Israel signals it could attack Iranian weaponry in Iraq

By Dan Williams

 

FILE PHOTO: Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman visits an army drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights near the border with Syria, Aug. 7, 2018. REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo

 

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel signalled on Monday that it could attack suspected Iranian military assets in Iraq, as it has done with scores of air strikes in war-torn Syria.

 

Citing Iranian, Iraqi and Western sources, Reuters reported last week that Iran had transferred short-range ballistic missiles to Shi'ite allies in Iraq in recent months. Tehran and Baghdad formally denied that report.

 

Israel sees in Iran's regional expansion an attempt to open up new fronts against it. Israel has repeatedly launched attacks in Syria to prevent any entrenchment of Iranian forces helping Damascus in the war.

 

"We are certainly monitoring everything that is happening in Syria and, regarding Iranian threats, we are not limiting ourselves just to Syrian territory. This also needs to be clear," Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman told a conference hosted and aired live by the Israel Television News Company.

 

Asked if that included possible action in Iraq, Lieberman said: "I am saying that we will contend with any Iranian threat, and it doesn't matter from where it comes ... Israel's freedom is total. We retain this freedom of action."

 

There was no immediate response from the government of Iraq, which is technically at war with Israel, nor from U.S. Central Command in Washington, D.C., which oversees U.S. military operations in Iraq.

 

Israel's Channel 1 television reported that in recent weeks the United States asked Israel not to attack in Iraqi territory. It said it had gleaned the information from "Western officials."

 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Saturday he was "deeply concerned" by the reported Iranian missile transfer.

 

"If true, this would be a gross violation of Iraqi sovereignty and of UNSCR 2231," he tweeted, referring to a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran. The Trump administration abandoned that deal in May, citing, among other factors, Iran's ballistic missile projects.

 

According to regional sources, Israel began carrying out air strikes in Syria in 2013 against suspected arms transfers and deployments by Iran and its Lebanese ally, the Shi'ite Hezbollah militia.

 

These operations have largely been ignored by Russia, Damascus's big-power backer, and coordinated with other powers conducting their own military operations in Syria.

 

A Western diplomat briefed on the coordination told Reuters last year that, while Israel had a "free hand" in Syria, it was expected not to take any military action in neighbouring Iraq, where the United States has been struggling to help achieve stability since its 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

 

Despite their formal state of hostilities, Israel and Iraq have not openly traded blows in decades.

 

In 1981, Israel's air force destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. During the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq fired dozens of Scud rockets into Israel, which did not retaliate, out of consideration for U.S. efforts to maintain an Arab coalition against Saddam.

 

Israel made a plan for its commandos to assassinate Saddam in Iraq in 1992, but the plan was abandoned after a fatal training accident.

 

(Additional reporting by Raya Jalabi in Erbil; Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Jeffrey Heller, Toni Reinhold)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-04

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

15 minutes ago, keith101 said:

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

They will just borrow a nuke from Pakistan,  problem solved.

16 minutes ago, keith101 said:

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

Several Arab countries have already tried to attack Israel in unisen back in 1948, again in 1967 and 1973, and history tells us that didn't went well for them,

as for the Iranians, just because they are there at the invention of the Syrian government, doesn't mean that they're welcome into this already boiling hot and troubled area and Israel no doubt has the right to preempt and action to protect it's sovereignty...

4 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Several Arab countries have already tried to attack Israel in unisen back in 1948, again in 1967 and 1973, and history tells us that didn't went well for them,

as for the Iranians, just because they are there at the invention of the Syrian government, doesn't mean that they're welcome into this already boiling hot and troubled area and Israel no doubt has the right to preempt and action to protect it's sovereignty...

“just because they are there at the invention of the Syrian government, doesn't mean that they're welcome into this already boiling hot and troubled area“

 

It does suggest the Syrian Government welcome them.

 

I guess that’s not a sovereign right of the Syrian Government?!

 

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Israel's freedom is total. We retain this freedom of action."

 

Classic hardliner Zionist speak    

Edited September 4, 20187 yr by meechai

1 hour ago, keith101 said:

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

 

Scaremongering is fun.

 

There was nothing said about Israeli intentions to "take military actions in all of them Muslim countries". As for the assertions about some imaginary general retaliation (as if they were all capable and coordinated) leading to WWIII (no less...) - about as laughable as it gets.

 

Some posters need to get a grip.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“just because they are there at the invention of the Syrian government, doesn't mean that they're welcome into this already boiling hot and troubled area“

 

It does suggest the Syrian Government welcome them.

 

I guess that’s not a sovereign right of the Syrian Government?!

 

 

 

Syria got the sovereign right to invite the Iranians in, Israel got the sovereign right to take action against such threats. With regard to the OP, somewhat more complicated as seems like the alleged missiles aren't under the control of the Iraqi government. More akin to the Hezbollah setup in Lebanon. I think that's one thing Assad is not keen on - having a bunch of militias with divided loyalties and the capability to involve the country in unwanted conflicts.

I doubt all the muslim world would up for a strike against Israel, a lot of them don't like the current version of Iran, esp South Arabia and the Gulf States. Egypt and Jordan seem to have a stable relationship with Israel. The problem is the threat of an escalation and acquisition of a nuclear device so it depends which way Pakistan is leaning. If Israel feels threatened by Iran , they will do whatever is necessary to deal with it if no one else will, they hold the balance of power in the region.

2 hours ago, keith101 said:

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

Keith research the past  50 years of Israel military history ,then look up their reported present armaments .Estimated of 80-400 atomic warheads and the ability to deliver them'

Edited September 4, 20187 yr by AsiaHand

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Scaremongering is fun.

 

There was nothing said about Israeli intentions to "take military actions in all of them Muslim countries". As for the assertions about some imaginary general retaliation (as if they were all capable and coordinated) leading to WWIII (no less...) - about as laughable as it gets.

 

Some posters need to get a grip.

Warmongering is dangerous.

5 hours ago, keith101 said:

If Israel intends to take military action in all of these Muslim countries what's going to happen when they retaliate and they all attack Israel , will it start world war 3 or will the rest of the sit back and say you brought this on yourself .

You must be joking. Iran is on record as having the intention of destroying Israel. Israel is being PROACTIVE in order to survive. Not being proactive would definitely mean they won't. You act like the Middle East is a normal neighborhood. It ain't. 

4 hours ago, meechai said:

 

Classic hardliner Zionist speak    

Sounds like typical rhetoric from any proud sovereign nation. But it's fun to try to paint Zionism as especially evil, isn't it? 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Warmongering is dangerous.

Yep. The Iranian regime is a cuddly bunch of innocent puppies. No need to be concerned. That's the ticket. 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Warmongering is dangerous.

 

And pointless comments are pointless.

 

Obviously nothing out of you or the other suspects on the "warmongering" aspect of Iran supplying (or deploying) ballistic missiles to one of their pet militias in Iraq.

5 hours ago, Morch said:

With regard to the OP, somewhat more complicated as seems like the alleged missiles aren't under the control of the Iraqi government.

The Shi’ite militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilisation Forces report to Iraq’s prime minister, who is a Shi’ite under the country’s unofficial governance system. However, Iran still has a clear hand in coordinating the PMF leadership, which frequently meets and consults with Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani who oversees Iraq missile activities. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-iraq-missiles-exclusive/exclusive-iran-moves-missiles-to-iraq-in-warning-to-enemies-idUSKCN1LG0WB

 

5 hours ago, meechai said:

 

Classic hardliner Zionist speak    

 

I don't think Khamenei would appreciate being called a "hardliner Zionist":

 

Quote

" Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors..."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-khamenei-idUSKCN0WW0PT?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New Campaign&utm_term=*Mideast Brief

Edited September 4, 20187 yr by Morch

Off topic posts have been removed. 

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

The Shi’ite militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilisation Forces report to Iraq’s prime minister, who is a Shi’ite under the country’s unofficial governance system. However, Iran still has a clear hand in coordinating the PMF leadership, which frequently meets and consults with Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani who oversees Iraq missile activities. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-iraq-missiles-exclusive/exclusive-iran-moves-missiles-to-iraq-in-warning-to-enemies-idUSKCN1LG0WB

 

 

Selective quoting is easy. From the very same link:

 

Quote

“It was clear to Iraqi intelligence that such a missile arsenal sent by Iran was not meant to fight Daesh (Islamic State) militants but as a pressure card Iran can use once involved in regional conflict,” the official said.

 

The Iraqi source said it was difficult for the Iraqi government to stop or persuade the groups to go against Tehran.

 

“We can’t restrain militias from firing Iranian rockets because simply the firing button is not in our hands, it’s with Iranians who control the push button,” he said.

 

Might not be a bad idea if Israel didn't initiate action each and every time. 

Whatever else people think about Israel, it is not to be underestimated. It is surrounded by potential/real enemies, although it's interests have aligned recently with some of the Sunni nations like Saudi...ironically (but that may only be temporary). They are no fools and can take on any/all of the Middle Eastern countries as it will automatically get US support. It's easy to bash the Zionists on here (and they are far from perfect either), but the real threat is Iran and it's mad-cap clerics who would think nothing of passing lethal judgment on millions of non Shiites in an instant without the slightest thought and it wouldn't surprise me if they already had nukes too despite all the BS about preventing it. Remember, the representatives of the "religion of peace" would line everyone up against the wall, who is a non Muslim (including you), and pull the trigger if they could. There is no such thing as "moderate Islam"...it's misdirection and the creeping hard line march can be seen in all Muslim countries, even Malaysia etc. This religion is a major cancer on the world.

Edited September 4, 20187 yr by Sir Dude

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Syria got the sovereign right to invite the Iranians in, Israel got the sovereign right to take action against such threats. With regard to the OP, somewhat more complicated as seems like the alleged missiles aren't under the control of the Iraqi government. More akin to the Hezbollah setup in Lebanon. I think that's one thing Assad is not keen on - having a bunch of militias with divided loyalties and the capability to involve the country in unwanted conflicts.

Preventive war is a sovereign right?

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And pointless comments are pointless.

 

Obviously nothing out of you or the other suspects on the "warmongering" aspect of Iran supplying (or deploying) ballistic missiles to one of their pet militias in Iraq.

 

If Israel fealt the need to take military action they would do so and I doubt very much they would make an announcement before hand.

 

So the question is why make a statement like this?

 

My view (and I am entitled to my view) is Israel’s statements is deliberately inflammatory - warmongering.

 

Away with your ‘you and the usual suspects’.

 

4 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Might not be a bad idea if Israel didn't initiate action each and every time. 

 

Might not be a bad idea if posters managed to keep it real. Israel does not "initiate action each and every time". Case in point, the OP.

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Preventive war is a sovereign right?

 

What war would that be?

Does Israel currently have a peace agreement, or even some semblance of non-hostile relations with Syria, Iran or Iraq?

And yes, I'm aware that some posters live in an imaginary world in which countries (and specifically, Israel) need to wait and afford opponents the opportunities to improve their opening positions or even attack first. The same poster who see no issues with Iran deployment of such weapons, and the manner in which it was done. 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What war would that be?

Does Israel currently have a peace agreement, or even some semblance of non-hostile relations with Syria, Iran or Iraq?

And yes, I'm aware that some posters live in an imaginary world in which countries (and specifically, Israel) need to wait and afford opponents the opportunities to improve their opening positions or even attack first. The same poster who see no issues with Iran deployment of such weapons, and the manner in which it was done. 

So if one nation don't have a peace agreement with another nation that means they're at war?

And which poster would that be?

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

If Israel fealt the need to take military action they would do so and I doubt very much they would make an announcement before hand.

 

So the question is why make a statement like this?

 

My view (and I am entitled to my view) is Israel’s statements is deliberately inflammatory - warmongering.

 

Away with your ‘you and the usual suspects’.

 

 

No one said you're not entitled to hold biased nonsense opinions. Knock yourself out.

 

So, just to get this straight - the "warmongering" element is the Israeli statement, whereas Iran's deployment of the missiles is....?

 

To the extent that the Israeli comment was calculated (which is not a given, regardless of your implied assertion) it broadcasts yet another "red line" of sorts - with the message aimed at both rivals and other relevant countries. Not much different than previous instances. If you look at what was actually said, not quite "warmongering", more of a warning.

 

Then again, one may consider that the politician in question is under some pressure from political rivals painting him as "soft". What with his party not doing that great in the polls and election rumors floated every few weeks, sounding tough is rather expected.

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So if one nation don't have a peace agreement with another nation that means they're at war?

And which poster would that be?

 

More of your usual pointless word games. Kindly stop propping up straw-men. And get a clue as to relations between the relevant countries before posting.

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No one said you're not entitled to hold biased nonsense opinions. Knock yourself out.

 

So, just to get this straight - the "warmongering" element is the Israeli statement, whereas Iran's deployment of the missiles is....?

 

To the extent that the Israeli comment was calculated (which is not a given, regardless of your implied assertion) it broadcasts yet another "red line" of sorts - with the message aimed at both rivals and other relevant countries. Not much different than previous instances. If you look at what was actually said, not quite "warmongering", more of a warning.

 

Then again, one may consider that the politician in question is under some pressure from political rivals painting him as "soft". What with his party not doing that great in the polls and election rumors floated every few weeks, sounding tough is rather expected.

Getting accused of being biased by you is something of a honour given our past spats in which you’ve ranted over my support for open and transparent trials / open transparent government.

 

I guess I’ve earned the ‘Biased Star’ with ‘The Usual Suspects Ribbon’.

 

Politicians wishing to ‘sound tough’ has a habit of winding up with innocent people getting killed.

 

Away with you and your ready excuses.

Im not going to engage in the debate as to whether Israel is right or wrong. Its like Donald Trump. If he was to walk on water, folks would criticize him for not being able to swim.  But I do ask what business does Iran have in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else? They cant even feed their own people and have the need to export...missles and soldiers?

 

But regardless, they will have full support from  us as it is good training and tactical development for F-35s.  Thats why the US has a base in Israel. A strike on Iranian missles would lead to lessons and tactics that our boys in Blue may need to use against the Russians and Chinese. Or the Iranians. 

 

And the latter is coming faster than you may think.