On Thursday, U.S. troops, backed by helicopters, raided an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. The soldiers “detained” six workers and “confiscated” documents and computers. This is, perhaps, the first instance of direct U.S. military action against Iran in years, and so represents a significant escalation in what can only be described as the slow, steady march to war.
A U.S. statement makes no mention of the Iranian consulate, merely noting that six people were taken into custody in the course of “routine security operations”. The Iranians have appealed to the Iraqi government to obtain the release of the staffers, as happened in December, when it expelled back to Iran two senior Iranian agents detained by the U.S. on suspicion of gun-running and planning sectarian attacks, much to the Americans’ annoyance.
An anonymous senior U.S. military official at the Pentagon has denied that the building was a consulate, as did Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, but this is hardly credible. Iraqi, Kurdish and Iranian officials all describe the building as a consulate. A Kurdish official recalled how American forces “disarmed the Kurdish guards of the consulate and used force to enter the building”. As a consulate, the building enjoyed diplomatic immunity, and in attacking it the U.S. violated international law. Since the raid was illegal, the six Iranian workers were not “detained” by the U.S.; they were abducted.
Iran, correctly, issued a “strong condemnation of the US forces’ action which was against all international regulations.” Even the Kurdish government, normally very supportive of U.S. policy, condemned the move and demanded an immediate release of the detainees in a statement from regional president Massud Barzani’s office, which read, “The presidency and the government of the Kurdish region of Iraq express their disapproval of the operation against the Iranian consulate” .
The anonymous Pentagon official cited above went on to describe the captives as “suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces.” Similarly, national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe defended the operation, stating:
“If we get information that is actionable that the Iranians are interfering with Iraq, with Iraqis, or in any way going to harm Americans that (sic) we’re going to take action…The president made it clear last night that we will not tolerate outside interference in Iraq. And that’s what the Iranians are up to.”
That is, of course, a ludicrous display of hypocrisy – the U.S. will not tolerate “outside interference” in Iraq? Is that a joke? The U.S. illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 contrary to the wishes of the majority of the world’s population and currently has over 130,000 troops stationed there. Despite the fact that a vast majority of both Iraqis and Americans want the occupation to end (so much so that most Iraqis support attacks against Coalition troops), President Bush recently announced an escalation, planning to send another 21,500 soldiers to Iraq. Does this not count as “outside interference”? Moreover, if American officials argue that Iran’s “interference” (which is undoubtedly on a smaller scale than the U.S.’ ) justifies an illegal attack on Iranian property and the abduction of Iranian diplomatic workers, surely Iran is entitled to “detain” American troops and civilians in Iraq, too? By the logic of Bryan Whitman and Gordon Johndroe, Iran is entitled to barge into the American super-embassy still under construction in Baghdad, steal documents and computers and kidnap American workers.
The incident occurs after President Bush, in a delusional and nonsensical 20-minute speech to the nation, declared once again that he would not be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group by engaging in diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and would instead move to confront them. In the speech, Bush described how Iran is “providing material support” to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, before promised that the U.S. would “seek out and destroy” those responsible for providing “advanced weaponry” to the America’s “enemies” in Iraq. Not very subtle, George. This is just the latest in a long series of violent threats the Bush administration has made against Iran. Bush made clear that he that he has no time for specifics, nuance, reality – rather, he supposedly believes the West is currently engaged in a grand conflict between civilisation and barbarism, democracy and dictatorship, freedom and oppression, good and evil. Or, as he put it, the “decisive ideological struggle of our time”. Of course, it’s bullshit – the conflict has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with economic hegemony, but the `clash of civilisations’ rhetoric allows Bush to justify the utter contempt with which he is treating the fundamental principle that states should use dialogue rather than force to solve disputes.
Meanwhile, Condoleeza Rice joined in the chorus of barely-veiled threats against Iran. “We will do what is necessary for force protection”, she said. “Networks are identified. They are identified from intelligence and they are acted upon . . . whatever the nationality.” Rice also stressed that she would meet with Iran’s leadership “any time, anywhere”, once it halts its uranium enrichment programme. That’s the Bush administration’s version of the `carrot-and-stick’ approach to diplomacy: if you surrender, we will deign to speak with you (the carrot); if you don’t, we will bomb you (the stick). It’s not a conventional interpretation of negotiations, for sure – after all, once Iran has surrendered, what would there be to talk about?
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen, Peter Pace, referring to the raid on the Iranian consulate, repeated the mantra: Tehran’s involvement in Iraq is “destructive…They are complicit…and we will do what is necessary (my emphasis).”
President Bush has accompanied these threats by ordering yet another aircraft carrier and its supporting fleet of battleships to the Persian Gulf, within quick sailing distance of Iran. Mr Bush also announced the deployment of Patriot missiles in the gulf, in addition to the battery already stationed in Qatar.
What is becoming clearer and clearer, with every speech and every threat and every military escalatation, is that, in the words of William Arkin, Bush is “willing…to go to war with Syria and Iran”. Said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to Condoleeza Rice,
“You cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand — but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border”.
Even Republicans in the heart of government are voicing their concerns over a future war with Iran that is looking more likely by the day. Their fear is justified. To allow Bush to drag the U.S. into yet another Middle Eastern war, even as American forces are currently embroiled in a devastating occupation of Iraq, would be disastrous. We must not let him do it.
Cross-posted at The Heathlander
