Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran
By: Dr. Kaveh Farrokh
lieu of the present escalating crisis, the following article is of
high significance to Iranians, especially for those of you concerned
about the possible military consequences of the de-evolving political
standoff between Iran and the Neocons:
Many Iranians hypothesize that no military thrust on Iran is possible due to the predicament of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this is, from a strictly military standpoint, wishful thinking. While true that the US infantry forces are heavily engaged in Iraq, these are primarily engaged in counter-insurgency operations which require a minimal use of heavy armor, attack helicopters, and ground attack aircraft. Tanks, attack helicopters, and combat aircraft are used in set piece battles and land invasions, these are not designed to operate in counter-insurgencies and guerrilla warfare (like those in Iraq and Afghanistan) which require extensive foot and wheeled patrols and infantry engagements.
Whitney has explained the US strategy as that of a lightning armored strike into Khuzistan
with the militarily limited objectives of annexing its oil rich regions.
The plan was handed to the Iraqi general
staff which was updated with British assistance up to 1980. We already
know of the failure of Saddam to implement the objective of annexing
Khuzistan. It would appear that the geopolitical strategists have
abandoned using proxy Arab troops to annex Khuzistan. Note the following
statements by Whitney:
This is the same Rumsfeld who shook hands with Saddam in Baghdad on the very days that full-scale chemical warfare (in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions) was being conducted on Iranian combatants - Saddam's forces also ran chemical weapons tests on Iranian POWs. None of this was reported in the "World" Press at the time and not a protest was uttered by any western leaders.
The mistake of the original British plan handed to Iraq was that the armored forces were too dispersed rather focused on one area. When Saddam invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, his thrusts were scattered all across the Iranian border (from Iranian Kurdistan, Luristan to Khuzistan), a serious tactical error which ultimately led to the defeat and expulsion of Iraqi forces from Iran.
PART VI: GEOPOLITICALINTERESTS & PETROLEUM DIPLOMACY
American and British intelligence and Special Forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation… Targeting Iran … broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex…The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil…In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing …the stated short term objective …to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian Sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.”
The Khuzistan gambit is the first step. The goal is to use military force to partition Iran into mini-states. This has already been done to Yugoslavia. The original Bernard Lewis Plan endeavored to get the Iranians to fight each other in a Lebanon-Balkans style ethnic war. This has been proven as a failure: Iranians are simply too united and their history and identity too long and ancient to be divided by foreign-supported seperatist propaganda narratives. This explains why the "Nuclear" issue has become such a "crisis to the international community" (I use the word "International community" with considerable license here) and the promotion of fringe groups such as the cult-like MEK, Mr. Abu-Sharif's "Al-Ahwaz" group, Chehreganli's SANAM organization for a "Greater Azerbaijan", the Komala-Pezhak alliance for a "Greater Kurdistan", etc.
Armored thrusts are not as effective in Iranian
Kurdistan or Azerbaijan where the uneven mountainous terrain will allow Iranian commando style
infantry to inflict losses on tanks using guided missiles, recoilless
rifles, etc. against foreign armored thrusts. Aircraft and helicopters
are also less effective against such commandos in this type of terrain.
This was the NATO experience against Yugoslavia which despite the assertions of the "popular"
press, Serb fighters were never actually defeated on the ground.
"Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar..."
The "Nuclear issue" is nothing
but an excuse - many Iranians (including the writer) now believe that
even if Iran abandons its nuclear program and votes its
government out of office the real unstated agenda will not change. Iran and
its people are the target - simply because of its size, economic potential
and geological wealth (oil, gas, etc.). The coming Oil Bourse of
Iran this coming march is also a direct economic threat to the Petrodollar's
supremacy. This was the same action that Saddam took in 2000 - he committed
the sin of challenging the Petrodollar by also offering the Euro for
The embrace of the MEK as a "Democratic"
platform by the US/UK is not only irrational, but outright bizarre.
Mr. Rajavi and his MEK organization openly sided with Saddam's failed
efforts to dismember Iran. Iranians of all stripes fought for 8
years to prevent Saddam from annexing Khuzistan. Despite prodigious
western, Arab, British, American, Soviet, Indian, Pakistani, Argentinean
and Brazilian support, Saddam failed.
Like all narrow-minded racists, Mr. Abu-Sharif lives in a personal world of make believe with his cronies. Now he others like him are promoted in the West in name of "human rights". This is interesting in that the Al-Ahwaz organization is an openly racist and violent organization and has no qualms at using terrorist methods in killing innocent civilians - Abu-Sharif openly supports the bomb attacks in Ahwaz and is proud of the fact that the bombs went off in "Persian" areas of Ahwaz. There is circumstantial evidence of British support for Abu-Sharif and the Ahvaz bombings (see earlier link to on-line book).
Concerns with possible Iranian resistance may explain however why military planners have even threatened to use nuclear strikes on Iran as explained by Whitney. War plans are on thing, military outcomes are another. The Petroleum lobbies are wasting billions of tax dollars in their long-term plans to destroy Iran, its people and its history. While severe damage can be inflicted as western military superiority is overwhelming, it is unlikely that plans to carve Iran up will ever succeed - only lives will be wasted.
Unfortunately, certain lobbies continue to promote the views
of "experts" such as Brenda Shaffer, Michael Ledeen, Bernard
Lewis, Mehrdad Izady, John R. Bolton, Mahmudali Chehreganli and
Anthony Cordesman - people who despite their claims to the contrary
and prolific narratives, know very little of Iran, its history and
its people. It is equally tragic that American and other western
recruits must die simply to enhance the bank accounts of a small number
of greedy and selfish petroleum barons.