Iranian operatives suspected in attack in which 5 US soldiers killed

[Jayems]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said.
"People are looking at it seriously," one of the officials said.
That official added the Iranian connection was a leading theory in the investigation into the January 20 attack that killed five soldiers.
The second official said: "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

How will the US spin this? Will this be enough to retaliate?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

Edit:

Thanks mod.

[KTown]

Very sad, I was working in Iran for 3 weeks prior to Christmas.
People are very nice, alot more friendlier than americans.
That being said there is lots of poverty, the ahmadinenejad government does a terrible job of caretaking to there own people.

[mykalberta]

Retaliation, are you kidding me - unless they find an Iranian guard in dress uniform, and alive - there will be no retaliation. If they were to find that person, I hope the Iranians have an air force because if they dont, they would get the shat kicked out of them, no need to waste troops when you have $500K bombs.

At most there might be a couple cluster bombs dropped on a suspected villiage that they might be living in that has no international media coverage.

The Iranian connection is likely a cover stroy to deflect the blame in Iraq from a bunch of lousy Generals who lost their balls in Vietnam and no longer know how to fight a war.

MYK

[Jayems]

Retaliation, are you kidding me - unless they find an Iranian guard in dress uniform, and alive - there will be no retaliation. If they were to find that person, I hope the Iranians have an air force because if they dont, they would get the shat kicked out of them, no need to waste troops when you have $500K bombs.

At most there might be a couple cluster bombs dropped on a suspected villiage that they might be living in that has no international media coverage.

The Iranian connection is likely a cover stroy to deflect the blame in Iraq from a bunch of lousy Generals who lost their balls in Vietnam and no longer know how to fight a war.

MYK

If they prove that Iran is directly responsible for the death of 5 US soldiers, thats just as good as having them in Iranian Army uniform.

[Azure]

The Iranian connection is likely a cover stroy to deflect the blame in Iraq from a bunch of lousy Generals who lost their balls in Vietnam and no longer know how to fight a war.

MYK

Or by a government, Democrat and Republican, who don't have the guts to fight the war in a way where success could actually be achieved.

[mykalberta]

If they prove that Iran is directly responsible for the death of 5 US soldiers, thats just as good as having them in Iranian Army uniform.

Just like they proved there were nuclear weapons in Iraq, a lame duck president isnt going to attack an army likely finanically supported by the Russians and or the Chinese.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Or by a government, Democrat and Republican, who don't have the guts to fight the war in a way where success could actually be achieved.

Agreed and I would say that is the reason except Iraq is just another in a long list of US military failures since Vietnam - the first Iraq war just to name one.

Now yes, that might be blamed on the President/Senate/Congress at the time but Eisenhower and Churchill didnt direct military strategy durring the war, they may not have hamstrung it but they didnt direct it either.

It was the Generals who started to carpet bomb German cities which is what won the war for the Allies.

Generals in Iraq could easily order the same type of thing in Iraq, yes politicians might cut their career short but Generals are men that should be on a different level than everyone else, they should be willing to do what is necessary to win.

MYK

[Azure]

You do realize that politics are playing too much of a role for the troops in Iraq to be able to use their skills properly?

The RoE are pathetic...the US should be on the hunt for militants..not waiting for them to attack.

They seriously need a shoot first and ask questions later attitude, and I'm not talking about carpet bombing a whole neighborhood to take out one terrorist.

War wasn't meant to be some petty game played on politicians terms. The people in the field should be making the decision of how to deal with the threat at hand.

[octothorp]

They've already captured Qod IRGC operatives in Iraq; I think they pretty much know that the IRGC is stirring up crap in Iraq, even before this last attack. The question for the US might end up being not whether they can prove whether Iran is behind these attacks, but whether they can afford to back up those accusations with action. If you take the war to Iran, you leave an already stretched military completely vulnerable (and you're taking on both the IRGC and the Iranian army as well); on the other hand, if you allow the Qod Force to go unchecked, Iraq becomes even more difficult than it already is. This is a situation that could get very ugly very quickly, either way. But since the Qod Force answers directly to the Ayatollah, proof of their presence pretty much indites Iran at the highest levels.

[Azure]

Hmmm...good post.

Unless the US goes for air strikes against Iran, I seriously doubt any sort of action will be taken. I wonder how the American public, the UN, or the EU will react to US allegations that Ayatollah is sending operatives into Iraq, who in turn are killing US soldiers.

[octothorp]

I'm not sure how much of an option air strikes are. It seems like their airforce is definitely one of Iran's few vulnerabilites so airstrikes should succeed, but the IRGC isn't the sort of organization that can be disabled through air strikes. Basically you just hope that you can do enough damage to the country that it'll force high-ranking officials to reign in the Qod Force, but in a worst-case scenario Iran retaliates with airstrikes and tactical Qod Force strikes of their own targeted at US operations inside Iraq, and at some point that escalates into a ground invasion by one side or the other. I think the response will be to stay the course and hope that the situation deflates itself, and honestly in this case it seems to me that would be the best of the available options. Military options aren't favourable, economic sanctions are difficult given Iran's oil situation (and sanctions have proved to be ineffective towards short-term resolution), and the US has decided categorically not to negotiate with Iran (not that this would be effective in the short term, either).

[Cowperson]

and sanctions have proved to be ineffective towards short-term resolution), .

Putting the squeeze on Iran's oil industry . . . . a recent look at internal subsidies, shortages and economic vulnerabilities.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iranoil7jan07,0,4572971.story?coll=la-home-headlines

That being said there is lots of poverty, the ahmadinenejad government does a terrible job of caretaking to there own people.

He appears to be losing his popular support to some extent . . . . hence some of the ruling Mullah's distancing themselves from him or publicly criticizing him in recent weeks. Without them restricting opposition candidates from running against him, he'd have a problem. The results of some recent sub-elections were considered a slap to his face.

We'll see. A country with one product to sell can gravitate between being both powerful and profoundly vulnerable.

Cowperson

[Azure]

God forbid a ground war between the US and Iran. Iraq would be child's play compared to what would happen then. Anyways, I think if the US wants to strike at Iran, they will do so against their nuclear facilities. Either the US or Israel. No need to launch an air strike against military targets...unless we're talking about a full blown war. I wonder how Iran would react.

[CrusaderPi]

God forbid a ground war between the US and Iran. Iraq would be child's play compared to what would happen then. Anyways, I think if the US wants to strike at Iran, they will do so against their nuclear facilities. Either the US or Israel. No need to launch an air strike against military targets...unless we're talking about a full blown war. I wonder how Iran would react.
To what? A full scale war? Or some strikes against their nuclear facilities? Either way I'm guessing the reaction wouldn't be 100% positive.

[Azure]

To strikes against military targets, and not their nuclear facilities. They have to be really, really stupid to think either Israel or the US would just let them proceed freely with their nuclear program. Or just crazy.

[eazyduzzit]

You do realize that politics are playing too much of a role for the troops in Iraq to be able to use their skills properly?

The RoE are pathetic...the US should be on the hunt for militants..not waiting for them to attack.

They seriously need a shoot first and ask questions later attitude, and I'm not talking about carpet bombing a whole neighborhood to take out one terrorist.

War wasn't meant to be some petty game played on politicians terms. The people in the field should be making the decision of how to deal with the threat at hand.

Agreed.

IMO, politics are only hampering efforts over there and directly causing more fatalities, as well as reducing any possible success.

With the American public divided at home, it gives organizations like this the will to carry out these attacks, with a much less fear of retaliation, given the circumstances.

[Calgaryborn]

I wonder if this is being reported as a precursor to closing the
border between the two countries with a buffer zone which would
be a "kill first" zone for anyone found within it. This would cut off
the supplies for the insurgents and limit reinforcements.

If the Iranian border could be closed by air power along the buffer
zone the Syrian border could be controlled(but remain open) by ground troops.

[CaptainCrunch]

I wonder if this is being reported as a precursor to closing the
border between the two countries with a buffer zone which would
be a "kill first" zone for anyone found within it. This would cut off
the supplies for the insurgents and limit reinforcements.

If the Iranian border could be closed by air power along the buffer
zone the Syrian border could be controlled(but remain open) by ground troops.

You can't close a border with airpower, you can deny flights over the border.

You need troops, mines and tanks to close a border, and the American's don't have enough of those to do it right now.

I'd rather they send in a seal team or two to start taking down Iran's leadership.

[Hack&Lube]

That being said there is lots of poverty, the ahmadinenejad government does a terrible job of caretaking to there own people.

And the problem with that, as in much of the Islamic world, that the leaders (often corrupt) blame the problems on the Americans and Isreal instead of owning up to their own shortcomings.