Thursday, January 11, 2007
Payback: The United States grabs an Iranian consulate
Andy McCarthy, with much justification, does not believe that we are actually going to increase the heat on Iran sufficiently to coerce or motivate the Islamic Republic into backing away from the war it has been waging against the United States for 27 years. Unfortunately, he tends to be right about these things. However, that does not make me any less entertained that American troops have seized the Iranian consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan:
US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.
The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.
The US military would only confirm the detention of six people around Irbil.
I think we should release them in 444 days.
Last night, the president finally stated what we all knew to be true, that Iran has been waging war against the United States. As Andy McCarthy writes, it is far from clear that we will live up to this acknowledgement by acting as though there is a war going on. Going after Iranians inside Iraq is a damned good start, though.
34 Comments:
By 
Georg Felis, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:07:00 AM:
-- US troops would not have raided the consulate unless they were 99.999% sure they were going to get critical information, particularly with all the focus on intelligence failures as of late.
-- 90% of what we captured in the raid will never be seen on CBS/NBC/NPR... Therefore they will declare it a failure and a thoughtless provocation of our future ally, Iran.
-- 70% of the American people will not see the irony of the Iranian government headed by Ahmadinejad complaining about their diplomatic grounds being invaded.
I predict another surge. The Iranian prisoner population at Club Gitmo.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:34:00 AM:
I haven't seen the story. I hesitate to ask here, but...has a reason been giving why we would storm a sovereign nation's consulate and hold its staff presumably against their will?
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 11, 11:15:00 AM:
Oh my.
what do you think Dan? What reasons come to your mind?
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Jan 11, 12:15:00 PM:
why we would storm a sovereign nation's consulate and hold its staff presumably against their will?
Bootleg Britney Spears CD's. They had millions of'em in there.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jan 11, 12:36:00 PM:
"Bootleg Britney Spears CD's. They had millions of'em in there."
I hope Madonna doesn't hear about it. She might crucify those guys.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 11, 12:43:00 PM:
Michael Jackson in disguise perhaps,
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 11, 01:47:00 PM:
And now you see why I hesitated to ask...
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jan 11, 02:16:00 PM:
Even God has a sense of humor, Dan. Otherwise, God never would have permitted the clowns on the political left to exist.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 11, 02:27:00 PM:
I dunno about God's sense of humor, but I do believe that God has a sense of Irony.
By Dan Trabue, at
Thu Jan 11, 02:57:00 PM:
Unfortunately, the Neocons are out there doing their best to kill off irony...
By skipsailing, at
Thu Jan 11, 03:06:00 PM:
Jeeze dan is there anything in this world you won't blame on the neocons?
My theory about the Iranian consulate is this: our guys in Irbil were just sick of the guys in B-dad getting all the attention. so the decided to enliven thier otherwise dreary evening by triggering an international incident.
By , at
Thu Jan 11, 03:46:00 PM:
You can bet that the liberal will squeal like stuck pigs over this but remember back in 1979 those rotten thugs there in iran this is pay back time iran
By Escort81, at
Thu Jan 11, 03:48:00 PM:
Reading the BBC article by clicking on TH's link, it's not completely clear that the building was a consulate in any kind of official sense:
"Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees.
The US military said it was still investigating, but that the building did not have diplomatic status...
Irbil lies in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north, about 350km (220 miles) from the capital Baghdad. Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits."
I am not sure of the degree of federalism that currently exists under the new Iraqi constitution, but I would think that Baghdad (and not just the "Kurdish regional government") would have to sign off on the status of a consulate for it to be official and therefore be protected under international law. Could Gov. Corzine OK a Swedish consulate in Princeton without clearing it with the State Department in D.C.?
Sounds to me as though there were a handful of Iranian intelligence types renting a shabby office as a home base for operations in Irbil and in the Kurdish dominated provinces generally, and the U.S. forces decided enough was enough. It is hardly the same as taking over an embassy (considered to be part of the sovereign territory of the nation) or a true consulate that represents the economic interests of a country and acts as a satellite office of the embassy.
The timing of it is hardly coincidental. I think 0100 GMT was actually an hour before Bush's speech, but essentially simultaneous.
By Escort81, at
Thu Jan 11, 05:12:00 PM:
The AP story characterizes it as follows:
"As Bush spoke in Washington, U.S.-led multinational forces detained five Iranians in an overnight raid on Tehran's diplomatic mission in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, local officials said. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini denounced the raid, saying it reflected a "continuation of pressure" on Iran, aiming to "create tension" between Iraq and its neighbors."
Ripper, the chances of an invasion of Iran or Syria are pretty small if Tehran gets the message and backs off for a while, and then goes back to business as usual. If the mullahs step up the violence in Iraq that is directed by Iranian intelligence, especially violence against U.S. forces, then the chances increase somewhat. Do you think Iran wants to engage the U.S. in any kind of straightforward military confrontation? I suppose it's possible, but the Arab concept of "if we win, we win; if you beat us and we survive, we still win" may not translate into the Persian culture (notwithstanding the fact that it works for Hezbollah). As stretched as the U.S. military might be right now, it can still inflict a tremendous amount of damage to Iran within a single week, and the mullahs understand that. Among nation states, the threat of violence by a clearly superior force will usually deter violence, as long as there are rational actors.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jan 11, 07:36:00 PM:
"the thing we are probably looking for is smoking gun evidence of Iranian participation in the Iraqi insurgency and the commission of acts of war against America"
We have both. It's just classified. I'm more of the school of thought that this (and the previous raid in the south a couple of weeks ago) is part of the 'back the hell off, we're not kidding' message that I hope is going to culminate with the use of these new surged troops to vivisect the Iranian militias.
Part of that is wishful thinking, but it's happily plausible.
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Jan 11, 08:26:00 PM:
"Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees.
The US military said it was still investigating, but that the building did not have diplomatic status..."
If Iraq is a sovereign nation, doesn't Iraq get to determine whether or not buildings in Iraq are the consulates of countires with whom they have diplomatic relations?
If Iraq says its a consulate and the US attacked it, hasn't the US committed an act of war against Iran (and possibly Iraq)?
If the US committed an act of war against Iran, did the AUMF authorize such an attack? If they AUMF does not authorize attacks on Iran, has Congress authorized an attack on Iran? If Congress has not authorized an attack on Iran, under what constitutional authority has the US attacked Iran?
Are your loved ones between the ages of 18 and 44 ready to learn some Farsi? It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 11, 08:54:00 PM:
Pudentilla, you ask good and interesting legal questions, but they are overwhelmed by a single reality: Iran has directly and through proxies been attacking the United States and its allies for a very long time. By any legal standard, Iran has waged war on the United States, and we have refrained from retaliation. Unfortunately, our restraint has encouraged Iran, and has only led to more attacks. The practical question is whether a little unrestrained retaliation will motivate Iran to back off a bit, or not.
I think there is very little risk of big time military action against Iran. However, I do think that we will ratchet up the low grade pressure, particularly against Iranian assets in Iraq (although it wouldn't surprise me to see a stray bomb fall on a military target on the Iranian side of the border).
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Jan 11, 09:29:00 PM:
"Iran has directly and through proxies been attacking the United States and its allies for a very long time. By any legal standard, Iran has waged war on the United States..."
Don't forget the part about Oceana having always been at war with Eurasia.
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Jan 11, 09:52:00 PM:
TH,
Have you looked at our supply lines in Iraq? I think the Iranians may have a few more options on the low grade pressure front than folks here are willing to acknowledge.
Accepting arguendo your description of Iranian actions against the US, do you think the historical record really supports the conclusion: "and we have refrained from retaliation."
Perhaps a review of Polybius' distinctions between cause, beginning and pretext would be worth reviewing (3.6ff). Who knew the Decider would be a modern day Hannibal in terms of filial piety.
On the good and interesting legal question front - I hold our government to our standards, not Iran's. We are a nation of laws, not men. (If we were a nation of men, I'd hope we could do better than the Decider, anyway.) Like Thomas More, I'd give the Devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake. Conservatives would stand with More.
By Escort81, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:01:00 PM:
I agree with TH's 8:54 PM comment. There will be an ebb and flow of low grade pressure on both sides, with neither side really wanting a full fledged conflict -- Iran, because of, well, reality on the battlefield, and the U.S. because of domestic political considerations and an unwillingness to see spot crude go from $52-$53/bbl to $90+/bbl with the implied short-term threat to the Straights of Hormuz.
Pudentilla, you may or may not be correct in your analysis, but the point of my posts above is that it is unclear what the status of the office in Irbil was, and that in any case, it may not be up to the "Kurdish regional government" to grant any diplomatic status.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:24:00 PM:
"We are a nation of laws, not men."
Yes, and a great legal mind is something you can rent--like a U-Haul truck. A team of great lawyers usually can find a legal way for you to do almost anything.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:56:00 PM:
Pudentilla, if this were an act of war, what would be wrong with that? If nation A engages in acts of war against nation B, does that not create cause?
As to the historical record - no, we have not retaliated.
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 02:02:00 PM:
Thomas Moore, for gawds sake!!!!!!!!
A sodding medieval communist.
That must have been a pre-frontal lobe gas expansion!
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Jan 12, 04:07:00 PM:
"Pudentilla, if this were an act of war, what would be wrong with that? "
Back when we had a constitution that the executive branch upheld, it was the purview of Congress to declare war and the duty of the President to execute it.
"As to the historical record - no, we have not retaliated."
We have used appropriate forums and processes of international law for a generation to block investment in Iran's oil fields and it's nuke program - fairly effective retaliation; and legal to boot.
"Thomas Moore, for gawds sake!!!!!!!!
A sodding medieval communist."
No evidence that he liked teh gay. Surely calling him a communist is anachronistic. Even metaphorpically, I doubt you'll find much evidence of his desire to use the state to redistribute wealth. Medieval - well, that I'll grant you.
More's thinking, however, does have a certain currency in the legal circles of our nation's capital, which should make his insistence on law and its processes relevant to the most impatient of conservatives.
"A team of great lawyers usually can find a legal way for you to do almost anything."
Perhaps, but surely our recent experience with autocratic thugs should lead us to prefer the slow, banal and tawdry processes of law, to the murderous whims of despots.
Call me cautious, but I'd rather like to see the Decider win one of the two land wars in Asia he's started before he starts a third.
By Escort81, at
Fri Jan 12, 05:02:00 PM:
Pudentilla - what constitutes a "win" by your definition?
I don't think we'll ever see the equivalent of the ceremony on the decks of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Harbor.
The Taliban doesn't rule Afghanistan and the country is no longer an open base of operations for al-Qaeda. In Iraq, Saddam was removed from power, and U.S. inspectors concluded that there were no WMD stockpiles that could be turned over to terrorists. All of this was accomplished with the U.S. suffering approximately the same number of KIA casualties as on one historically significant day of fighting during WWII -- D-Day, June 6, 1944.
Obviously, huge problems exist in both countries, and it will be a long time before Jeffersonian democracy breaks out in either place. We can further stipulate that the Bush administration has made any number of bad and very bad calls in prosecuting these conflicts (sometimes the "Decider" decides wrong). Do you believe that FDR was error free in his decision making during WWII? Or Wilson during WWI? Or Lincoln during the Civil War?
OK, so Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet wins in your book, but can you give us a sense of whether you believe we are still in the game?
By the way, do you give Harry Truman a "win" for Korea, in the sense that he paved the way (decades later) for a free, stable and prosperous South Korea, or is that a loss or a tie? Just curious -- I want to understand your scorekeeping system.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 12, 06:33:00 PM:
"Back when we had a constitution that the executive branch upheld, it was the purview of Congress to declare war and the duty of the President to execute it."
It's the President who asks Congress to declare war. And military conflicts short of full national mobilization (or accompanying declarations of war) have occurred throughout US history all the way back to the 1790's and early 1800's, (the US Navy skirmishing with Napoleon's warships over trade and impressment issues, for instance) without Congressional authorization. Surely you've heard of the Barbary Pirates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
So your caveat doesn't apply to any period of US history, ever.
"We have used appropriate forums and processes of international law for a generation to block investment in Iran's oil fields and it's nuke program - fairly effective retaliation; and legal to boot."
Ironic, then, that their primary source of income is from energy exportation and uh, they're on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. They're not even subtle about it anymore; what was it, last week when they made a veiled threat to use atomic weapons if they felt threatened?
On a personal note, the very fact that we are a nation of laws and not of men is, in my opinion, one of the major problems with our society. No one cares if something is right, they care if it is legal. Follow the rules. Cover your ass. So what if it's fundamentally unfair to force a man to pay child support for a kid that has been 100% proven not to be his? It's the law, and it's not my problem. Just because it is legal doesn't mean that it's #1 effective, or #2 just.
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 07:56:00 PM:
Pudentilla. If you bother to read history, you will find Moores thoughts and writings to be distinctly left of socialism, ie communist.
Your arguments are either based on lies, or fail in the actuality of the situations.
You failed to deal with the problem of your brain-fart!!
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 08:01:00 PM:
Oh really,
Pudi, you're a prof.
Now I understand our failure
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 08:29:00 PM:
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 12, 09:34:00 PM:
Dawnfire82: "...the very fact that we are a nation of laws and not of men is, in my opinion, one of the major problems with our society. No one cares if something is right, they care if it is legal."
As Lenny Bruce said, "In the Halls of Justice, the only justice is in the halls."
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Jan 12, 09:58:00 PM:
Pudentilla - what constitutes a "win" by your definition?
Well, I think for the purposes of this discussion, I'll take the Decider's definition.
The Decider defined "victory in Iraq" as follows this way, this week:
"But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. "
If we have to wait for that we'll never bomb Iran. In 2005, however, the White House defined the "short term" version of victory as "Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces." There were more ambitious definitions offered for the Medium and Longer term, but I think it wouldn't be imprudent to defer a discussion of Iran until these minimal goals for Iraq are met. I think your evaluation of current conditionsn in Afghanistan is too optimistic. US and Nato commanders there are requesting more troops (but actually losing them because of the Iraq escalation)
if you bother to read history, you will find Moores thoughts and writings to be distinctly left of socialism, ie communist.
Could you direct me to More's communist writings? Of course Marx was deeply impressed by Moore's Utopia and people who've read neither Marx nor More might be inclined to make the mistake of characterizing More as a "communist." To speak of More as a "communist" when he lived in the age when the nation state was just coming into existence (indeed it would be fair to characterize his life as a struggle against the idea of the nation state)and before anything approaching an industrial economy (heck to speak of "markets" in this context is not without its heuristic difficulties)is simply historical solecism.
I'm not clear how sincere your interest in More is, but you might be interested in a modern conservative's reading of Utopia that argues More wrote with a deliberate irony which Marx (and apparently others) did not understand.
Oh really,
Pudi, you're a prof.
Now I understand our failure
I'm sorry if you had an unfortunate experience in a required history class. I'm sure there's a twelve step group you can find.
Ironic, then, that their primary source of income is from energy exportation and uh, they're on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.
Not ironic, dangerous. Iran is dependent on income from it's oil. Yet, in a period of increasing oil prices, it has not been able to pump its OPEC quota. Moreover, it does not have suffienct cash to invest in its oil infrastructure and sanctions have effectively blocked foreign investment. A Johns Hopkins geographer just published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Reason has a summary of it)of it) suggesting that Iranian oil fields will collapse by 2015. To suggest that permanently depriving an enemy of its primary source of income is not retaliation is to assume that anihilation alone is sufficient retaliation. To refuse the processes of national and international law in order to achieve that anihilation is a tad excessive for my taste. For myself, I'd prefer a foreign policy less susceptible of ego-injury analysis.
they're on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.
I guess it depends on how you define "verge." In 2005 the National Intelligence Review stated that Iran needed 10 years. Now, these are the people who promised us Saddam's WMD, so you might want to take their prognosis with a grain of salt. But even assuming that this is an accurate analysis, why, having watched what the Decider's done in Afghanistan and Iraq, would you ever entrust any important and difficult task to him - much less a nuclear one. I say, let's catch Osama before we start obsessing about A-jad.
Surely you've heard of the Barbary Pirates? Oh, I think my reference to Polybius on the origins of the Second Punic War surely trumps the rather modern allusion to the Barbary Pirates. Polybius' point, which anticipates yours, is that of course one distinguishes between the cause, pretext and beginning of a war.
We are being subject to endless media discussions about the pretexts and beginnings - but before too many more die in this disaster, wouldn't some thought about causes be instructive; particularly when as we contemplate an escalation and expansion of a military campaign we have been doing not so well in.
So your caveat doesn't apply to any period of US history, ever.
Any? Ever? A bit exaggerated, perhaps. Were all our military cammpaigns created Athena-like from the head of the President? I think not. Many of the campaigns you allude to, moreover, were perceived to be peripheral - not the decisive ideological struggle of their age. And none, save Korea and Vietnam, occured in an age of nuclear weapons. Is it constitutionally prudent to defer to a deeply unpopular president's deeply unpopular military expansionism - with no role for Congress? Is that how you read Federalist 69?
The real irony in our disagreement is that I agree with your criticism of our frustrating regime of laws - I just happen to agree with Churchill more. "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jan 12, 10:53:00 PM:
Prudentilla: "...I just happen to agree with Churchill more."
It is a bit of a stretch to view a comment about the shortcomings of the American legal system as an attack on the right to vote.
By , at
Sat Jan 13, 02:29:00 PM:
But why go to all that trouble?
iurp ybefka wkhp zroqxfkp?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jan 14, 02:40:00 PM:
1) You completely avoided my first main point, which is that your understanding of how our government works is flawed, and which you've continued to demonstrate. The application of American troops does indeed spring from the head of the president, Athena like, unless they just spontaneously encounter an enemy and start shooting at them. Congress has *nothing* to say about when and where American troops are used in combat; that is not one of their powers. That is the president's prerogative, and it doesn't matter how unpopular he is; as long he holds that office, it's his choice. If he's that unpopular, impeach him. If he's not unpopular enough to impeach, tough.
2) "Not ironic, dangerous." I'm glad you agree that it's dangeous. It was ironic because you said that such methods were 'effective' when they obviously are not. And strangling their oil supply by 2015 is neat and all, but that doesn't really help us now, does it? Similar thinking and 'legal pressures' were applied to North Korea, too. Way to go, international community.
3) "the National Intelligence Review stated that Iran needed 10 years. Now, these are the people who promised us Saddam's WMD, so you might want to take their prognosis with a grain of salt"
The Israelis, who have better regional intel than we do, are absolutely convinced that the 1st detonation will be within 2 years. Ahmedenijad himself has bragged about 'completing the nuclear cycle' before Spring. Also, while not a nuclear physicist, I know that the US built its first 3 atomic bombs in 3 years; I can't fathom why anyone would think that it would take a modern state 10, + the time put in already since the 90s.
And forgive me if I'm wrong, but your main point here seems to be 'we've got time, why worry?' That strikes me as facile and weak. I guess it's not dangerous enough...
4) I can't for the life of me figure out why you're quoting anything about the 2nd Punic War at me. I didn't reply to that post and nothing I said had anything to do with causes or pretexts for anything. I'll generously assume that this is a product of genuine misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt at misdirection, Screwie Hoolie-style.
*My* point, referencing France (which you left out) and the Pirates, was that conflicts without declarations of war have littered US history from it's very first decade since the adoption of the Constitution and therefore...
your caveat doesn't apply to any period of US history, ever. (except maybe under the Articles of Confederation)
In case you forgot, your caveat =
"Back when we had a constitution that the executive branch upheld, it was the purview of Congress to declare war and the duty of the President to execute it."
As you might see, this time period that you reference has never existed, and that isn't even the legal process followed for a declaration of war. I bet you didn't even look at the link I provided, did you? It's a list of all the military conflicts the US has been involved in without a declaration of war.
"The President is to be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British kings extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, - all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the Legislature." - Federalist 69
"'The President of the United States is to be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when caleld into the actual service of the United States.' The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, couple the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and esssential part in the definition of executive authority." - Federalist 74
Dunno, Pud, it seems pretty clear to me.
And just for kicks, because I think it applies as well today to the 'well we'll just cut funding for the Army' crowd as to anti-Federalists two centuries ago...
"Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desparate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinancy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the ffects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character." - Federalist 70
