Iran Captures Iraqi Oil Fields In Disputed Region

[Equilibrium]

DEVELOPING: Iranians have been launching attacks in a disputed Iraqi oil area over the past few days, Iraq's deputy minister said, Reuters reported.

Iranians Reportedly Launch Attacks in Disputed Iraqi Oil Area - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

[rj1]

Reading this on Stratfor, it looks like it was not so much "attack" but "took position" as the Iraqis had no one at the field and it was neglected.

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.

And then two hours later the Iraqi Deputy Minister clarified:

Iranian forces took up position at Fauqa oil field in Iraqi territory, an Iraqi official confirmed Dec. 18, reversing earlier statements, Reuters reported, citing an Iraqi Interior Ministry official. Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji said the incursion was the latest of several the week of Dec. 14. Eleven Iranian soldiers took position at 3:30 p.m. local time on Dec. 18, raising the Iranian flag, and remain there, al-Khafaji said.

[Equilibrium]

Either way, if the Iranian justification for the seizure is that borders are based on official government presence, then borders for them are irrelevant.

Teheran seems to be probing to see just how much its scope for action has improved with the US withdrawing and the Iraqi government increasingly taking responsibility for its sovereignty. It also looke like its trying to see how far the US will commit to its defense obligations to Baghdad.

[Zinja]

You will see the appeasing bootlicking response of the Iraq gvt to this.

[rj1]

Either way, if the Iranian justification for the seizure is that borders are based on official government presence, then borders for them are irrelevant.

STRATFOR: Already Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari is downplaying the incident, claiming he is not surprised it happened since the border has yet to be demarcated. A U.S. military official in Iraq, Col. Peter Newell, has also characterized the event as somewhat routine, and one that both Iraqi and Iranian forces participate in: “What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go… to fix something or do some maintenance. They’ll paint it in Iraqi colors and throw an Iraqi flag up. They’ll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colors and raise an Iranian flag. It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again.”

Teheran seems to be probing to see just how much its scope for action has improved with the US withdrawing and the Iraqi government increasingly taking responsibility for its sovereignty. It also looke like its trying to see how far the US will commit to its defense obligations to Baghdad.

I agree with you that Tehran is just testing the response. Stratfor has even claimed "a high-ranking Iranian official" as a source telling them what happened and even the general most likely in charge, so the Iranians aren't hiding they did it and are telling everyone.

[Kermanshahi]

What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again."

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iraq-Iran in oilfield dispute

[Zinja]

What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again."

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iraq-Iran in oilfield dispute

"Again, we ask Iran to be committed to the good relations that they announced with Iraq and its nation, and to withdraw its forces immediately," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Al-Arabiyah TV. "This is the demand of Iraq, and we call Iran to be committed with that."

Iran, however, appeared undeterred.

In a statement, the Iranian military denied it violated Iraq's sovereignty and cited a 1975 border agreement in claiming the oil well as part of Iran's territory.

"Our forces are on our own soil and, based on the known international borders, this well belongs to Iran," the Iranian military said in a statement to Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam satellite television.

Link

But honestly Kermanshahi, why does your country do these such things which are so counter productive? Iraq is supposed to be one of your strongest allies, why risk tensions with them? Sometimes the way your leadership thinks is very buffling indeed. One cant help think your country is working very hard to be the world's most hated country.

[Kermanshahi]

Link

But honestly Kermanshahi, why does your country do these such things which are so counter productive? Iraq is supposed to be one of your strongest allies, why risk tensions with them? Sometimes the way your leadership thinks is very buffling indeed. One cant help think your country is working very hard to be the world's most hated country.

It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

[pChan]

It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

Source,links to back up your statements please.

[Kermanshahi]

Source,links to back up your statements please.

Which statements do you want a source for. Tell me and I will give it.

[pChan]

Which statements do you want a source for. Tell me and I will give it.

Never mind. Made a google search Maliki is no saint .....

[Zinja]

It's aimed at testing both America and Iraq. And Iraq isn't a very strong Iranian ally yet, it's because of the American occupation. Now the old Iraqi Government (2005-2006) was very pro-Iranian (this is the government which was elected by the Iraqi people), however in 2006 the US pushed for the appointment of a new government and they where allright at the beginning (2006-2007) but this Maliki is starting to follow in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein.
Ideologically he is starting to go from Shi'a Islamist to Arab Nationalist and he's been creating tensions with his former allies: the Shi'a Islamist Parties (which were elected by the Iraqi people), the Kurds, the Iranians and the Sy rians. Politically he is becoming more and more of a dictator, government censorship is being put on the media, political opponents are being imprisoned, people are being banned from joining elections, prisoners are bieng tortured...
Now today relations with Iran are still friendly but if things deteriorate any more and also depending on the outcome of the 2010 elections (which is being postponed so much that it might not even happen in 2010), the Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him. Iranian allies still have the security forces in hands, most police/soldiers are still militiamen and their commanders are parties and clerics loyal to Iran. To counter this Maliki has been trying to bring Sunnis in the military but it's not been succesfull because Sunnis in the security forces have been responsible for countless bombings and are constantly being found to have links to insurgents.
This recent move in the well is aimed both to show Maliki and America

Very interesting! I thought you guys were really warming up to each other with the Maliki gvt giving your Ahd'jad red carpet welcomes (against the US's advice), signing trading deals, Mailki's gvt refusing to acknowledge Iran's role in insurgency (at least not publicly). I really was of the impression that the current Iraq gvt was firmly with you, maybe im naive of the real game behind the scenes.

What is Iran's position to the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council? I know Iran is pro Sadr but what are their feelings towards Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Oh and finally, you say "Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him", isn't that interfering in another country's sovereingty, a charge which you are accusing the US?

[tankie]

What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go ... to fix something or do some maintenance. They'll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

"They'll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag.

"It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again

;)


Reuters Mohammed Abbas



Iranian troops have withdrawn partially from a disputed oil well claimed by both Tehran and Baghdad, an Iraqi spokesman said on Sunday, possibly defusing a border feud straining the two countries' delicate ties. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said a small group of Iranian troops who had taken over an oil well in a remote region along the Iran-Iraq border last week were no longer in control of the well, which Iraq considers part of its Fakka oilfield.

"The Iranian flag has been lowered. The Iranian troops have pulled back 50 metres, but they have not gone back to where they were before. The Iraqi government asked for the troops to go back to where they were," Dabbagh said.

Dabbagh said a joint committee would begin to look at demarcating the border in the desert area southeast of Baghdad.

The border flare-up kicked off a storm of emergency meetings and bilateral phone calls, with Baghdad calling for an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops yet also seeking to contain damage to its charged relationship with neighbouring Iran.

In a phone conversation on Saturday evening, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshiyar Zebari underlined the need for a meeting "with the intention of enforcing bilateral border agreements," Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Global oil prices climbed on Friday following initial media reports that Iranian troops had commandeered an Iraqi oil well.

The news was all the more worrisome as Iraq prepares to sign giant contracts with leading global oil firms, a milestone in its efforts to turn around its oil sector and secure foreign cash despite ongoing violence and other obstacles to investment.

Conflict with fellow Shi'ite Muslim Iran, a sometimes rival that shares deep historic and religious ties with Iraq, is an especially sensitive issue for Iraqi officials several months before parliamentary elections on March 7.

As the Iraqi government moves firmly out of the postwar U.S. shadow, even Iraqi officials friendly with Tehran cannot afford to be seen as bowing to any foreign powers, especially Iran.

[Kermanshahi]

Very interesting! I thought you guys were really warming up to each other with the Maliki gvt giving your Ahd'jad red carpet welcomes (against the US's advice), signing trading deals, Mailki's gvt refusing to acknowledge Iran's role in insurgency (at least not publicly). I really was of the impression that the current Iraq gvt was firmly with you, maybe im naive of the real game behind the scenes.

Well, he was pro-Iranian at first, he even spent his time in exile, in Iran, relations are still quite good but we can see they are deteriorating and if Maliki goes any further they might just turn bad.

What is Iran's position to the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council? I know Iran is pro Sadr but what are their feelings towards Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

The Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (formerly known as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) was created in Iran, by the Iranian government. During Saddam all Shi'a political leaders fled the country, to Iran and there were also many Shi'a refugees who fled to Iran. In Iran, the Iranian government helped these political leaders set up the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and helped them recruit those refugees into their own militia, the Badr Brigades, which were trained, armed and funded by Iran aswell as stationed in Iran. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War both SCIRI and their militia (Badr Brigades, now known as Badr Organisation due to militia ban in Iraq) aswell as the Islamic Dawa Party (were Maliki belongs to, and their militia) fought alongside Iran, operating from Iranian soil, to fight Iraq.

Iranians are likely to want a government by the Supreme Council, they are also Iran's closest ally. Sadr only got alligned with Iran after 2003, when most Iranian allies chose to cooperate in America cause it would benefit them (to get more power in Iraq), Sadr chose to oppose America and fight them, therefore Iran choose to support him (rather than anti-Iranian/anti-Shi'a, Sunni Insurgents). Now relatiosn with Dawa have been good for decades (in the 60s and 70s Dawa was helping Khomeini against the Shah, during the 80s and 90s IR was helping Dawa against Saddam), during Jaafari relations were good, even during Maliki at first relations were good. However recently (08-09) we've seen Maliki fall out with SIIC and Sadr and we've seen Maliki creating hostilities towards the Kurds (which are also Iranian allies), we've also seen him taking more power towards himself.
Maliki's recent policies are neither pro-American nor pro-Iranian and they are not Shi'a Islamist or Arab Nationalist, he doesn't regards for freedom, human rights or democracy, that's why I say he's becoming new Saddam, this is all too similar to Saddam Hussein.

Oh and finally, you say "Iranians might start working on a coup to overthrow him", isn't that interfering in another country's sovereingty, a charge which you are accusing the US?

Let's not forget the current Iraqi government was put in charge by a US-invasion and that Nouri al-Maliki is far from the populair democraticly elected leader that Mohammad Mossadeq was.
And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

[pChan]

And Iran does interfere with other countries, they've been taking actions against many governments (such as Saddam's regime, the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, Bahrain and Yemen's Sunni regimes, Israel's government, the Fatah dominated PLO) but Iran doesn't attack other countries like America does.

With the exception of Afghanistan its probably because Iran can't. Saddam tried something to that effect and that didn't go very well.