Maliki: Iraq no launch pad for Iran strike

[HeXploiT]

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has said he will not allow the country's territory to be used for an attack against Iran.

As speculation grows over a possible Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, the question arises whether Israel will use Iraqi airspace to launch such an attack.

In a recent press conference, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said a possible Israeli strike against Iran was 'not under our control'.

McCormack also declined to answer what he said was a 'hypothetical question involving military planning' when it was noted that Israeli warplanes would have to pass through US-controlled Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.

The Iraqi Prime Minister has taken a strong stance against the use of Iraq as a base for an attack against Iran.

In a closed-circuit video conference with US President George W. Bush on Friday, Maliki stressed that he would not permit the country's soil, airspace, or waters to be used in an attack on Iran.

"Iraq is no longer a launch pad or pathway for regional military operations," he said.

Maliki also expressed concern over the use of force to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and said that he was worried over how another regional military conflict would affect his country.

Source: PressTv

Well that's some good news anyway. Apparently Maliki is not totally bought and paid for. Isn't it interesting that this isn't even a sub-title on Fox, Cnn, Nbc, Cbs Abc or BBC though.
Israel wouldn't need Iraq for "strikes" but the United States would for an all out war which is the real concern.
If Israel attacks it will probably be swift and with immediate results.
Possibly unfortunate but relatively painless.
My real concern are the oil hogs in America starting another full on war with 10,000 Iranian tribes.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The new treaty/agreement that Bush wants with Iraq expressly permits the US to launch military operations using troops in Iraq without Iraqi government knowledge or approval. So I think that means that Bush doesn't care what Maliki thinks or does.

So it really doesn't matter, unfortunately.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
The new treaty/agreement that Bush wants with Iraq expressly permits the US to launch military operations using troops in Iraq without Iraqi government knowledge or approval. So I think that means that Bush doesn't care what Maliki thinks or does.

So it really doesn't matter, unfortunately.

What treaty are you speaking?
Probably you are correct and this doesn't surprise me even a little.

 

[Lemon law]

GWB&co. can try to enact any treaty he wants with Iraq. However, Iraq has to ratify it which they have not, congress has to ratify it which they have not, and my way or the highway diplomacy just has not being going W's way lately. If anything, the international community does not even bother to answer his ravings anymore, they just simple humor him and proceed about their business as if he did not exist. But when the international community does respond, nearly every voice is a unified and an unmistakable
hell no toward any Iranian attack coming from the USA.

But Maliki may end up being a major thorn in GWB's side, as it is GWB&co has had the option to use Iraq as a base of operations against Iran for five years now, but GWB's chances of launching such an Iranian attack without large numbers of major negative consequences just keep getting slimmer every day.

If GWB were rational, I would say the chance of him ordering any kind of Iranian attack is zero right now, but sadly, IMHO, GWB&co is certifiably totally out of their collective minds so no predictions are possible.

 

[woodie1]

Maliki can say whatever he wants to keep people happy. Fact is, at this time, he couldn't stop Bush from attacking Iran. We all know Bush does not hear/listen to the international community very well. Maybe McCain will order the charge.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Maliki can say whatever he wants to keep people happy. Fact is, at this time, he couldn't stop Bush from attacking Iran. We all know Bush does not hear/listen to the international community very well. Maybe McCain will order the charge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree that GWB&co wrote their own Iraqi blank check after they fooled both the USA and the international community into letting them do so, GWB&co are still restrained by the bounds of reality. And while Iraq has been somewhat of a slow motion disaster, any unilateral
Iranian action by GWB&co is likely to blow up big time in GWB's face in a matter of days.

I am somewhat convinced that after any Iranian brainfart by GWB, when oil soars to a few thousand dollars a barrel just a few days later, the ISA will finally get the national resolve to impeach and convict both GWB&Cheney.

 

[Aimster]

Iraq does not have an air force to monitor their airspace. Israel can do whatever they want over Iraq

 

[Specop 007]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt America state a few years back it would not allow Israeli planes to fly through Iraq to attack Iran? Or am I mistaken??

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt America state a few years back it would not allow Israeli planes to fly through Iraq to attack Iran? Or am I mistaken??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you are 100% right specop 007, as the occupying power, under international law, the USA
is 100% obligated to defend Iraqi air space. And if the USA lets Israel overfly Iraq to bomb Iran, they will have joined Israel in an act of war. But who cares if every US embassy is lit on fire from Aruba to Zaire, or that the entire world will demand the head of GWB&Cheney, its not my country right or wrong, its GWB right or wrong.

As it is, the GWB legacy is in the toilet, what is left to lose?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
The new treaty/agreement that Bush wants with Iraq expressly permits the US to launch military operations using troops in Iraq without Iraqi government knowledge or approval. So I think that means that Bush doesn't care what Maliki thinks or does.

So it really doesn't matter, unfortunately.

What treaty are you speaking?
Probably you are correct and this doesn't surprise me even a little.

link

It's only a proposed treaty, but the article lays out the US stance on what it insists on. One of those is what I mentioned above.

And since Bush is calling this "security agreement" or something like that, and not a treaty, he is claiming it doesn't have to be ratified by Congress for it to be legal.

But either way, there is nothing Iraq could really do o stop Bush, even if they wanted to.

 

[StageLeft]

Well, he can say whatever he wants. It's the US' country as much as his if we're being completely honest about things and if Israel warns the US that they're sending some planes through, the US may at most for press conference reasons say that "We urged them to not do it.", but they won't do anything.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt America state a few years back it would not allow Israeli planes to fly through Iraq to attack Iran? Or am I mistaken??

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you are 100% right specop 007, as the occupying power, under international law, the USA
is 100% obligated to defend Iraqi air space. And if the USA lets Israel overfly Iraq to bomb Iran, they will have joined Israel in an act of war. But who cares if every US embassy is lit on fire from Aruba to Zaire, or that the entire world will demand the head of GWB&Cheney, its not my country right or wrong, its GWB right or wrong.

As it is, the GWB legacy is in the toilet, what is left to lose?

Can you link the international law you speak of?

I'm curious to see if it's as inflexible as you state (MANDATING that we attack Isreal if they fly over Iraq).

Since we occupy Iraq, I can see it's our responsibility to defend Iraq. But any int'l law mandating we attack Israel effectively means we are bound to defend Iran. That's crazy.

Even so, if Isreal decides to go over Iraq, I don't see any way that GWB can order them attacked. No freakin way.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

A fair enough question Fern, but don't be unfair yourself by stating a mere violation of Iraqi air space is directly a cause for war. But maybe this link will do something for you?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F93AA35753C1A967958260

Somewhat the point being, if the US knowingly allows Israel to overfly Iraq so it can bomb Iran, the USA will be judged in the eyes of the international community, as complicit in the Israeli attack. As it is, the US is already sternly condemning the Iraqi airspace violation through diplomatic channels. Now if on the other hand, Israel attacked Iran without overflying Iraq, no such US obligation to defend Iran would exists in a technical sense. But in a more practical sense, the US would still be viewed as complicit because of its historic ally status. But even then, Israel best and almost only Iran attack options involves violating Iraqi airspace. To the East, Turkey has already joined Syria in saying no to any Israeli overflights, and while Syria may be toothless, Turkey is another matter. As it is Israel violated Jordanian airspace
in the link, briefly trespassed into Iraqi airspace, and then may have violated Saudi airspace. Not wise given Wahhabi sentiment there.

Nor could this come at any worse a time for the megalomania of GWB. They face a July 30 expiration date of their UN mandate to be in Iraq period. And GWB is putting a lot of pressure for Maliki to sign some permanent treaty authorizing a US long term US troop basing with the firm demand of Maliki partly also focusing on the issue of who controls Iraqi airspace and a guarantee Iraq will not be used to attack Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is pulling in all its Shia IOU's with extra added Islamic theocratic credibility. Al Sadr is campaigning heavily on the Yankee go home theme, the other big Insurgent leader in Hakim is caught on the horns of a dilemma, so GWB&co is rapidly running out of time if he wants the Iraqi legislators to agree on anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. the notion that the Israelis would attack Iran w/o express Bush Admin permission is ludicrous. The Israelis wouldn't even conceive of committing their forces any other way. They'd also have to contend with at least one of the other intervening states- Jordan, Syria, KSA... And the only feasible route not crossing Iraq is across KSA... Want to see the House of Saud tumble? Letting a major incursion from the Israelis happen unimpeded would likely do it...

Whether the US defense of iraqi airspace is dependent on international law is immaterial- if such an attack were to take place, the only thing standing between the Israelis and severe international sanctions would be the US veto power in the UN. It's the only reason that the Israelis get to act the way they do, anyway...

 

[Fern]

Nah, the story linked isn't much help; it's about an incident in 1991.

Yeah, I suppose whatever route Israel may take, we're gonna get criticized.

I've looked at maps, I don't know why Israel would have to fly over Iraq to reach Iran. But I don't know anything about other countries' air defense/air force capabilities or the range of Israeli bombers etc.

If they do bomb Iran, I hope they don't fly Iraq while we're still there.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Well, Fern try this link from the chimp in Chief.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...sh_warns_israel-1.html

Basically Israel is trying to generate imminent nuclear weapons panic, but current Iranian nuclear enrichment is for low grade reactor fuel.

Meanwhile Bush is saying he not get Senate approval and saying he can stay beyond the UN mandate. GWB may well get get away with it but is likely to create an agreement
that will last as long is the sky is blue, the grass is green, or until anyone is loses power. Right now both Maliki and GWB ride the Iraqi tiger, if they fall off, they are likely to get gobbled up.

But we in the USA and Israel better be careful, Regime change and embargoes can cut both ways. But Fern also ask the correct Israeli tactical questions. Unless Israel uses nukes, for which no justification exists, Iran is simple to big and too far away, and Iranian nuclear facilities are too deeply buried for Israel to threaten IMHO.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-

From your link it looks like GWB is warning Israel to stick with diplomacy. IDK what more he could do? He certainly doesn't see to be encouraging them in any way.

I don't think we know the details of GWB's propsal to the Iraqi's. IIRC, it's confidential.

I have more *respect* for the Iraqi's than most here. I don't believe they'll be bullied about or intimidated. That goes for this GWB proposal as well as any oil deals.

IIRC, Maliki needs parlimentary approval for the GWB proposal, so I think it's nothing to worry about. And since it won't rise to level of a treaty, the next President is free to alter or abandon it. For me, it's a non-issue at this point.

Fern

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has said he will not allow the country's territory to be used for an attack against Iran.

As speculation grows over a possible Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, the question arises whether Israel will use Iraqi airspace to launch such an attack.

In a recent press conference, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said a possible Israeli strike against Iran was 'not under our control'.

McCormack also declined to answer what he said was a 'hypothetical question involving military planning' when it was noted that Israeli warplanes would have to pass through US-controlled Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.

The Iraqi Prime Minister has taken a strong stance against the use of Iraq as a base for an attack against Iran.

In a closed-circuit video conference with US President George W. Bush on Friday, Maliki stressed that he would not permit the country's soil, airspace, or waters to be used in an attack on Iran.

"Iraq is no longer a launch pad or pathway for regional military operations," he said.

Maliki also expressed concern over the use of force to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and said that he was worried over how another regional military conflict would affect his country.

Source: PressTv

Well that's some good news anyway. Apparently Maliki is not totally bought and paid for. Isn't it interesting that this isn't even a sub-title on Fox, Cnn, Nbc, Cbs Abc or BBC though.
Israel wouldn't need Iraq for "strikes" but the United States would for an all out war which is the real concern.
If Israel attacks it will probably be swift and with immediate results.
Possibly unfortunate but relatively painless.
My real concern are the oil hogs in America starting another full on war with 10,000 Iranian tribes.

Iraq is not necessary for a land or Air strike into Iran. We border Iran from the west as well in Afghanistan, and Air assets from Qatar and Kuwait can hit anywhere into Iran.

A ground attack from the west is actually less mountainess (spelling?) than coming from the east from Iraq.... But it is a lot farther to Tehran from the western border than from the east.

Im not trying to get into the political do's and don't of the boards here...just trying to keep the military "assumptions" on the straight and narrow with my background and experience in it.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iraq does not have an air force to monitor their airspace. Israel can do whatever they want over Iraq

Also incorrect...it is very small and in it's infancy but US Air Force personnel starting training Iraq's Air Force a little over a year ago... They own aircraft small and large (fighters and reconnaissance craft) and are growing bigger every month.

Israel is not part of the Coaliton...

So they CAN NOT enter coaliton airspace.... haha then again...if they are going to hit an Iranian reactor... I don't think the Us Military is going to stop them... they will wave and be like...well..at least they have the balls to do it...