Washington, Baghdad silent on Iraq border conflict

[stillcool]

Source: Earthtimes

- Feature
Posted : Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:11:04 GMT
Ankara - On Iraq's northern border, Turkey and Iran have a common enemy in their sights. The armies of both countries are engaged in conflict with around 7,000 Kurdish militants who, tolerated by the government of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, are entrenched in the mountainous frontier region.

The militants belong to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), outlawed in Turkey, and the Party for Freedom and Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) from Iran.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iranian artillery fire targeting suspected PJAK positions in the provinces of Sulaymanyah and Arbil is heard almost on a daily basis. Yet on the political front, the conflict is little heard of. Few seem to be troubled by this border war, save for the residents of Kurdish villages who have been forced to flee their homes.
In contrast to the ongoing car bombing campaign targeting markets, bridges and barracks in the Iraqi capital, the violence in the north seems to be little more than a sideshow to the main conflict for the politicians in the capital.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in Washington, where any interference by Iran in Iraqi affairs normally results in accusations and warnings from the Bush administration, any opposition to the Iranian attacks on the border region remains firmly behind closed doors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Turkish army has massed 10,000 troops along the Iraqi frontier and readied for a major offensive, it has so far engaged only in minor missions. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears committed to a policy of restraint.

Copyright, respective author or news agency

Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/101088.html

[stillcool]

1. map..

[stillcool]

2. god, I get so confused....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2007/0226sowchaos.htm

US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran
By William Lowther and Colin Freeman
Telegraph
February 26, 2007

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph. His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made. Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money. A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime. The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2007/0226sowchaos.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran
By Heather Wokusch*
Common Dreams
February 18, 2006

Witnessing the Bush administration’s drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it’s official: under orders from Vice President Cheney’s office, the Pentagon has developed “last resort” aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons. How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to “go anywhere and see anything,” yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.
Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros. Bush crosses them at his nation’s peril. Yet another danger is that an attack on Iran could set off a global arms race - if the US flaunts the non-proliferation treaty and goes nuclear, there would be little incentive for other countries to abide by global disarmament agreements either. Besides, the Bush administration’s message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you’re safe, and if you don’t, you’re fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn’t as well and risks attack, yet that other “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. It’s also hard to justify striking Iran over its allegedly developing a secret nuclear weapons program, when India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) did the same thing and remain on good terms with Washington.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating “bunker buster” bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous. Given what’s at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it’s doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council.

Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey’s crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there’s been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be “informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened” and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran “on the day in question.”

It’s intriguing that both Valerie Plame (the CIA agent whose identity was leaked to the media after her husband criticized the Bush administration’s pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq) and Sibel Edmonds (the former FBI translator who turned whistleblower) have been linked to exposing intelligence breaches relating to Turkey, including potential nuclear trafficking. And now both women are effectively silenced.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2006/0218ww3.htm

PAKISTAN: Taliban Taunt Musharraf by Detaining His Soldiers
By Ashfaq Yusufzai

PESHAWAR, Sep 1 (IPS)
-------------------------
On Thursday, the Taliban audaciously abducted more than 150 soldiers in the volatile South Waziristan Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs). And on Friday another 30 soldiers who were members of a convoy, were taken prisoner, a local journalist from Wana, South Waziristan, told IPS.

"You don’t see any law enforcer in FATA, especially after sunset. The militants hold the real authority," said Zulfiqar Ali, who reports from the area and knows it well. He speculated that the fact that the militants could seize and hold such a large number of soldiers indicated their size and strength and said it was possible that the government had already lost control of the tribal areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug.9 militants abducted 16 security personnel from Bannu. Three days later, they beheaded one of the hostages and released a video-tape of the barbaric killing that was carried out by a child fighter, in a blatant show of disregard for human rights laws that prohibit the enlisting of child soldiers.

"Release of the horrible video footage of the abducted soldiers is meant to compel law enforcers to stay away from their fight with Musharraf," said Dr Said Alam Mahsud, an intellectual based in South Waziristan.

At the start of the U.S.-led war on terrorism in early 2002 Musharraf enjoyed support in the FATA. But this faded fast because of heavy casualties suffered by the local population in aerial attacks launched by the U.S. army from across the border in Afghanistan, and backed by the Pakistan army, said Rakhshanda Naz, resident director of the Aurat Foundation, a non-governmental organisation (NGO).

She said that frightened locals have turned against the army since the attacks had targeted innocent women and children. U.S. forces claim that the Taliban, following their ouster from power in Kabul late 2001, had found shelter among pro-Taliban groups in the FATA and NWFP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation in the border areas seems to be tilting against Musharraf. "The endless string of suicide bombings on the army, policemen and pro-Musharraf politicians is a clear indication that he is losing control," Parveen Begum of the NGO AWAZ told IPS. She says that the reported beheadings of alleged U.S. spies by militants is part of the anti-Musharraf campaign.

(END/2007)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39112

POLITICS: Bush Indictment of Iran Tops Usual Rhetoric
Analysis by Trita Parsi*

WASHINGTON, Aug 29 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration has seemingly taken advantage of the Congressional recess to escalate tensions with Iran.

Earlier in August, the State Department revealed plans to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a global terrorist organisation. On Tuesday, in a speech to U.S. war veterans in Nevada, President Bush raised the temperature further by declaring his intent to "confront Tehran's murderous activities" in Iraq.

But what on the surface may appear as business as usual in the war of words between Tehran and Washington may in reality repeat an earlier pattern widely suspected to have been aimed at provoking war with Iran.

With Congress gearing up for a fight with the White House on the surge policy in Iraq, President Bush has arguably many reasons to talk up tensions with Iran. Focusing on Iran may help deflect attention away from the surge strategy's failure to turn the tide in Iraq. It can also help convince Congress that Iran is responsible for U.S. misfortunes in Iraq and that cutting the funds for the war would embolden the clergy in Tehran.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39061

[xchrom]

3. kick -- this is very important.

thanks for the maps.