9/11: The New Pearl Harbour: What Really Happened on September 11, 2001? - buy the book here (special offer)

US trying to provoke war with Iran

The US military is trying to start a war with Iran, and they have been caught trying to use the UK to do the dirty work for them.

In July last year the US military commander in Iraq ordered thousands of British troops to launch a full-scale attack on Iranian positions at the border with Iran. If the British commander had not broken the chain of command by blocking the orders, it is likely that the allies would now be at war with Iran.

The US has tried to use the UK to trigger conflicts in the past. Last time, during the Balkans war in the 1990s, the British commander, Gen Jackson, refused to attack Russian positions, and is quoted as protesting: "I am not going to start World War Three for you." The US could have engaged the enemy themselves on both occasions when the UK refused, but apparently they would prefer to wait until somebody else is stupid enough to do the dirty-work for them.

A recent open memorandum published by the Project for the New American Century under the title "Regime Change for Iran" makes it clear what the agenda is for Iran. PNAC is a powerful group which claims to "advise" the US government on policy and strategy, but its members actually happen to be the decision-makers themselves.

Iran is currently surrounded by American and British forces on both sides, with US-occupied Iraq on its Western border and US-occupied Afghanistan on its Eastern border.


Daily Telegraph (UK), "Attack Iran, US chief ordered British", 30 June 2004.
[ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wiran30.xml ]
    America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.
    An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.
    "If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday.
    "We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear."
    The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today's edition of Defence Analysis. The identity of the officer is not given.
    "Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.
    The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.
    Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions.
    The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.
    The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.
    When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."
    The Iran-Iraq incident lasted around a week and was resolved by a telephone conversation between Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Kamal Kharrazi, his Iranian counterpart, British officials said.
    "It did look rather nasty at the time," one official said. "But we were always confident it was a mistake and could be resolved by diplomatic means. We got in touch with Baghdad and said, 'Don't do anything silly; we are talking to the Iranians.' "
    While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said.
    The Revolutionary Guard was believed to be behind the seizure of eight Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel last week after they strayed across the disputed border between Iraq and Iran.
    The eight men, who were delivering patrol boats to the Iraqi riverine patrol service, were released - but not before they were paraded blindfolded on Iranian television.

PNAC, "Regime Change for Iran", 24 February 2004.
[ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm ]
    We would like to draw your attention to the following op-ed by Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani in yesterday's Wall Street Journal ("Solidarity with Iran"). In the face of Iranian clerics' assault on the democratic process leading up to Iran's recent parliamentary elections, the authors argue that it is time for the Bush administration to demonstrate that its commitment to democracy in the Middle East extends to U. S. policy toward Iran.


Washington Times (US), "Commentary: Israel to bomb Iran?", 2 June 2004.
[ http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040701-042335-4421r.htm ]
    Washington, DC, Jul. 2 (UPI) -- As the Bush Administration concludes it cannot risk Iranian retaliation against a fragile Iraq under U.S. occupation, Israel is dusting off contingency plans to take out Iran's nuclear installations.
    A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized "all appropriate means" to put an end to Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for an offensive military strikes against Iran's three nuclear facilities.
    The worldwide reaction against a U.S. attack on Iran's theocratic regime would almost certainly put an end to growing moderate dissent. Rival Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (headquarters for the U.S. 5th Fleet) would close ranks against U.S. interests. America's allies would denounce a return to dangerous U.S. unilateralism after President Bush's recent moves back to multilateral diplomacy.

"The Insider" mailing list article, 01 July 2004.

From (your email):   
To: (their email): 

Tags: Iran, border, war, attack, invade, Iranian, oil, Iraq, , conspiracy theories.

Copyright 2022 The Insider.

This service is provided on our standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To inquire about advertising and sponsorship or permission to reproduce material from The Insider, please contact us.