Iranian Diplomat Kidnapped in Baghdad

This just in from the BBC:

An Iranian diplomat has been kidnapped by gunmen in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, Tehran has confirmed.

Jalal Sharafi, the embassy's second secretary, was abducted from his car on Sunday in central Karrada district by men wearing Iraqi army uniforms.

Iran condemned the kidnapping and said it held the US responsible for his life. A US military spokesman said no US or Iraqi troops had been involved.

Could this be the match that lights the fuse?

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the Isna news agency that Mr Sharafi had been kidnapped by a group linked to Iraq's defence ministry "which works under the supervision of American forces".
 
"The Islamic Republic of Iran holds the American forces in Iraq responsible for the life and safety of the Iranian diplomat," he said.

Iraqi officials earlier said the gunmen were wearing uniforms of the Iraqi 36th Commando Battalion - a special Iraqi unit under US direction.

A US military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt Col Christopher Garver, gave these not so reassuring assurances:

"We've checked with our units and it was not a [multinational forces - Iraq] unit that participated in that event."

•  Anybody get the joke?

  Iranians are too serious for irony, aren't they? Or short on memory, forgetting what they did to 67 of our diplomats in 1979.

  by Vigil Lante on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:48:28 AM PDT

  •  What They Did in 79 Was Long On Memory

    Had to do with what we were doing in the 60's, 50's.

    Shorter memories at least wrt these intense emotions would be preferable on balance.

    by Gooserock on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:51:31 AM PDT

  •  66 More and we can call it even...

    ...Or not.

    Somehow, I don't feel inclined to take Iran's word regarding US involvement in this.
    For that matter, I'm not real keen on taking our government's word on it either.

    by Niniane on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:56:07 AM PDT

    •  Lots of people, lots and lots of Iranians

      were tortured and/or killed by the Shah, a guy the U.S. was ever so fond of and supported heavily.  The Shah was emphatically not a good guy, but he was our guy.  Why would Iran forget that?  If the position were reversed, would American citizens forget?  Not on your tintype.  I don't excuse Iranians from their 79 atrocities, but I can understand their utter fury with the U.S.

      by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:59:17 AM PDT

    •  this is not the first one

      We have captured Iranian diplomats several times over the last couple of months, despite the Iraqi government's repeated plea to us not to.

      by sunshineonthebay on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:28:03 AM PDT

      •  What Iraqi government, and why

        assume they don't want us to?  Maybe Maliki is happy taking Iranian money, knowing that if he expects to live until morning, he'd better obey the American gun at his head.

        by corvo on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

        •  i'm not assuming

          When we captured Iranian diplomats in Bagdad a while ago Maliki said we shouldn't have because they were his guests.  When we captured the Iranian embassy in Kurdistan the Iraqi Kurdish govt condemned us also.
          Of course there is a chance they're are lying and are in it together, but I'm not making assumptions, I'm repeating public statements.

          by sunshineonthebay on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:49:02 AM PDT

          •  Guests of an American puppet?

            Yeah, like Maliki cares about Iran.  I doubt he cares about us either.  But he knows who he has to pacify with pretty words, and whose fiddle he has to dance to.

            by corvo on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:53:51 AM PDT

            •  it's not about "caring"

              It's in Iraq's interest to have good relations with its neighbors.  It's not about caring.  They don't benefits from us going to war with Iran.  They benefit from good relations, trade, and Iranian tourism.

              by sunshineonthebay on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:55:25 AM PDT

              •  Maliki benefits from

                not having a drill run through his temple.

                by corvo on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:57:11 AM PDT

  •  And we

    Protested vigorously.  We took them to the World Court, claiming this was a violation of international law.  We launched massive economic sanctions.  And we sent dozens of heavily armed commandos to attack Iran in a failed mission.

    So, I presume you feel it is okay for Iran to take any of these measures?  I would prefer that Iran NOT send commandos into Iraq, but I guess its all good.

    by weasel on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:02:39 AM PDT

  •  Not a joke

    The Iranians would say that we didn't get the joke in 1979, given that the Shah had tortured and kidnapped Iranians who opposed him -- all the while with our support. This does not justify or excuse the seizure of the US embassy in 1979 -- but it does help explain it.

    Similarly, if we are behind the current situation, what happened in 1979 neither excuses nor justifies it.

    The cycle of revenge for prior atrocities has no beginning and no end.  The only thing that remains constant is the oil.

    by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:03:40 AM PDT

    •  actually, the oil is not constant

      If it were, there wouldn't be so much frantic manoeuvring for what is left. Otherwise, your comment is spot on.

      by subtropolis on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:22:51 AM PDT

      •  Oh, are you one of those libruls who

        believes that oil is a depleting resource?  Even though we oil barons frantically compete for oilfields, there is no reason for us to prepare for a future in which the oil runs out.  Because we'll be dead by then, and who gives a flying fuck about our great-children?

        /snark

        by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:40:36 AM PDT

  •  Did they kill any of the 1979 hostages?

    Nope.

    What's the likelihood that the current hostage is still alive?

    by Phoenix Woman on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:27:55 AM PDT

    •  It wasn't lunch at the Plaza

      and IIRC two developed chronic illnesses that were later fatal, which had they been properly treated might  have been cured.

      by Dcoronata on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:12:08 AM PDT

•  I'm guessing Negroponte set up the 36th

  as it has the hallmarks of one of his commando death squads.  Just a guess, of course.  It would be interesting to find out if it was set up on his watch or by his direction, but I'm not sure who would ask.

  This is the fourth snatching of diplomats in six weeks.  Seems to be a pattern emerging, but I'm not sure the American people quite appreciate the potential for blowback.

  by LondonYank on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:51:30 AM PDT

  •  That's the plan.

    This is the fourth snatching of diplomats in six weeks.  Seems to be a pattern emerging, but I'm not sure the American people quite appreciate the potential for blowback.

    I think that's the plan: get the Iranians to snatch some American in return, and use that as the pretext for bombing.  With the way Negroponte set this up, we've got plausable deniability - at least sufficient to keep the GOoPers happy - and so Bush gets to bomb someone else and try to rally his plummeting poll numbers.

    Who, me, cynical?

    by Shadan7 on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:53:25 AM PDT

•  Well If He Never Ever Ever Again Surfaces

  we'll know it was us.

  by Gooserock on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:52:04 AM PDT

  •  no offense, but …

    isn't that a bit like junior saying that he'll bomb Iran if another "9/11"-like event occurs (with no regard for actually ensuring that Iran is responsible)?

    by subtropolis on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:25:47 AM PDT

•  Short answer is "yes" I think this could be

  the match that starts the fire.  Of course it is impossible to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of Bush-supported military spokespeople.  But I can't help wondering why the hell Bush wants to (try to) foment more trouble in the Middle East.  We haven't the troops to support another war (we don't have enough for the two we are already engaged in, for god's sake) and there would be virtually zip support by the U.S. public for further mid-east aggression on our part.  

  I've read a lot of the diaries on dKos predicting a war with Iran; what I feel that nobody has yet adequately explained is what could possibly be the upside to any conflict with Iran.  Anybody out there that can posit some kind of realistic answer to that question?

  by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:52:06 AM PDT

  •  The world's second largest oil reserves

    If you assume that Bush doesn't care about bankrupting the US Treasury or killing thousands of our soldiers then the oil is motivation enough.  Nothing in his behaviour so far indicates fiscal restraint or compassion for military families are strong suits.

    My guess is that plan is to seize and occupy the Khuzestan region and the oil refineries and depots off shore in the Persian Gulf.  The Air Force will go in first and attempt to destroy the entire air and naval capability of the Iranian military, taking out as much of the command structure and ground forces as it can at the same time.  They will then carpet the mountains encircling Khuzestan with cluster bombs to repel the Iranians from retaking the region holding 90 percent of their oil.

    The hope is that without oil the Iranians won't be able to mount much defense or insurgency.  Without dollars earned from oil we can then starve them into submission.  

    by LondonYank on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:57:47 AM PDT

    •  Do you consider this a realistic

      scenario?  Seriously, it sounds like some kind of too-out-there-to-be-nominated-for-an-Oscar movie plot.

      by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:03:30 AM PDT

      •  June 2006 Armed Forces Journal

        Major Ralph Peters laid it all out - including before and after maps.

        

        In answer to your question, no, I don't consider this realistic - but I think maybe Bush and Cheney and their cohort of oil and military fanatics do.

        I think Iranians will fight like hell, attack our military in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in occupied Iran, and use assymetric war techniques to attack our commercial operations throughout the Gulf, Europe and North America.  

        I also think the Russians and the Chinese will allow the US military to exhaust itself in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan until it is a mere useless shell of wasted troops and broken equipment before kicking our asses out of the region for good.  They have innumerable ways to hurt us and we have very few means to strike back.  Besides everyone in the world will hate America by then - except maybe Israel and Poland.

        by LondonYank on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:11:16 AM PDT

        •  Thanks for the info! This is becoming a very,

          very scary event for me, not least because it is clear that we have several insane people running the U.S. (clinically insane, not just a little eccentric) starting right at the top.

          How on earth do we stop these maniacs?

          by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:15:46 AM PDT

        •  Weird how that "after" map

          leaves Kuwait's borders unaltered.

          by lysias on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:25:31 AM PDT

          •  Even weirder what it does to our allies

            Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  Makes you wonder why they bother if we're going to steal so much land from them.

            I'm just throwing in the picture below for fun.  It reminds me that we used to think nukes in Iran a good thing.

            

            by LondonYank on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:26:59 AM PDT

            •  Wow

              Where on earth did you find that?

              by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:06:46 AM PDT

        •  if i were iranian

          And saw this map I would be fighting the Americans next door tooth and nail.  The "after" map shows Iran giving up its oil-rich area to "Arab Shiite" state, whatever that is, and in exchange getting the poor mountains of Western Afghanistan.

          by sunshineonthebay on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:01:18 AM PDT

        •  context

          I don't think even Cheney and Señor Peligro! are stupid enough to think they can just march into Khuzestan and occupy it. If they hit Iran, it'll be from the air. Yes, there are some who are actively pushing for the second map scenario, but not in terms of sending the Marines in. They'd see these things more as internal re-positionings (with plenty of help from CIA, natürlich), like Baluchistan seceeding, for instance. In that sense, it's not so incredible.

          There's no way they'd not realise that they can't just go in there and cart away the oil. They'd like to topple the rulers, yes. But that's quite another thing, entirely.

          I agree that the Russians and Chinese (and, not least, the Iranians) are more than happy to see the USians wear themselves down. However, i doubt that we'd see them go toe to toe, "kicking [their] asses out of the region" because, in that scenario, the US Strategic Nuclear Forces would immediately come into play. And we can assume that there are plenty of tactical weapons already in the region.

          by subtropolis on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:42:33 AM PDT

          •  they are stupid enough n/t

            by sunshineonthebay on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:46:17 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps Bush's crack team of military advisors

    at the AEI and the Heritage Foundation are telling him that if we bomb Iran from the Gulf, no ground troops will be necessary.  The Iranian people will greet our missiles as liberators.

    by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:00:21 AM PDT

    •  But Iran has a large number of good

      weapons themselves; specifically, they could take a fairly good bead on Israel, no?  We aren't talking Iraq here, which was by and large an easy target.

      by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:05:02 AM PDT

  •  What was the upside to not planning for Iraq

    after the fall of Saddam?

    What was the upside of totally disbanding all the structures of the government?

    What was the upside to torturing terrorism suspects until they were mentally unfit to stand trial?

    What was the upside to delaying aid to the Gulf Coast after Katrina?

    If anyone can tell you those answers, they might have an answer on Iran.

    by iconoclastic cat on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

  •  Neocons

    The neocons were quite forthright, at the beginning of the Iraq war that it was only a first step, and that Iran and Syria were next.  Their vision was to reduce all the regimes in the region by military force and install/create democracies.

    I read somewhere that with regards to Iran one of the main motivations is to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.  Even if Iran is a decade away from a weapon now, I think the neocons realize that it is now or never, as no future, sane, administration is likely to countenence another war, given the results of the current ones and our resources.  So. if they want to take out whatever nuclear program they have, they'll need to achieve it while w and evil dick are in charge.  

    The great threat that nukes pose is to Israel.  The feeling is that an Iran with weapons could make Israel's situation all but untenable.  Who would want to remain in Israel knowing that Iran had nukes and the missles to carry them.  Both societies would need their weapons on hair trigger alert, given the distance involved, and with Israel's size, the thought was that many Israelis would migrate rather than live under the shadow of a nuclear armed Iran.  

    Please note, I am not an expert on this issue.  This was something that I've read - I do not remember where - that seemed a plausible explanation for why we'd ever risk a war with Iran given our current situation.  Otherwise, I'd have thought that even a nuclear Iran would be deterable for the U.S.

    by Hotspur18 on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:26:00 AM PDT

    •  The fact that people might migrate out,

      quite voluntarily, probably to relatively comfortable circumstances, doesn't strike me as much of a reason for launching a preventive war of aggression.

      by lysias on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

      •  It is

        It is for Israel, and the neocons.  As you say, the migration would be voluntary and most would end up comfortably, but it would doom the state of Israel if most who could leave, did.  

        by Hotspur18 on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

      •  Israeli emigration

        It's raison d'etre is to provide a place for Jews all over the world to go to.  Quite apart from the economic and military consequences of a new Diaspora out of Israel, it would be culturally devastating for such a thing to occur.

        Would we have responded to mass emigration out of Florida after Soviet nukes were permanently ensconced in Cuba with a "so what"?

        One can criticize the neocons' strategies for protecting Israel -- and I do -- and one can criticize Israel's means of dealing with the Palestinian territories -- and I do -- but unless you don't believe in Israel's right to exist, you can't really view Iranian nukes aimed at Israel with equanimity.

        Which is why we have to talk to them, instead of trying to provoke them, as Dumbya keeps trying to do.

        by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:35:41 AM PDT

        •  Algerie francaise.

          So you think France should have gone on fighting in Algeria?  After all, the pieds noirs left quite involuntarily, and the conditions they faced when they fled to France were pretty uncomfortable.

          by lysias on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:54:49 AM PDT

•  Iraqi Army uniforms

  are available for sale all over Iraq, it could be anyone. It is sad that there is no one that I can trust in that entire story.

  by citizenx on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:54:45 AM PDT

•  Just a couple of weeks ago

  it was guys in "US style uniforms" who kidnapped and killed five of our soldiers after security let them into a base in Karbala.  

  And there was a brief spate of speculation that the kidnappers/murderers were Iranian because the operation was "sophisticated," which is apparently beyond the capabilities of Iraqis.

  So is this a revenge kidnapping?  Is it clever Iranians masquerading as unsophisticated Iraqis?

  Who knows?  All I know that is I can't trust a US military spokesman, and that makes me both very sad and very angry.

  by litigatormom on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 07:58:56 AM PDT

  •  Exactly...

    The units the US trains are often of mixed ethnicity or sectarian identity, and the US still doesn't understand that half these guys may be playing for their own teams, not the Iraqi government.  The soldiers who kidnapped and killed the US troops in Karbala were likely Sunni (based on the fact that they transported them to a Sunni enclave near Hilla before killing them.)

    It is possible that the US had a direct hand in the kidnapping. It is at least equally likely that the US was so eager to recruit at least a few Sunnis for elite forces, that the soldiers who did the kidnapping were working for strongly anti-Iranian Sunni political leaders.  

    I think there is not yet enough evidence for anyone to know who was responsible. If it really was the US or Iraqi forces under US command who captured him, he paradoxically stands a chance of at least surviving.  If the soldiers who captured him are working for Harith al-Dhari or some other Sunni leader, the poor guy is probably either dead or wishing he were dead.

    by ivorybill on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

•  Why did U.S. troops kill Sadr official

  who had been providing them with intelligence?  Troops in Iraq Kill Official Who Worked for Shiite Cleric.

  That was on Sunday.

  by lysias on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

•  I have a feeling of utter powerlessness...

  like I've never felt before.   W and Cheney want their war, and they will do whatever they need to do in order to get it.  The Dems will not stop them--I doubt that they'll really even try hard to do so.

  Jerome's $100/bbl oil may be upon us sooner than anyone expected.  A WH that couldn't save an American city from drowning is not likely to be able to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if hostilities commence.  We are at serious risk here.

  by RFK Lives on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:06:55 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget all of the Democrats

    who (let me put this mildly) don't seem to be terribly opposed to war with Iran as well.  Plenty of tough talk from "our" side too.

    by corvo on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 10:47:02 AM PDT

•  Isn't that kind of Tit-for-Tat what brought

  us to the situation we face today in the ME?

  by JNEREBEL on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM PDT

•  the Reichstag fire

  just got lit.  And now we get to watch the world burn.

  by kay dub on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:11:34 AM PDT

•  Whether its irony or a joke or its get even

  time, what we are doing is what we were doing to Saddam before we invaded Iraq.

  We're trying to make Iran strike out, and when they do we'll nail them because we will then be defending our interests.

  by nupstateny on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:19:01 AM PDT

  •  Iran doesn't have to strike back.

    Time is on their side.  We're going to have to withdraw our forces from Iraq soon, and then Iran can pick up the pieces.

    by lysias on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:21:49 AM PDT

    •  No, they don't have to but

      Bush is hoping they will.

      by nupstateny on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:26:15 AM PDT

•  the match that lights the fuse?

  Sure.

  But it's a little soon.  That is, for our military guys and gals.  Not all the pawns are in their proper places on the chessboard, not yet anyway.

  Oh, and regarding our military guys and gals--God help them all.  Really. The entire U.S. military is about to go down, all the way down.

  Sh*t.

  by QuinnLaBelle on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:22:35 AM PDT

•  Guardian

  has this:

  An Iraqi government official said Iraqi soldiers in two vehicles intercepted the diplomat's car, put him in one of their vehicles and drove off.

  Iraqi police, apparently suspecting a kidnap attempt, opened fire on the second vehicle and detained the occupants, who were released into Iraqi military custody yesterday.

  According to the Iraqi official, the detained troops were part of an army unit that receives direct orders from the US military.

  Doesn't sound promising.

  by northsylvania on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:32:34 AM PDT

•  Indeed

  I suppose that before we all start laying the blame on Bush, we would perhaps produce some proof? I'm afraid I must agree with an above commentor, there is not information to make a choice.

  by OblivionsPuppet on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

•  Did someone say Sunnis?

  The Samara bombing served one purpose (to deepen animosities between Shiites and Sunnis); I'm sure this kidnapping could serve a similar purpose (attempting to provoke a confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, which would keep the U.S. and Iran from focusing attention on the Sunnis).

  Too early to tell.

  The Iranians should realize though that Iraq and Baghdad in particular are dangerous places to manuever.  It's a hard lesson that's ordinary Iraqis have to deal with daily; same with journalists covering the war; as well as with U.S. troops.

  by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:34:56 AM PDT

•  Infiltration? What infiltration?

  Surely these rumors of sectarian insurgents infiltrating the Iraqi armed services have been greatly exaggerated.

  by Geekesque on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 08:37:56 AM PDT

•  Iran needs to play it's best game...

  Keep it's diplomats at home - let Iraq come to the peace & relative safety of Iran to consider their proxies. Actually, Iran needs to better watch & police their border with Iraq, and not allow anything to pass that will get tagged on them - that's the CIA's job. Iran doesn't want a war with us (US) - Bush wants to commit us (US) to a war in the Middle East - not just until the end of his administration - but until the end of his life (which he plans to be a long one)...

  by keechi on Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 01:05:16 PM PDT