Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Deescalate with Iran: Free the Irbil Five
Here's a very modest step the United States could take to deescalate tension with Iran and avoid war: free five Iranian officials that the U.S. arrested in Iraq and has been detaining for the last 10 months. This should be a no-brainer.
The U.S. military is mulling releasing them, and has been urged by the State Department to do so, precisely because their continued detention is an unnecessary provocation. The Los Angles Times reported Wednesday:
...senior U.S. diplomats and military officers fear that an incident on the ground in Iraq is a more likely trigger for a possible confrontation with the Islamic Republic. In one sign of their concern, U.S. military policymakers are weighing whether to release some of the Iranian personnel they have taken into custody in Iraq. Doing so could reduce the risk that radical Iranian elements might seize U.S. military or diplomatic personnel to retaliate, thus raising the danger of an escalation, a senior Defense official said.
According to former U.S. officials, the Times reports, when U.S. forces seized five Iranians in January from Iran's northern consular office in Irbil, in Kurdish Iraq, their real goal was to pick up a senior official of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who they believed was with the group. The U.S. has kept the five Iranians in jail all year, despite the protests of Iraqi and Iranian officials, and despite the urgings of some State Department officials and U.S. allies to free them.
But now, says the Times, U.S. officials appear to be coming to the conclusion that it is not worth holding some of the less valuable captives if it risks retaliation. "It might be useful to cut them loose so [the Iranians] don't have an excuse to pick up someone as a bargaining chip," said the senior Defense official.
So, if we want to avoid unnecessary provocation with Iran, we should release these Iranian officials, according to a senior U.S. Defense official. Here's another reason to release the Iranian officials: the Iraqi government has called for their release. The Iraqi government is supposedly a sovereign government - so we have been informed by the Bush Administration. If the Iraqi government is sovereign, then the Iraqi government gets to decide to invite Iranian officials to their country, and whether such officials should be arrested or released. The U.S. has put pressure on its Arab allies to respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. How about setting a good example by respecting the sovereignty of the Iraqi government ourselves?
Here's another reason to release the Iranian officials: Iraq and Iran say the Iranian officials were "credentialed diplomats." The U.S. disputes this. Is it really in the interest of the U.S. to play hairsplitting games about who is entitled to the protection of international treaties concerning diplomats? Seems like that's just the sort of thing that could come back to bite us.
Finally, whatever the initial justifications for detaining these officials, after 10 months, there is no justification for holding them now. Whatever intelligence the U.S. can gain from them has already been gained. The notion of putting them on trial would be absurd, and therefore they must be released. Why not be done with it?
The Bush Administration, while it has cranked up tensions with Iran, assures us that they are not seeking war. This would be a great opportunity for them to prove it. Free the Irbil Five.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy.
Comments
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.

6 Comments so far
Show AllThe PROBLEM is that these PNAC pigs WANT war with Iran. You see, it has NOTHING TO DO with nuclear weapons or "interference" in Iraq or anything else.
Two things: 1.) Iran has the 3rd-largest reserves of oil in the world; and 2.) the oil pigs are in control of the US military.
No other considerations are necessary.
Alamac says it all. George and Company need confrontation, not negotiations. They need a new enemy to justify expansion of the war effort and the oil stealing. After all, that's how they make their money.
Hoa binh
I don't want to spam the board, so I won't past the lyrics to the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath.
But here's a link to the lyrics:
http://www.ram.org/contrib/warpigs.html
Bohica!
"Alamac says it all."
Oh?
Did these ColdWarriors (PNAC-pigs, but prior to PNAC) want 'war with the USSR'? Or, an on-going&'shared' excuse for all-other and related military-expenditures/'adventures', elsewhere?
[Clue: Who met with Gorby on a ship in the stormy-Med and begged him to 'prop-up the USSR' while offering-incentives -- then later puked in Japan (due seasickness and perhaps the realization that a Zionistic-GWoT would need to replace the USSR)?]
And, the US has its-oil (and now, its 'targeted-price'). Stealing-more isn't an objective -- denying it to others by keeping it in-the-ground (and expensive) 'is' -- with exceptions, of course [like a pipeline to Israel].
With about 300 diplomats forced by Bush's State Department to serve in Iraq soon, there will be a good opportunity that a couple may be snatched by Iraqis sympathetic to Iran. They may even be killed in the mêlée that may ensue between Blackwater guards and the assailants. You pays your money, you takes your choice.
Iran has no chance of avoiding US/Israeli attack. There is no way you can prove you are not developing/making nuclear weapons. The inspectors went in to Iraq, said there was no WMD's but that didn't matter the Bush said they were hiding them and they just had not been found yet.
Same thing now with Iran. You see the only way to prove is just like Iraq you go in and attack, kill, maim and destroy and then say ah well could not find jacks**t but it was administration change we were really after. Next