Oh dear, here comes the bombing of Iran

[Johnny Canuck3]

I assume you meant Sunni there?

You're right. Thanks for pointing out that typo. Doesn't make sense as written.

 

[CyberRose]

I've seen no evidence that Iran is giving arms to insurgents to fight against the US.

I did say "if"

Of course, America 'loves' foreign fighters cos it makes it appear that the only people that object to their presence aren't Iraqis (who obviously welcome their presence!). However, it's not American soldiers that are dying in their 100s it's the same Iraqis people were concerned for when the war began, and this won't stop when America leaves, it's gone past that, it's civil war, and if anyone is fanning the flames of this civil war (be it US presence or Iranian involvement) then they should all probably be opposed equally...

The thing is ...

... if that's true, then what should the shia in Iran do about that?

That analogy doesn't work because it would suggest America was behind Sunni attacks on Shia. They're not. They actually came to Iraq to fight the Sunnis (and many believed the Shia would be happy for that).

However, if the Shia in Iran wanted to do something practical to help their Iraqi brothers perhaps they should target the Sunni militias and not the Sunni markets?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

EDIT: This is all hypothetical. Bush43 is already losing two land wars in Asia and is entering his lame duck period. There is no way in hell he could get the necessary political, financial or military resources necessary to attack Iran.

But what can he get away with without support?

Surely, if the ships are already in the region, loaded with missiles, all he has to do as the Commander in Chief is to give the order to fire?

All the current mutterings and rumours are based around an imminent airstrike, which wouldn't need vastly more resources [and approval?], not a land-based incursion, which would.

 

[Fez909]

All the current mutterings and rumours are based around an imminent airstrike, which wouldn't need vastly more resources [and approval?], not a land-based incursion, which would.

You're right about not needing many more resources, but there's still a bit of way to go politically.

The US will wait for the UN to rule on further sanctions this time, IMO, and so they're probably going to push hard for a resolution which authorises force if the next deadline is not adhered to. Can't see China and Russia going for that, though.

And then, there's the extra rhetoric to the American people about how the UN is spineless and the US has to do what is to be done, alone if necessary. So it depends on what happens at home, I reckon. I know everyone is saying Bush is in his last term and cannot be re-elected, so it doesn't matter what people think, but I don't believe this. He'll push public opinion to its lowest that the party can take while still having a good shot at the next presidency, but no further.

 

[TAE]

That analogy doesn't work because it would suggest America was behind Sunni attacks on Shia. They're not. They actually came to Iraq to fight the Sunnis (and many believed the Shia would be happy for that).

Yes, but ...

However, if the Shia in Iran wanted to do something practical to help their Iraqi brothers perhaps they should target the Sunni militias and not the Sunni markets?

... who's to say that the weapons were not supplied specifically for the purpose of defending against the other militia, even if you can question how they are used.

That's assuming the US are not crying wolf again.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> This is all hypothetical. Bush43 is already losing two land wars in Asia and is entering his lame duck period. There is no way in hell he could get the necessary political, financial or military resources necessary to attack Iran.

It's possible that his objective is to bring about a situation where he is in a position to flatten the Iranian Air Force (not much use against the USAF, but perfectly capable of messing up Contra-type forces bent on regime change) and maybe a few other critical bits of the regime's security apparatus.

Assuming that were the case, then what we could be seeing is a ratcheting up of the provocation in an attempt to get the Iranians to give the US a casus belli to justify turning all that high-tech firepower loose 'defensively'.

 

[TAE]

Has it started?

Iranian bombing 'kills 11 people'

"The bomb, hidden in a car, targeted members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard ... Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in broad daylight in an open street."

 

[jiggajagga]

Iranian bombing 'kills 11 people'

"The bomb, hidden in a car, targeted members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard ... Correspondents say an attack of this size and nature is unprecedented in Iran - hitting an elite force in broad daylight in an open street."

Hmmmm! Israeli Mossad under CIA control to ratchet things up a bit perhaps?

 

[Vash]

I can see Bush attacking Iran before the start of the US elections or if he loses he'll probably start a war before he leaves office.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That's not true. Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia aren't happy to see a Shiite country on the verge of getting nukes.

This Sunni Shiite split is one of the reasons that the large Sunni countries like SA and Egypt stayed on the sidelines during the Shiite Hezbollah conflict with Israel in Lebanon.

I find the explanation that the governments of SA and Egypt (a) don't actually give a monkey's about the Lebanese and (b) don't want to see populist groups such as Hezbollah encouraged lest it encourage populist groups in their own countries, which they have trouble enough with right now, more convincing.

Similarly, states with alliances to the US aren't going to be that keen on seeing states outside of that becoming more powerful; it threatens their own interests. The sectarian stuff seems to fall foul of Occam's Razor when you consider the politics.

 

[moono]

jiggajagga, it's a strange bombing;

The Fars news agency said Judallah, a Sunni militant group widely blamed for attacks in the province, had claimed responsibility. Iranian officials branded it a terrorist attack by "insurgents and elements of insecurity". A revolutionary guard commander, Qassim Rezai, told the official IRNA news agency: "Rebels and those who create insecurity, martyred these people in a terrorist act."

He said 18 people had died, though other sources gave a lower figure. Officials said four suspects were arrested, one carrying grenades with which he tried to blow himself up as security forces approached.

The Baztab news website suggested some of those detained were not Iranian.

The province is home to a large ethnic Baluchi Sunni population, which allegedly suffers discrimination at the hands of Iran's Shia majority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2013198,00.html

...not that any bombing is 'normal', lol.

 

[TAE]

FridgeMagnet, does Syria or Iran want to 'encourage populist groups in their own countries' ?

It seems more than a coincidence that these ethnic/religious fault lines match so well. I think the US choice of 'friends' is based partially on who opposes Iran.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

FridgeMagnet, does Syria or Iran want to 'encourage populist groups in their own countries' ?

It seems more than a coincidence that these ethnic/religious fault lines match so well. I think the US choice of 'friends' is based partially on who opposes Iran.

No, I don't think they do either. That's not the be-all and end-all of it though. Syria has influence over Hezbollah and a lot more direct interest in Lebanese current affairs so it's a bit of a different case for them than most other countries. Iran is not allied to the US so has no interest in supporting US policy there, in fact has an interest in opposing it, and I suspect that they don't think that there is a great likelihood of indigenous populist groups taking power. I'm sure both states would have considered the issue though.

I'm not saying that the Sunni/Shiite thing is entirely irrelevant - I just think that it's overplayed in the media (it's been a deliberate tactic by the US administration to both encourage sectarianism and portray Muslims as hopelessly divided and uncivilised and needing the firm hand of authority) and that its effects are probably going to have more to do with historical connections between states and groups than anything else. If it suited the Saudis to support a Shiite group then I'm sure they would.