'Iran Invades Iraq': Oil Field Siezed in Disputed Territory

by Jordan Yerman | December 18, 2009 at 12:08 pm

6637 views | 68 Recommendations | 21 comments

Iran "invaded" part of Iraq, according to Iraqi officials. Iranian troops siezed an oil field north of Basra last night, and have been entrenching ever since. A likely motive for the incursion is Iran's unwillingness to see Iraq's rich oil reserves getting sold off to foreign companies, thus supplanting Iran's lofty position in the petroleum economy.

Baghdad officials said a meeting of the National Security Council had been convened before the Iranian ambassador was summoned to hear an official protest.

The shared border of Iran and Iraq is contested territory that has remained an uneasy fault line since the end of a debilitating war that stretched over eight years in the 1980s.

Iran asserts that the field is in Iranian territory, as, even after the US-led invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein and replaced him with a government more friendly to Iran, the region in the northeast of Iraq remains disputed. It's more than just land: it's money, too, and Iran's moves on the region have been going on for years.

Amir al-Rashadi, a spokesman at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, said, “We don’t have any information about this, but we suspect it is all lies.”

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Hugh Askew

at 13:24 on December 18th, 2009

"Amir al-Rashadi, a spokesman at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, said, “We don’t have any information about this, but we suspect it is all lies.”

and some of the rest of us do as well.

We might have a different idea regarding exactly who is telling the lies, but we do suspect that lies are being told.

nanute

at 14:05 on December 18th, 2009

Wasn't there a book with the lies title? "The Lying Liars and the Liars That Tell Them." ?

Linda Huff (not verified)

at 18:26 on December 18th, 2009

The book is called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken

nanute

at 05:04 on December 19th, 2009

Thank you.

Brynn (not verified)

at 18:58 on December 23rd, 2009

All Franken? pffttt...that figures...

a211423

at 14:18 on December 18th, 2009

Another border dispute?

This started two weeks ago, so why is it just now getting coverage?

Border Dispute

The border “is not clearly delineated, is in desert and is in dispute anyway,” said Edward Morse, head of economic research at LCM Commodities LLC in New York. “The possession of an unproductive well seems a strange thing on which to hang a national crisis.”

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 14:35 on December 18th, 2009

Yes, I linked Jordan's story to my own update: Seems all part of Iran's antics as of late : http://my.nowpublic.com/world/iran-provokes-disturbs-surface-surface-missile-launch

Babel-Fish

at 14:47 on December 18th, 2009

The first sign of that there is going to be a free Iran war?

Pat Reought (not verified)

at 16:56 on December 20th, 2009

Shouldn't someone free Iraq first?

Uwe Paschen

at 17:00 on December 18th, 2009

what was that saying, "the best defence is an offence?" Is this what is happening or merely madness? Unless of course Iran has the means to defend it self against the US.

Babel-Fish

at 18:39 on December 18th, 2009

Its actual a case of toppling a giant with a sling shot, the weakest point being the money bag. Once the bag is empty the giant tumbles. US can not really afford a new war.

Uwe Paschen

at 20:49 on December 18th, 2009

Good analogy there Babel-Fish. I agree, the US can no take another blow and Iran knows that.

fixer69 (not verified)

at 01:07 on December 19th, 2009

I really think that Iranians have more the right to exploit the petrole there Than the US. The USA is thousands of miles away from the region, and has no more rights than Iran. Invasion has already been done by the US and Irans follows as it uses its rights in the region, they are next door! I say bravo to Iran as they are doing the same thing than the US except that they are not using the lies of weapons of mass distruction. Get over it guys.

YankeeJim

at 06:57 on December 19th, 2009

That is the business between thw two "I's"

franko (not verified)

at 13:59 on December 19th, 2009

You guys must be smoking something strange to think that the US couldn't take on IRANwith minimal effort. They don't have to and wouldn't invade Iran. They would simply send in the jets to take out whatever they want. This would actually allow the USAF to take out the blossoming nuclear capabilities of IRAN before the complete the bombs they are working to complete so that Israel doesn't need to do it. To think that we are so weakened is silly. House to house warfare is tough but the rest of our forces are the strongest in the world by far. I doubt that the US will escalate but the Iraq forces may have other ideas.

Pat Reought (not verified)

at 17:03 on December 20th, 2009

Why should Iran be denied the capability of cheap nuclear fuel? There certainly have a reason to want it-- They have a huge yearly energy defecit that causes them persistent fiscal problems. Oh wait-- I know why-- Because the IAEA is in cahoots with Israel and the U.S. to promote the global zionist agenda with sheep like you as tools! Wake up and snap out of your brainwash!And if you respond with something about, "Because Iran shouldn't have nukes." Well, isn't that the job of the IAEA, to REGULATE nuclear materials?? So are they saying they can't do their jobs properly and inspect Iran's proposed power facilities? Beyond that-- Israel is stacked to the brink with nukes. Why do they have the privilage and Iran doesn't? Allowing Iran to have fissile material would weaken zionist Israel's perceived power, and their power to influence all of the puppet agencies that they do (one being the entire United States).

Pat Reought (not verified)

at 17:05 on December 20th, 2009

Scott C (not verified)

at 14:50 on December 28th, 2009

Zionist agenda? The only times I ever hear that phrase are when I'm watching speeches by Islamic extremists. Iran shouldn't have nukes because the man with the Napoleon complex, Ahmedinijad, is a Holocaust denier and has stated that he would love nothing better than to see Israel "wiped off the map." Regardless of which country one rules, no state whose leader makes statements such as these about any other state should be allowed to possess weapons with which they could kill people in the tens of thousands. And it is true, the IAEA can't do its job effectively because they like the UN have no power to enforce rules and regulations they set down, but rather count on the cooperation of all nations involved. If Iran could prove that they would only use their nuclear capacities for civilian purposes (power plants, etc) then they would be given every opportunity to do so. However, after several secret operations and purchases of weaponization materials as well as missile tests, Iran's intentions are more than clear: weaponized nuclear materials. To counter your other argument, Israel has nukes because they've shown they can be trusted with weapons of mass destruction. Let it be known that in all the wars and conflicts Israel has been involved in the country has never been the aggressor. Also, Israel hasn't stated any intention or desire to see neighboring countries obliterated so that no vestige remains of them. Please stop for a moment and think about your statements before your religious or political zeal compells you to speak in such a manner.

snuffysmith

at 19:45 on December 19th, 2009

It's Not Over: Iraq Sends Forces To Oil Well Seized By Iran

Don't forget about this one.

It may be nothing, but it hasn't gone away yet.

markjuliansmith (not verified)

at 23:06 on December 21st, 2009

This was just an excuse for Iran to move troops closer to the Iraq border to send a signal to the US of Irans intentions when Iran is made to pay for its intransigence in not coming clean on its nuclear program. Take no notice it just shows how weak and scared the current Iranian regime is.