Iranian troops invade Iraq, occupy oil well

This goes a bit beyond saber-rattling that we typically get from Iran.

Can we please respond with something more substantial than a finger-wagging or stiffly worded memo?

All power to the Arabs of southeastern Iran -- or, rather, all power to the people of Khuzistan, the Khuzistanian People. (For a good example of how invent, and then get others to deeply believe in, a politically-prompted "people" look at the "Palestinian people" since their invention in late 1967, and how they grew).

Let the Khuzistanian people free Ahwaz from the Persian imperialists of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And liberate all of its oil-wells too.

And isn't it now time for Abu Dhabi, flexing its financial muscles (and in bailing out Dubai, Abu Dhabi should be creative about making sure, to the best of its ability, that it does not bail out as well all those Iranian investors, including mad mullahs, who poured tens of billions into Dubai), to use a few of its hard-earned billions to pay for propaganda that will end in the U.N. demanding that Iranian forces stop claiming "occupied" Musa and the Tunbs as Iranian. The Tunbs, Lesser and Greater, and Musa, and all the potentially oil-rich territorial waters claimed around them, belong to Abu Dhabi, to the Arabs, not to the Persians.

Oh, and one last thing. While we are at it, let's make sure the world's history books and atlases never again use that toponym "sinus Persicus" or "Persian Gulf." It's the Arab Gulf, sinus Arabicus, the Arab Gulf now and forever. After all, aren't parts of Judea and Samaria -- the toponyms used for at least the last 2000 years, and certainly those used by, inter alios, Jesus himself, now known to all right-thinking unthinking people as "the West Bank"? So it can be done. The Arabs have done it before, and they can do it again.

Keep it up.

Where is Saddam Hussein when you need him most?

They're on their way to the US!

Saddam's Iraq, obnoxious as it was, at least buffered Iran. Now that it's gone, Iran is on the move. Dumb.

So its ok for America to invade and occupy but not others?

What are Muslim neighbors for?! It's sort of like the Welcome Wagon! Instead of coupons to local businesses, they invade, seize oil wells and surround them with tanks!.

I see a market for little plastic keys...

We all miss it. It should have gone forever.

OT - hey - did you all see where someone stole the "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" sign from Auschwitz? I vote we replace it with "ISLAM MACHT FREI." It's more up-to-date.

The Telegraph.uk says "Oil experts believe Iran is attempting to deter investment in Iraq's oil industry by targeting fields that are to be auctioned to foreign oil companies."
OT quote from Copenhagen "Clothes are also expensive, making it difficult for delegates from the developing world to buy gear for the cold snap."

now where is that pesky hidden imam

Disputed region or not, this action comes off as a dangerous provocation by the Iranians.

They are no doubt testing the resolve of the Obama Presidency as well as our Western allies coalition troops.

This may not be acceptable at all, if we don't respond we end up looking weak in the eyes of our enemies. I believe some form of action needs to be taken if all forms of warnings are not heeded by the Iranians.

Action on this provocation by the Iranians should have a deadline of less than 48 hrs.

With Obama as our (ahem) "Commander in Chief", expect The Spineless One to do nothing. The Iranians know a wimp when they see him. The US is a paper tiger with this clown in charge.

Memo to our allies: yer on yer own until we get rid of this fraud.

STRATFOR has a piece on this that describes the situation as being not quite as clear cut as the story here suggests.

"Reports emerged Dec. 18 that Iranian forces infiltrated southern Iraq, occupied well No. 4 in the Fauqa Field in the Iraqi province of Maysan along the Iranian border and withdrew after several hours. Iraqi Border Guard Gen. Zaser Nazmi has claimed that Iranian forces positioned tanks around the well, dug trenches and remain in place.

"A U.S. military spokesman also claimed an incursion occurred, but the Iraqi deputy interior minister is now claiming that an incursion never occurred, that Iraq would never give up its oil rights and that an official statement would be issued shortly. Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji told Reuters that “this field is disputed and now it is neglected by both sides. There was no storming of the field. It’s empty, it’s abandoned.” A U.S. military spokesman told AFP that “there has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran.” He added that the “oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts,” and that such incidents occur quite frequently.

"Together with Bazargan and Abu Gharab, Fakka makes up the East Maysan Fields that have an estimated 2.463 billion barrels of reserves. The alleged incident occurred in a disputed area where the border has not been demarcated, though a committee was formed some time ago to resolve border disputes. Some reports have suggested that such incidents occur frequently, but this appears to be the first incident of its kind. STRATFOR is working to verify the details of what actually occurred."

From this story it would appear there is some dispute over where the border is between Iraq and Iran in this region, and therefore who actually has legitimate claim to the oil well in question. But whatever the muddiness of the situation, the Iraqis could do themselves a favor, and demonstrate they have the cajones they like to think of themselves as having, by taking the lead and unilaterally occupying the field - without U.S. assistance - and simply declare it as being part of Iraq. At the least it would put them in a good bargaining position for whatever mediation efforts might follow to resolve this "crisis." If they can't do something as simple as this, then what hope is there of them ever being able to defend their own country when we pull out for good?

Yes, the provocation continues.

Shades of 1938.

A "border guard" in Basra has a phone conversation with Bloomberg News just before the market opens? The supposed event he describes is happening five days before a big OPEC meeting, of which both Iraq and Iran are members. OPEC has stated that what they wish to gain from the meeting is to keep prices where they are, above $70/barrel. By coincidence, Wall Street speculators, in order to realize gains by Christmas, have only until today's closing to up their bonuses. Stories are conflicting: from the Iranians still occupying the well, to they left after a few hours, to outright denial that the event ever happened. The oil field itself is shared by both Iraq and Iran. They both have equal drilling rights so there is nothing unusual about an Iranian presence. It is just that the one well in question is claimed by Iraq. Iraqi officials are pretty much shrugging it off: "Tomorrow, we might summon the Iranian ambassador to discuss this issue," Mahmoud told The Associated Press.

Challenge: do the following search in any engine - OPEC meeting "year" - use any year you wish since 2002. Go four or five pages deep in the results. See how many stories that can fit in this template: "Oil Prices (soar, climb, rise, hits new high, up, spikes) Ahead of OPEC Meeting".

Be it by nations, oil companies, OPEC, Wall Street or any combination of these players, this is just another example of market manipulation and complicity (or stupidity) from the press. As members of OPEC, both with a vested interest in the price of oil, does anyone really doubt that Iraq and Iran wouldn't collude in the interest of higher oil prices?

Don't fail to read the posting just above.

Holy Cannoli. A border dispute twixt some countries we ought have nothing to do with? Let's bomb somebody somewhere and let's do it now.

For the love of Chuck Woolery, when will America start the war against Iran on behalf of Israel? I mean, this is the season to be thinking about giving gifts and, not only that, we have a duty to involve ourselves in some inane scrap in Satan's Sand Trap. It's right there in The Constitution, for heaven's sake.

I say parachute Elin in there with a seven iron and tell her they are all friends of Tiger.

Look, this border scrap is none of our damn business and it has resulted in as many lives lost as the Grand Banks fishing disputes involving those crazy-ass Canadians who actually fired shots in front of the bow of a Spanish ship and then boarded it during the Turbot Wars, and that at a time when another White House Wuss, Clinton, refused to bomb or attack either Canada or The EU (OK, I sorta wish he did fire a few missiles at the EU)

If the Iraq-Iran dispute is not a reminder of 1938, I do not know what is. I blame this on Barack. It is only because he is weak that Iran did this. It can't possibly be the case there is a legitimate dispute.

Man oh man, there are a LOT of commentators in here who are quite trigger-happy.

Wow. I just saw Mick's post. Interesting.

Thank you, sir

Man oh man, there are a LOT of commentators in here who are quite trigger-happy." -- from a poster above

Surely this is among the least "trigger-happy" of sites, if the triggers in question, and the men, and the money, and the materiel, are supposed to be American. Let the fissures within the Camp of Islam, between groups (sectarian, ethnic) and states (economic resentments and desire to seize wealth) do their stuff. Regret that the Iran-Iraq War ended, that the army of West Pakistan had not been pummeled for a decade, and not merely a year or two, trying to suppress the independence of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), or that the war in Yemen might not continue for as long as it can, or that Somali warlords can continue forever to battle each other, hardly constitutes being "trigger happy." It is, for non-Muslims, only being sensible.

And the bombing Iranian nuclear installations, from on high -- what are all those top-of-the-line missiles and planes for, for god's sake, if not to be used when necessary -- must be done soon to avoid far worse in the future, is hardly the same thing as invading Iran to “bring freedom” to “ordinary moms and dads.” Kipling's "We have the Maxim Gun and they have notP is no longer quite true. Through Western negligence, and Western money, meretricious and expensive-to-maintain Pakistan has acquired nuclear weapons, but allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a second possessor of "Islamic bombs," is unacceptable and, given the chiliastic nature of that regime, would if it did acquire such weaponry would result in an Iranian regime never to be domestically dislodged, and outside Iran, would be geopolitically nightmarish.

What ever is the case, it's the Iraqis who will be out front.

Better for us to have their back than the other way around.

I was referring to those in here who, at the rumored drop of a Turban over some invisible line in the sand, start demanding America bomb this that or the other country.

Obviously, the numbers of heretical Christian Chiliasts in America (Evangelicals who support Israel) is numerically greater than the number of Muslims as deluded as Ahmadinejad - who, as I understand it, has no authority to order any attacks on anybody.

Sure, he is a crackpot, but, then again, so was Bush and he, presumably, was a chiliast yet even he didn't try to rush The Parousia.

I am all in favor of leaving the crackpots alone to devour one another but I am also very skeptical that the Iranians are close to a nuke.

I say we wait until Israel has faked enough evidence to justify them bombing Iran.

as usual for Muslims when the start attacking...they go for the wealth to loot....this time it just happens to be oil...and that oil just happens to belong to other Muslims...but what do they care...the Iraqis don't seem to care, the Iranians don't care, the Kurds don't care, and the paltry few Christians have no say so in the matter as they are allowed no say so in the matter....as in the minds of the Muslims ...they don't exist....

“I say we wait until Israel has faked enough evidence to justify them bombing Iran.”

Israel hasn't faked a thing about the threat from Iran; they have been as patient as Job, and then some, as the rest of the civilized world finally recognizes what it ought to have understood a half-dozen years ago. Israelis never wanted the Americans to invade Iraq, thought it an unwise use of resources, and believed Iran was the problem that had to be dealt with. And as, over the past few years, every transparent delaying tactic by the Iranians has been tried and had success with, inter alios, Mohammed El Baradei and the IAEA, with the U.N., with the E.U., with even the strangely-hesitant (there's no need to hesitate) American government, under Bush and then under Obama, it must have driven Israelis to distraction and fury at the pusillanimity of so many, as the parallels with the late 1930s became far more than merely rhetorical. if anything, the Israeli government has exercised incredible restraint in waiting for that absurd game to play out, and to realize that every hour that goes by allows Iran to get closer to its goal, to built alternate sites, to harden the sites it does have, and to prepare for what is now inevitable -- or should be.

Again and again Israel has undertaken difficult military tasks that should have been assumed by the Western alliance, or specifically, by the United States. It was Israel that, in bombing the French-supplied reactor of Saddam Hussein, set back for twenty years -- ended for twenty years -- his nuclear project. It was Israel that, in bombing the nuclear installation in Syria that had both an Iranian and a North Korean connection, helped prevent the projection of Syrian and Iranian power even more over Lebanon and possibly into northern Iraq. In defending itself, Israel again and again has defended the West. But when it comes to Iran, there are special reasons for wishing the American military, which has far more planes, and many more places from which to take off and land, and Besides, the Western world should thank god that for several decades Israel was the lightning-rod, until such time as OPEC trillions, and the mass-migration of millions of Muslims into Western Europe, allowed Muslims to think they had the powere to extend their reach beyond the local Jihads (against Israel, India, the Philippines, and a few other targets), and to speak more and more openly about their goals, to be achieved in the main not through terrorism but through other, quite effective means, including deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

The United States should assume its role as the head of the world's Infidels, and while ensuring that Pakistan never acquires the ability to deliver its already-acquired nuclear weapons, also to make sure that the Islamic Republic of Iran never acquires them, for its rulers are fanatical Muslims on stilts.

And to those who argue that such an attack will entrenth the current regime in Iran, I suggest that after a very brief period of rally-round-the-flag indignation, of course whipped up by that regime, its colossal defeat will be apparent, and the fury of the most advanced part of the Iranian nation, at the waste of money, and at the destruction that the Islamic Republic brought on itself, will spell the end of that regime, as the Israeli attack on Entebbe, on July 4, 1976, showed that tje Ugandan dictator (and "King of Scotland") Idn Amin was both vulnerable and largely impotent, and the recognition of this, all over Africa and within Uganda, led inexorably to the subsequent fall of Idi Amin, and his fleeing for a refuge among fellow Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

Catholic Guy : Man oh man, there are a LOT of commentators in here who are quite trigger-happy.

Use the language of the people you're trying to communicate with.

Dear Hugh. Your native intellect, combined with your education, and knowledge of the region and the various events occurring in that region over time is so overwhelmingly superior to mine that I am, intellectually speaking, a bit like Iran militarily compared to The United States.

Like Iran won't attack America, I am not about to attack you, but, unlike Iran, I won't even engage in the false Saddam-like bluster and blather that Israel will be destroyed, or, in your case, that I could bluster and blather sufficiently to fool even one lurker I had proved your recommendations either rash or wrong.

I will write that I think the West had better come-up with something superior to blow-em-all-to-hell or continue to pretend that it's all cool until it becomes necessary to blow-em-all-to-hell, but, as you and Mr Spencer know only too well, there is not a politician in sight in America who has the first clue as to the danger Islam presents to the West and how it is irreformable. Period.

All I can write is that I trust Israel about as far as I can thrown Debbie Stabenow.

As a country, they are, militarily, as adept as is Tiger Woods in his field of expertise, (and even further ahead of their field of competitors as he is ahead of his competitors), but, like Tiger Woods, I wouldn't trust one damn word Israel ever said. About anything.

IF Israel is a key to our survival, then we are screwed.

I really don't give a rat's butt about Israel. I do favor Serge Trifkovic's idea of a Northern Alliance (as I recall, it did not include Israel) but the idea that Israel is either irreplacable or has anything to do with Old Testament Israel and, therefore, ought be thought a burden objective morality forces us to bear(or bear with) is one idea I do not take seriously.

To end on a happy note,I do know that Dubya had planned to invade and occupy both Iran and Iraq. He was just, he thought,proceeding alphabetically.