Did Iran Invade Iraq?

The blogosphere has buzzed since last night about a report that Iran has invaded southern Iraq and stunned the British contingent there. If true, it would provide a cassus belli for Coalition partners, including the US, to respond with military force against the mullahcracy in Teheran. However, the sourcing on this story leaves something to be desired (via Memeorandum):

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain’s defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on “intelligence matters”.
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: “It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran — but nobody has officially declared it.”
“We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot.”
The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

If the Sun has it right, it would probably force Britain to stay in southern Iraq far past their announced withdrawal date. They would almost have to respond, given the criticism over the capture of their 15 sailors and Marines a few months ago, and that would require them not only to stay but to broaden their forces in the region first. It would also require the US to assist them in that response, or possibly to take charge of it. And since the Coalition has UN backing for its operations in Iraq, it would force the UN to at least sanction Iran for its attack.
That’s why this makes little sense. The British will leave southern Iraq shortly. Iran doesn’t need to chase them out, and as the above scenario demonstrates, they have more to lose than to gain in an invasion anyway. Why commit their military to touching off another border war with Iraq, in the region most sympathetic to them anyway, and undermining the Shi’ite government in Baghdad that has remained friendly with Teheran?
In reading the story, the issue becomes clear — the Sun reported it. For those who don’t know the British press, the Sun is a rough equivalent to the National Enquirer here in the US. They get some stories right, but far too often, they blow things out of proportion or just get entire stories completely wrong. It’s not a reliable media outlet, except for those whose primary purpose in buying the paper is to see scantily-clad women, a market in which they excel.
The Sun could have gotten this word from senior British military officials, as they report, but consider this point. If you were a senior British military official who wanted to warn the nation and the world of the Iranian hordes streaming towards your positions, would you pick up the phone and call the Sun — or would you call the Times of London?
I’ll wait for better confirmation, myself.

16 thoughts on “Did Iran Invade Iraq?”

  1. The Iranians have crossed the border before: it’s poorly marked, and it’s easy to claim you didn’t know, or that you’re still on your own territory. Before the Iranians humiliated the British by capturing their marines, they tried the same thing with an American patrol along the border, baiting them by crossing to the Iraqi side and then claiming we were violating Iranian space. (Big difference: we fought back.) My guess is that the Sun report is accurate at its core –the Iranians did cross the border– but the rest is typical tabloid sensationalism

  2. The story sounds fishy. “The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources”. Well, fine, but it would take an F-16 just a few minutes to show up and end the careers of those choppers. Oh, and make life miserable for any troops they were attached to.
    So, are the Brits acting so cautious that they won’t take such an action, or request one from their US allies?

  3. I have read that the Sun has the largest circulation of any English language newspaper in the world. But let’s follow the 24 hour rule.

  4. Skepticism toward the Sun’s uncorroborated reporting is sound policy. But regarding the Captain’s point that an Iranian incursion makes little sense, an article in yesterday’s Opinion Journal is a virtual catalog of strategic blunders by radical Islamists, drawn against a broader historical perspective. The emphasis being not on their likelihood, but their result.
    Then there’s the Iranian seizure of the 15 British sea(persons?), despite an earlier repulsed attack by the Iranians on an Australian boat using the same tactic. A priori logic might have ruled out such a foolhardy ploy on the Brits’ boat. And that thinking could have contributed mightily to the predicament in which the 15 found themselves.
    Not to get too far ahead of what may prove to be a bogus story, but if confirmed, would it be unreasonable to ponder the possibility of a link between the two incidents? What’s Farsi for “Operation Probing Mohammed”?

  5. And come to think of it, in these days of GPS and GLONASS navigation satellites, the “poorly marked” border (what’s required, ‘No Trespassing’ signs at half-mile intervals?) is a non-issue. An incursion of 50 feet or so is easily and instantly measured. And even Iranians can afford cheap GPS receivers.

  6. The Sun isn’t exactly what I’d call a credible source. The two soldiers they cite in that report as being killed by the Iranians died in an IED attack 5 weeks ago. Not exactly breaking news. Our side has been making these allegations for years now and then sort of retracting them.
    Lately it seems Al Qaeda is everywhere in Iraq and even Gaza if you believe the media. Maybe today it’s Iran’s turn. Fact is 81% of Iraqis think killing coalition soldiers is justified. There’s somewhere between 250,000 to 1,000,000 metric tonnes of munitions in caches all over Iraq. Guerilla war is Saddam’s revenge, his WMD and Iraqis don’t really need any help killing Americans or Brits. If the Iranians are it’s probably just becuse they can.

  7. don’t assume rationality on the part of the mullahs. I just re-read Michael Oren’s Six Days of War. Dictators often miscalculate. It may be the Iranians have become convinced, reading the media, that the West will never respond militarily to provocation from Iran. If they believe that, they could feel free to do almost anything, and they might be acting mainly in response to domestic power concerns. Miscalculations based on false impression of weakness often lead to BIG wars.

  8. Skepticism toward the Sun’s uncorroborated reporting is sound policy. But regarding the Captain’s point that an Iranian incursion makes little sense, an article in yesterday’s Opinion Journal is a virtual catalog of strategic blunders by radical Islamists, drawn against a broader historical perspective.
    Then there’s the Iranian seizure of the 15 British sea(persons?), despite an earlier repulsed attack by the Iranians on an Australian boat using the same tactic. A priori logic might have ruled out such a foolhardy ploy on the Brits’ boat. And that thinking could have contributed mightily to the predicament in which the 15 found themselves.
    Not to get too far ahead of what may prove to be a bogus story, but if confirmed, would it be unreasonable to ponder the possibility of a link between the two incidents? Viewed as a probe, the
    British response in the Gulf was not particularly Nelsonesque.

  9. The assumption is always made that terrorists working for Hamas, or in Hizbollah, or Iran are acting on official orders to do what they’re doing.
    I think, on the other hand, that these people not only are murderous but are probably mentally deficient and/or certifiably insane in many ways, and are a bunch of loose cannons.
    Hamas going on a rampage against Fatah may have just been terrorists having fun with each other, and the product of NO actual plan for the future.
    Iranians entering Iraq may be the same. I still haven’t heard a good reason why Iran keeps trying to kidnap Westerners, so if there are certifiable Iranians probing into Iraq, why couldn’t this be an Arab way of playing cowboys and Indians, and having a little bit of fun. The culture *does* have a long rich history of conducting raids on each other, just like our Indians used to “count coup” — the Iranians may be counting coup, unbenownst to the Mad Mullah’s.

  10. I think you are too critical of the Sun. The comparison with national Enquirer is way off beam, I think.
    The Sun has a strong reputation for scoops, usually accurate, but its political sense has been extremely “in touch” with British sentiment for decades now. Its Political Editor ranks with any political journalist in the UK. The Sun literally broke 3 Labour election campaigns against Thatcher – and it was a large influence in getting Blair elected after “We The People” became disenchanted with Thatcher’s heirs.
    I regard the Times as a waffly and wobbly source of news. Not much more reliable than the BBC, frankly. The great days of the London Times being the newspaper of record are long gone. And in any event, the Times and the Sun are in the same Murdoch/News Corp empire.
    If I were in the Brit military and I wanted something as serious as this to be highlighted, I would go straight to the Sun – not to the Times.

  11. In the Northern Kurd territories, the Iranian’s have made several incursions into the region for the stated reason of chasing down the MEK. In the South, the Brit’s reported almost open border-crossings as vehicles are literally waved through the Iran-Iraq checkpoints, If this incident did indeed occur, it was probably more on the order of a personnel insertion or removal operation, maybe even some type of supply/re-supply effort, but it would only be an invasion in the strictest definition of the term. For that matter, they’ve already invaded the country and are only continuing to do so.
    I would suggest that were there to be anything of what we would consider an invasion, a medium to large insertion of forces into the area, the most logical time would be in September, or sometime thereafter, when the Dem’s do their full-court press for withdrawal. The Dem’s would see and portray such action – which I must add are quite consist with this type of warfare – as justifiable on part of the Iranian’s for Bush’s transgressions into the region. More self-deluded evidence for the ‘Why US Forces Must Retreat.’
    The best friends the Mullah’s have at this point are our own Democrat’s and the Left. If the American Left aren’t seen to be doing the heavy-lifting or should they fail, then; yes, we should expect to see an invasion on one pretext or another. Take a trip down Memory Lane and review our responses to Iranian actions that have been outright Acts or War. Tehran can literally do whatever they want, including providing both the materials and forces for killing our forces, knowing full well they will not be taken to task.
    At such a time that the Iranian’s feel comfortable with pushing us out of the region and for extra points doing so militarily, there won’t be any question of whether there was an invasion or not, we’ll be picking our noses and listening to Democrat’s screeching about the End of the World, World War 4, lest we do as demanded by the Iranian’s and all because of those warmongering NeoCon’s. They’ve(the Dem’s/Left) as much strength, care for our National Security and resolve as Scott’s Toilet Paper immersed in a toilet, Safe and approved for Cesspools©.

  12. Just some additional FYI:
    While serving in Iraq in 2005, I recall a conversation I had with a friend who had just completed an inspection of an Army installation located just a few miles from the Iranian border, and he told me that during his week-long stay the FOB went on several full alerts for a possible Iranian “Special Forces” attack. Apparently, due to the nature of this FOB’s mission, he was told the Iranians were known to be actively rehearsing for an assault on their base.
    When I looked at my friend skeptically, he shrugged his shoulders and said he was equally dubious until they had their first alert and saw some very serious-looking soldiers scramble to man their positions.
    Anecdotal, yes… but I don’t doubt my friend’s account one bit.
    One of these days the Iranians will intentionally provoke “another” serious incident with us (beyond what they’ve already done over the past 20+ years). And whether it’ll be or won’t be a “miscalculation” will depend heavily on who’ll be in the White House at the time.

  13. It would depend on how likely the Times of London are to report it. If they won’t I would tell whoever would listen.

  14. On the contrary, you assume Iran does not want war? When they have countlessly stated the only way to the Mahdi is through chaos and war. Not to mention that at this time of gas rationing, they need diversion for the people to stop blowing up gas stations. and to maintain the need and exclusive use of military majority use of gasoline in their country as well. And truely they do not want UK to back out of this war, that would give pressure for America to back out as well.

Comments are closed.