Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iran Rejects Iraqi Incursion Claim
Iran has rejected Iraqi demands that it withdraw its soldiers from an oil well, the ownership of which is disputed by Baghdad.
The Iranian oil refinery of Mizdeh seen in 2008 from the Iraqi border village of Nafet Khana. Iran has acknowledged its takeover of an oil well on the Iraqi border but insists the well lies on its land, playing down the fallout from the first such incident since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (AFP/File/Patrick Baz) Iran's Armed Forces Command issued a statement on Saturday making
clear that, in Tehran's view, there had been no incursion into Iraq as
the oil well is within Iranian borders.
"Our forces are on our own soil and, based on the known international borders, this well belongs to Iran," the statement said.
But the Iraqi government in Baghdad has demanded that "Tehran pull back the armed men who occupied well No 4", condemning the incident as "a violation of Iraqi sovereignty."
On Friday, Iraq's state-owned South Oil Company in the southeastern city of Amara said "an Iranian force arrived at the field ... it took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies inside Iraqi territory."
Well 4 is in the al-Fauqa Field, part of a cluster of oilfields which Iraq unsuccessfully put up for auction to oil majors in June. The field has estimated reserves of 1.55 million barrels.
Incursion denied
Ramin Mehmanparast, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, accused "external sources in Iraq" of working to damage relations between the governments in Tehran and Baghdad, the official IRNA news agency reported.
And a senior Iranian MP also tried to play down the dispute.
"The claim that Iran has occupied an Iraqi oil well is strongly rejected," Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, told IRNA.
The issue was "being examined through diplomatic channels," he said, blaming "foreign media for such propaganda."
But Muhammad al-Hajj Hamud, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, rejected Iranian claims on the well and called for an Iranian unit made up of around a dozen soldiers and technicians to be withdrawn.
"We summoned Iran's ambassador to Baghdad yesterday [Friday] to tell him that this attack is unacceptable and our ambassador to ehran delivered a note to their foreign ministry to ask them to pull out their troops," he said.
Hamud said it was the first time Well 4 had been taken over.
"In the past, the Iranians would try to prevent our technicians from working on the well ... by firing in their direction," he said, adding Iraq had dug the well in 1974.
Sovereignty dispute
The Iraqi official said the incident comes a month before a joint commission starts work on demarcating the two countries' land and sea border along the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the south.
Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Baghdad that as far as Washington was concered "it's a sovereignty issue", adding that there were five other fields under dispute.
And in southern Iraq, a US military spokesman told AFP that the incident at Well 4 was the latest in a series of such activity along the frontier.
"The oilfield is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts," said the officer at Contingency Operating Base Adder, just outside the city of Nasiriyah. The well lies about 500 metres from an Iranian border fort and about one kilometre from an Iraqi border fort, US Colonel Peter Newell said.
Source: Agencies


10 Comments so far
Show AllAdmiral Mullen: "its a sovereignty issue". Oh I see Admiral, the fact that you are speaking in occupied, Baghdad about sovereignty, has to be one of the most hypocritcal statements that I have heard in years and rates right up there with: yellow cake, WMD's, and they hate us for our freedoms! Okay folks, looks like they finally have the excuse they have been looking for to invade Iran as that was one of the excuses that they used to invade Iraq when they said Saddam was stealing oil from Kuwait.
Too Late.
The US Army's already on the way to India clearing the way for the The TAPI pipeline.
And this is for American Citizens interests? Hardly. It's so the rest of our jobs can be shipped to India sweatshops with all that cheap labor and sans Unions, sans EPA...
They know they're burning down the planet, since Oil companies are now designing floating terminals so that when Greenland Goes, they can keep pumping petro to melt down Antarctica as well.
With government leaders like these, who needs Dr Evil?
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
ThomasJefferson, I don't know about "US Army's already on the way to India clearing the way for the The TAPI pipeline", but I do know that India has been successfully brought under the dictates of the USA on this matter. India has long sought to buy natural gas from Iran (perfectly legal, from their point of view). They have been evaluating the feasibility of an underwater pipeline too, in the event that they could not work out an arrangement with Pakistan for an overland pipeline. Then there was a time when it clearly looked like an overland pipeline was a reality, and they were making real progress on the finer points - such as payment to Pakistan for using its territory (Pakistan was to get gas, too), and guarantees from Pakistan that it would not try to block gas supply due to other disputes with India, and so on.
There was a minister in India by the name Mani Shankar Aiyar (a confirmed socialist, but a member of the Center-left Congress Party) who was heading India's Petroleum Ministry. He was going around the neighborhood (South Asia and South East Asia), promoting his "doctrine" of co-operation within the region. There were countries with oil and gas, but needing capital and technology, and there were others that had the technology, and could help with the capital, and he posed the question: "Where is the need for western oil companies to buy and sell gas in this region among ourselves? You have oil and gas, I need oil and gas, so we trade directly". BIG MISTAKE. He was forced out of that position due to direct pressure from the USA. I used to read about this guy - an interesting character. Condoleeza Rice had openly told India to back off from any sort of deal directly with Iran and Pakistan. And India did back off, due to some vague promises of American help with nuclear power plants (which are yet to materialize because India does not want to throw open ALL their nuclear facilities for inspection). Although India seems to be alternating between a center-left and a right wing parties, there is also a vocal Left that tries to tie down the government from time to time. But even they could not prevent the removal of this Minister for Petroleum (replaced with a suspicious character with open loyalties to big business and the USA). I'm writing this just to point out that the situation in that region is murkier than is generally known. It's the Empire making sure that no trading in oil and gas takes place anywhere except under the control of the western companies.
duplicate deleted
Good post Alcyon,
And good points. I think as progressives we tend to thing in terms of singular goals and motives since we don't have the full picture of what's going on in our name. Big Biz probably shakes the whole area for everything and sees what's pops out. None of the money used for Empire ever seems to make it's way back into the US Treasury or back to citizens is my gripe. It winds up as hundred million dollar bonuses for corporate officers complicit in the "New World Syndicate".
See: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/14-12 and be sure to read the comments to see why I think this is so.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Thanks, I just read the story and the comments. Actually, there's nothing wrong with countries that have oil and gas to want to sell them to those countries that need them. It's simple trade. But the reality is that oil companies from the former imperial powers (or not really "formal"?) and the current empire somehow have got this into their collective heads - that no oil or gas gets sold to anyone without one of them involved in the trade (and the trade has to be in US dollars), if they could help it. This is no different from how the mafia feels about bootlegging or drug trafficking.
The one additional factor is the Pakistani military/intelligence establishment. This is an entity that seems to have some funny ideas about playing some kind of a regional 'Great Game'. Although many here would like to blame the USA for most problems, and some might even confuse the mujahideen that fought the Soviets with the Taliban that took over Afghanistan in the 1990's, the fact is that the Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani military/intelligence for the express purpose of maintaining what they refer to as a "strategic depth" on their western frontier, leaving them "to focus on" India, even while maintaining control over their own country. For roughly half the period (give or take a few) during Pakistan's 60+ year history as an independent country, it has been under military rule. The military owns or controls a lot of assets within the country, and they are not about to let it all go and accept civilian oversight all of a sudden. From time to time, they would work actively with the USA - all through the Cold War and later on, too. Of course, they would like the USA to get out of the region. They have the nukes too.
The best possible scenario would be some kind of permanent truce between India and Pakistan, and they did seem to make progress a few times. The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (effectively killed for the moment) was an important factor in this regard. But it would have been bad business not only for western oil companies, but possibly for the weapons exporters too. Because there was a possibility of some kind of an economic cooperation leading to a permanent detente between India and Pakistan. Bad for business.
if you drive an automobile that is not plugged in to a solar powered home you have no right to 'fuss' about an oil war.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. People get on this board and whine about the 'oil war' but how many of them live in a home powered by coal and drive cars to work powered by oil?
you can post all you want on the internet and complain about evil President Obama fallowing in the foot steps of evil President Bush but if you are not actively reducing your carbon foot print, actively promoting green energy you are actively supporting war.
Any one who reads my posts knows who and what I am, I am not slagging and dogging people for being anti war, I doupt many of you are more anti war than I, after all I fight those wars. But when some one talks about the "war is just about oil" and then goes out side and gets in to a giant SUV it makes me angry on a level no one wants to know about.
I try to be green, as green as possible.
now do your part so that stupid stuff like Iran invading Iraq is meaningless.
If not I suggest you join the army and lend me a hand as I am fighting as people post " a war to support big oil "
Can you tell I am rather put out by a few people?
go Green Damn It!
If you're referring to me TJ, abnsmith,
My electric is hydroelectric with virtually no footprint as I am on a island. I don't drive anymore, I take public transportation company equipment. I use solar-powered roof vent units instead of central air-conditioning. I don't eat beef since it is one of the biggest contributors to green house gasses we have.
I already fought in Desert Shield and Desert Storm and was awarded the standard attaboy medal for flying troops and equipment into the "area of hostilities". We weren't liberating anybody that I could see, as our primary objective was the oil fields and knocking the hell out of downtown Bagdad. Maybe your experience is different.
Since 50 percent of the Afghanistan effort is now subcontractors, odds are, you're a subcontractor.
But individual citizens can only do so much to turn the world green when the administration takes money from companies like Exxon and Haliburton in the way of Campaign "soft" money and coddels Big Oil and defense lobbyists 24/7 on K street. When hundreds of guys with briefcases fan out all across Washington and lobby for escalation of the war on the exact path of the pipeline, they usually get what they want.
The war is not about winning against the "bad guys" imho, or they would already be mopped up. This war has dragged on longer than WWII against people who have no air force or navy. The war is about control of Heroin and Oil routes/Defense company handouts from what I can tell.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
Now if you claim you're over there, and you know something different, then please spell it out for me. I'm all ears. What is this war about if not MIC, poppies and Oil pipes?
TJ - Over
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Still in the US army, I am Not a contractor
And currently I am at home at Ft Bragg
and here is what I am spelling out, you are one of the few exceptions, you are part of the solution because you are doing everything you are trying (and giving up a lot to do so) to reduce your carbon foot print. What gets under my skin is those that say the war is for oil, yet do not do anything about there footprint.
Perhaps I was being a bit dense last night.
abnsmith,
No, I don't think you're being dense.
You could be right. Half the country thinks global warming is a hoax from what I've read. I may be wrong. All of us at CD are grappling for the answers. What I'm arguing is that none of this Caspian Sea Natural Gas (which burns pretty clean) is headed for the US from what I can tell. It's going to the same place where all our jobs went. I submit this is really a war against American Labor, which means the economic model of a 70 percent consumer economy has already been ditched, in favor of overseas wage-slavery and eternal war for profit.
It's unconstitutional to run the country from the wall street boardroom, but that's what were doing. The founding fathers warned us about the dangers of big monopolies and big political machines but none of us read history so we don't appreciate the Frankinstein they've just let loose on the world.
Maybe it's always been this way, and I was just too dense to see it.
We're running full speed in the dark, off a cliff, and only a couple of us in the back of the Hummer see anything dangerous about it.....
It's frustrating.
I've started a another wikipage that doesn't require any secret handshakes.
please check it out at www.planetofthebushapes.wikidot.com and tell me what you think. Remember I just started it so don't laugh. Most of it is inoperative right now. I need some help on it.
This way, our insights don't disappear into the archives.
It's the only solution I can think of: education of SUV drivers.
Cheers,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson