Iraq warns Israel on using airspace

If you are willing to go so far as to launch a military strike against a country with more than 10 times your population, almost 100 times your land area and infinitely more natural resources than yourself, are you really going to then worry about offending the tender sensibilities of a neighboring country in complete disarray by flying over their airspace?

"Don't walk across my lawn to torch the building on the other side."

Originally posted by sh76
If you are willing to go so far as to launch a military strike against a country with more than 10 times your population, almost 100 times your land area and infinitely more natural resources than yourself, are you really going to then worry about offending the tender sensibilities of a neighboring country in complete disarray by flying over their airspace?

"Don't walk across my lawn to torch the building on the other side."

In other words "might makes right" and Israel will do whatever they darn well want to. You sure do have unwavering loyalty to Israel.

Iraq will do nothing though, because they are a defacto colony of the USA. Those are just empty statements to appease the Iraqi people. It is much like when Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai says things critical of the USA. At the end of the day they are all loyal puppets.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
In other words "might makes right" and Israel will do whatever they darn well want to. You sure do have unwavering loyalty to Israel.

You have to be pretty special to glean that out of what I said.

Originally posted by sh76
You have to be pretty special to glean that out of what I said.

Agreed.

On a side note, I'm surprised Iraq is taking such a protective posture toward Iran. There is still NO love between those two countries.

My guess is it's lip service so as to not appear to be complicit with Israel, a cardinal sin among Arab nations.

Originally posted by sh76
You have to be pretty special to glean that out of what I said.

Ahhh, I see now. You did not specify which country by name. That leaves things to open interpretation and being special is really not required.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Agreed.

On a side note, I'm surprised Iraq is taking such a protective posture toward Iran. There is still NO love between those two countries.

My guess is it's lip service so as to not appear to be complicit with Israel, a cardinal sin among Arab nations.

Israel bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq back in the 80s. That radiation exposure is probably showing a sharp increase in cancer diagnoses of people that lived in the area at that time still to this day.

I think the common Iraqi people have had about enough of Israel's crap.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Agreed.

On a side note, I'm surprised Iraq is taking such a protective posture toward Iran. There is still NO love between those two countries.

My guess is it's lip service so as to not appear to be complicit with Israel, a cardinal sin among Arab nations.

I think you are quite wrong. The Shi'ite groups now in the majority in the Iraqi government have shown themselves to be closely allied with Iran. Ahmadinejad was treated like a hero when he visited in 2008:

Unlike the prostrate power it was in 1988, Tehran today is the most influential regional actor in Iraq. Its clout in Iraq extends across the board: in economic, political, security, and religious ties that deepen by the day -- despite the ongoing presence of some 158,000 U.S. troops nearly five years after the invasion. So influential is Iran in Iraq's Shi'ite regions that a leading British daily ran a darkly humorous headline over a story last year about the southern city of Al-Basrah: "Welcome to Tehran."

"If you travel to southern Iraq, you'll see it is the only place in the world, apart from Iran itself, where the Iranian currency, the rial, is used," says Anoushiravan Ehtashami, a professor of international relations at Britain's University of Durham. "That demonstrates Tehran's economic influence on its neighbor. Today, many personalities in Iraq's military and religious circles are those who were expelled from Iraq or threatened by Saddam Hussein. Iran offered them asylum and freedom. Some of them have families in Iran. It was obvious that when these people took power after Saddam, they wouldn't look south, north, or west. They would look east -- and they would see Iran."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/02/iraq-080229-rferl01.htm

Originally posted by sh76
You have to be pretty special to glean that out of what I said.

It seems like a pretty fair reading to me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you are quite wrong. The Shi'ite groups now in the majority in the Iraqi government have shown themselves to be closely allied with Iran. Ahmadinejad was treated like a hero when he visited in 2008:

Unlike the prostrate power it was in 1988, Tehran today is the most influential regional actor in Iraq. Its clout in Iraq extends across the board ...[text shortened]... ttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/02/iraq-080229-rferl01.htm

The shift of power from Suni to Shiite is a good point. I was basing my opinion on a couple anecdotes. On my last Iraq deployment I had a conversation with a couple of Iraqis about the perception of US forces. They both said a common perception out there was that the US government was in bed with the Iranians. I was somewhat surprised by that because I know how horrible the relationship is between the US and Iran.

I guess it makes sense with the balance of power shifting toward the Shiites, the Sunis would be under the impression the US was being influenced by Iran.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems like a pretty fair reading to me.

The fact that I don't think violating air space is going to be a major concern once you've decided to bomb a sovereign country means I condone it?

Really?

<sigh>

Okay, then. I'll clarify.

I am not condoning an Israeli attack on Iran. Whether to attack Iran for the purpose of disrupting their capacity to develop nuclear weapons in an incredibly difficult question. I don't know what the answer is and I'm very glad I don't have to make the decision. I fervently hope that either:
(a) Iran is not really pursuing nuclear weapons or that
(b) There's a way to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons short of bombing them.

What I said earlier on this thread is that in the general calculus of that decision, the issue of whose air space is going to be crossed is such a minor element (well, except to the extent it matters tactically based on the chance of interference by that country) that it hardly factors into the process at all.

Iraq as a center of power in the tradition of Gilgamesh was destroyed with Saddam. Now Iraq seems to be the halfway point between Arabia and Iran. Saddam was all about uniting ancient Uruk - that's why he invaded Kuwait.