Persia invades Northern Iraq!

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 04:14

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727088

Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.

The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran.

A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.

Turkey has long had a limited military presence in northern Iraq, and US special forces began moving into the region several months ago. The Badr brigade has been trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and could be regarded as a proxy force of the Iranian government.

Iranian officials insist that force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up.

Ayatollah Hakim's forces had previously been based in southern Iran, close to Iraq. Two months ago they began moving into the area of northern Iraq governed by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two Kurdish parties that rule an area the size of Switzerland outside Baghdad's control.

A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, said the presence of Ayatollah Hakim's troops was defensive and aimed at countering a possible attack on Iran by the People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO), an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq and strongly supported by President Saddam Hussein.

Another official said the Badr force had moved into an area near Darbandikhan, a depopulated and rugged stretch of hills and ravines about 15 miles from the closest point on the Iranian border.

The MKO used Iraqi territory to mount attacks on Iran during the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq. The Kurdish parties controlling northern Iraq have also expressed fears that Mr Hussein would try to use the MKO against them in the event of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Ayatollah Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), a mainly Shia Muslim group that fought in the failed 1991 uprising against Baghdad in southern Iraq. More recently Sciri has taken part in talks between the Iraqi opposition and the US.

His office in Tehran denied that the Badr brigade had moved into northern Iraq but said Sciri had maintained forces in that region for several years, gathered from Iraqi Shia who had fled the Iraqi regime. A representative of the PUK also denied there had been a recent movement across the border but confirmed a presence of Sciri forces.
-------------------------
What do you think the ramifications of this could be? The start of a general middle-eastern war?

Shi Huangdi · February 20, 2003, 04:17

Iran seems to be interfering with the US plan for total victory in Iraq. If need be, Iran's forces can be removed. Iran is a state that sponsors and supports terrorism and is probably somewhere high on our list anyway.

Of course, since these officialy are not Iranian troops but Iraqi fundamentalists, we are still perfectly within our bound to smash them in the event of a war.

Berzerker · February 20, 2003, 04:23

Hmm...I suppose if we can invade Iraq because we are worried about WMD, maybe Iran thinks it can too.

Or maybe this is a US plot to start a shooting war so the UN can't keep screwing Bush, hehe.

Ramo · February 20, 2003, 04:52

Hmmm.. I wonder if the Persians'll eventually attack the Abbasid Caliphate from their new stronghold in Armenia. Maybe the Franks'll even start a Crusade against the Persians!

Seriously, this is one of the reasons that there won't be democracy in Iraq post-Saddam. There would be a massive civil war, and some of the pro-Shia factions would be Iranian satellites.

Urban Ranger · February 20, 2003, 05:28

Dubya's invasion plan is falling apart at the seams.

Lancer · February 20, 2003, 05:32

Iran is next anyway.

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:02

I wonder if Bush will start a war with Persia to get them out of Northern Iraq? Will there be conflict with Persia and the Kurds or Turks?

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 06:06

Why do you keep calling them "Persia"?

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:07

Because it's such a cooler name than Iran. Plus Iran is so similar to Iraq it may cause confusion. Persia is way better on every front.

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
Because it's such a cooler name than Iran. Plus Iran is so similar to Iraq it may cause confusion. Persia is way better on every front.

Iran sounds more modern.

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Iran sounds more modern.

Iran is just a trend. Persia was it's most commonly used name until about 30-40 years ago (maybe less!). I think in light of this Iraq crisis, people will realize what a better name Persia really is and finally drop this whole silly "Iran" thing once and for good.

monolith94 · February 20, 2003, 06:13

no, it sounds like a bug.

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

Iran is just a trend. Persia was it's most commonly used name until about 30-40 years ago (maybe less!). I think in light of this Iraq crisis, people will realize what a better name Persia really is and finally drop this whole silly "Iran" thing once and for good.

IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN!

Lancer · February 20, 2003, 06:15

Iran is on the 'axis of evil'. Send troops, not send troops, it doesn't make any difference.

Prediction... after Iraq is finished, Syria will be added to the AoE.

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN! IRAN!

I order you cease this display of fascist, revisionist doctrine comrade.

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Iran is on the 'axis of evil'. Send troops, not send troops, it doesn't make any difference.

Prediction... after Iraq is finished, Syria will be added to the AoE.

Isn't Syria already on the second tier of the axis of evil? With it's evil compatriots Cuba and Libya? I sort of forgot who was the second tier after all this time, I could be mistaken.

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 06:19

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider

I order you cease this display of fascist, revisionist doctrine comrade.

OK Comrade.....

Drake Tungsten · February 20, 2003, 06:21

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Persia invades Northern Mesopotamia"?

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 06:23

Grr, Persia is nowhere near as anachronistic as the Franks, or Nippon or Mesopotamia or any of that other stuff.

Persia was *THE* name to use until about thirty or fourty years ago. And it is still the name of choice for some of the more enlightened amongst us.

Drake Tungsten · February 20, 2003, 06:30

What's anachronistic about Nippon? It's just a variation of Nihon, which is still what the Japanese call their nation...

Ramo · February 20, 2003, 06:39

They really ought to start calling themselves Aryans.

KrazyHorse · February 20, 2003, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Iran is next anyway.