Saudis, US sponsoring covert action against Iran

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by msr, May 7, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

  2. Those are all acts of war.

    Ah well, just have to slot more Spams in the long term.
  3. "Covert" eh? Not now it ain't!

    Still, that will now have the Ayatollahs running round arresting each other!

  4. This is old news; it was precipitated by Hezbollah's victory against Israel. The role Iran has in that organisation, the charisma of Nasrallah as compared to the feckless Saudis plus the increasing influence of the Shia on their border in Iraq, has made the Wahabis increasingly concerned. This is their way of putting Iran back in its box and trying to nullify the so-called "Shia Crescent".

    With regard to the UAE; the Maktoums are not fools and will be playing both Saudi's game and Iran's, the better to ensure that there are no comebacks from either side. Ever wonder why, despite the number of Europeans and availability of alcohol, Dubai has never been subject to AQ's attentions?

    One other thing I heard was the ruler of Qatar was visited by an Iranian trade delegation a little while ago, and was told in no uncertain terms that if Iran was attacked, then they would strike their enemies wherever they might be, and while they regretted attacking a fellow Muslim country, the Al Udeid airbase would be too good a target to pass.

    Al Udeid
  5. So that would be State sponsored terrorism then?
  6. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Funnily enough I was thinking that the Palestinian (previously unheard of) Unity and Striving Brigade who have just kidnapped that BBC reporter where likely to have affiliation with the Unity and Striving group/Jamaat Al-tawheed wal Jihad (that chopped of ken Bigley's head). In the context of these reports it makes a whole heap of sense, but doesn't bode well for the reporter's release...
  7. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I suspect there may be a good deal of truth to elements of this claim.

    Now, why would the septics be enganged in such action, either with or without the help of other gulf states?

    Nobody wants to see such a vast expanse as Iran and Iraq under the same religious banner, let alone controled by one state. That's an awful lot of oil and an awful lot of one religious bias in one awfully large expanse of land that might consider itself awfully powerful and able to dictate not only regional events with force, but also world oil prices.

    The US see it as its job to firstly dish out some payback to Iran for the subversive and deadly attacks against its troops in Iraq, and also to create instability in Iran with the hope of fomenting internal divisions and keep the ayatollahs busy. The message might be that two can play at that game. Considering the dangerous ideologies of the hard-core religious fanatics at the back of the Iranian presidency, plus their anti-western bias and their proprensity to not only interefere in the backyards of other countries, but to actively support terrorism, the US is IMHO well within its rights to ensure the two countries don't get together for a big love-in, and thereby start throwing their combined weight around.

    It might and probably does find willing participants in the ME who are of different religious groups or tribes and who have every reason to feel threatened by any meeting of ideologies between two very large and neighboring countries.

    If Iraq and Iran get controlled by one religious group, that being Shia, with all the enormous oil wealth, then the Sunnies, Wahabies and anyone else around the ME have a lot to fear in terms of their national security.
  8. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Now I might be wrong on this one...but didn't the last time America sponsored such activity and/or pulled puppet's strings (i.e. against 'the godless commies') end up rather messilly i.e. T.W.O.T and precipitating events?
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    That may be true to some extent, but they also did it rather succesfully in Afghan - some might say too succesfully if you look at the Talibani successor to the mujahideen! It sure put the Ruskies back in their box though eh?

    There will always be a legitimate place for covert warfare, whether this be covert invasions, gummint toppling or counter-insurgency. One could perhaps argue that to some extent, any US action in Iran, whether direct or indirect is a counter-inurgency operation and therefore legitimate. Depending upon the effectiveness of such action, it might even get Iran to either back-off a little or lower their demands at the bargaining table.

    You simply have to look at just about any country in the world today to see that at some point, they've engaged in that very type of warfare in the backyards of other countries. The cold war was fought in a 'hot' way by proxy in many countries. Vietnam started as a war-by-proxy that was rather dirty after the French got a kicking, but they then went in directly and screwed it up. Afghanistan was left pretty much as a proxy war and turned out succesfully at the time, albeit that it then turned around to bite the US on the arrse when ol' Osama set up camp there.

    It might even be said that the US funding of Israel to the tune of 2 billion $ per annum is not merely a magnanimous gesture, but a deliberate ploy to keep a 'spoiler' in place (plus the Jewish lobby of course).

    Let's also remember that Iran, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others have all engaged in wars-by-proxy, subversion, counter-insurgencies and hot wars to further their own ends.
  10. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Concur with you entirley, really puts T.W.O.T in perspective though, 'nasty salafi jihadists' post the coldwar become an asset again as soon as the US designates a state as an enemy. To be be honest the US seriously jumped the gun in their response to 911; the political overstretch resulting from T.W.O.T. effectively means they can't use their machine against they use the 'jihadists'...even Shakespeare would have shied from such an unbelievable they say...'you couldn't write it'.