely to raise tensions against the bloody backdrop of the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted throughout much of the 1980s and began with a border dispute in the south. Perhaps by design, his words seemed especially jarring because they were delivered during a conference organized to promote harmony in the region.

That conference was organized by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, led by Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd who fought Saddam Hussein’s government as a guerrilla commander, often operating essentially as an ally of Iran. But in a diplomatic meeting in Tehran last week, Mr. Zebari called the shelling indiscriminate and far out of proportion to the threat to Iran.

On Sunday, Mr. Zebari acknowledged that the cross-border attacks were taking place, but described them as infrequent and more of a nuisance than a real threat. Still, Mr. Zebari agreed that it fell to the Iraqi government to rein in the groups. “But at the same time we want this shelling to stop or end because it’s causing a great deal of unease, and we don’t want to see the atmosphere of confidence to be compromised by these continuing acts,” Mr. Zebari said.

The group that has claimed responsibility for the attacks, called Pezak or Pejak for its acronym, is believed to be made up mainly of Iranian Kurds seeking autonomy for Kurds in Iran. Asked specifically about that group, Mr. Baqiri stated publicly what Iranian officials have been claiming privately for months: that the United States supports the group. This support, Mr. Baqiri said, amounted to a “double standard” in American policy, given that the United States has repeatedly accused Iran of exporting deadly roadside bombs to Iraq and supporting armed groups here. Those weapons and support, American officials believe, have led directly to the deaths of American and Iraqi troops and other security forces.

Told late Sunday of Mr. Baqiri’s accusations, a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, said, “I am not aware of any support being provided” to Pejak.........

Selac66
10th Sep 2007, 09:23
Orac,

Couldn't the title of your post be;

'US supports attacks on Iran'

Or, to be more even-handed since Zebari admits to the attacks taking place and the Iranian officials admit that the shelling is taking place;

'Iraqi attacks provoke excessive Iranian response'

Fg Off Max Stout
10th Sep 2007, 09:23
if the Iraqi government could not stop militants from crossing into Iran and carrying out attacks

Oh, the irony!

My plan for lasting peace in the middle east involves nuking everything between the Mediterranean and India. Problem solved for a few thousand years.

ORAC
10th Sep 2007, 10:28
Couldn't the title of your post be; 'US supports attacks on Iran'

Frankly, no, since the US reprsentative denies it and there is no proof of it, only a Iranian claim.

The Iraqi army can't seal the border against insurgents and arms crossing from Iran, so it has to be a po faced hypocritical Iranian politician complaining they should seal it the other way up north.

I'm sure the US forces would just love to have them cross the border. Which makes you wonder if one side or the other, or both, is trying to provoke a casus bellum.

airsound
10th Sep 2007, 14:47
ORAC
....casus bellum.
Shouldn't that be casus belli? (genitive, not nominative)

Sorry.
Returns to nitpicking elsewhere:oh:

airsound

An Teallach
10th Sep 2007, 15:45
Shouldn't that be casus belli? (genitive, not nominative)


<pedant>Shouldn't that be casum belli with the cause in the accusative as it is the object of the verb to provoke?<\pedant>

IGMC!

airsound
10th Sep 2007, 16:05
A T - How right you are, Sir. I stand admonished.

But not, perhaps, as admonished as ORAC, who has a latin tag in his title, and should know better.

What shall we be when we grow up?

airsound

An Teallach
10th Sep 2007, 17:23
Och well Airsound, if we're in grammatical and syntactic pedant mode, we may as well skelp Orac's lug twice. Since casus belli is a synonym for a provocation; then to provoke a provocation is something of an oxymoron.

I really missed my vocation as Principal Private Secretary to the Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP! ;)

ORAC
10th Sep 2007, 17:44
No, a casus belli is an act justifying war. So they are provoking someone into committing an act justifying their going to war in response.

Anyway, an oxymoron is a figure of speech containing two terms normally considered contradictory (e.g. military intelligence), not two synonyms. The worst you could claim would be an element of tautology. :=

An Teallach
10th Sep 2007, 17:56
We can argue the toss on whether a casus belli is a provocation (the term infers nothing about justification). However you are, of course, correct sir! I meant tautology, not oxymoron. The pedant hits come full circle!

barnstormer1968
10th Sep 2007, 22:12
Gentlemen. I believe I have just figured out the answer to a long running question that has been troubling me.
I , like other interested parties, have been wondering what has happened to the McBeth's (Taboo to actually say GR4).
I think (due to the above "my grammar's bigger than your contest") that one day, an innocent liney looked at a GR4, and commented "this planes broken". In the mad rush that followed to point out that it was actually an aircraft, or that it had variable geometry , and not swing wings. That from then on, the ensuing natzi-spelling fest that followed, has ceased all repairs, or flying, or even mention of the GR-word, in case of a grammar or diction error.

(I have also come to realise that I may have far too much time free at the moment)

Barnstormer1968:O

general all rounder
10th Sep 2007, 22:32
Shouldn't that be casus belli? (genitive, not nominative) <pedant>Shouldn't that be casum belli with the cause in the accusative as it is the object of the verb to provoke?<\pedant>

Hmmm

Casus (Case) and Bellum (War) are both nouns so we are talking about declensions. The "Case for War" translates as Casus (Nominative, or Subject) Belli (Genitive, the case which indicates possession or association) The correct term, is therefore, casus belli. If you don't believe me look it up in a dictionary. I knew that phrase parsing for 'O' Level Latin would eventually have a use!

West Coast
11th Sep 2007, 04:05
For a dead language, its still a challenge


Holy mackeral...ORAC was wrong about something! I'll alert the media.

parabellum
11th Sep 2007, 16:26
Well, if history is repeating itself, Iran threatening to start a fight probably means that the Iranian economy has all turned to Rat Sh1t and a diversion is required, either that or they are preparing the ground for their first nuclear strike.:uhoh:

Bladdered
12th Sep 2007, 11:54
Airsound - ho hum no doubt a retired Admin gp capt:p Or did the carpets and curtains man from Binnsworth retire to the Cotswolds.