Iran supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents?

[The Dog]

U.S. military: Iran arming Iraq militias


BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military officials on Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces.

The military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five U.S. military helicopter crashes since Jan. 20 ? four that were shot out of the sky by insurgent gunfire.

A fifth crash has tentatively been blamed on mechanical failure. In the same period, two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.

The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said it traced to
Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

The presentation was the result of weeks of preparation and revisions as U.S. officials put together a package of material to support the Bush administration's claims of Iranian intercession on behalf of militant Iraqis fighting American forces.

Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the display was prompted by the military's concern for "force protection," which, they said, was guaranteed under the
United Nations resolution that authorizes American soldiers to be in Iraq.

Three senior military officials who explained the display said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

The experts, who spoke to a large gathering of reporters on condition that they not be further identified, said the supply trail began with Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, which also is accused of arming the Hezbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon. The officials said the EFP weapon was first tested there.

The officials said the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds force report directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The briefing on Iran was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month.

Senior U.S. officials in Washington ? cautious after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion ? had held back because they were unhappy with the original presentation.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents.

It included a power-point slide program and a handful of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades which the military officials said were made in Iran.

The centerpiece of the display, however, was a gray metal pipe about 10 inches long and 6 inches in diameter, the exterior casing of what the military said was an EFP, the roadside bomb that shoots out fist-sized wads of nearly molten copper that can penetrate the armor on an Abrams tank.

"A normal roadside bomb is like a shortgun blast. But these are like a rifle. They're focused and they're aimed. ... It's going to take anything out in its way, go in one side and out the other," said 1st Lt. Zane Galvach, 25, of Dayton, Ohio, a soldier with the Army's 2nd Division, based in Baghdad.

Skeptical congressional Democrats said the Bush administration should move cautiously before accusing Iran of fomenting a campaign of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., said "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."

On the Republican side, Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) of Mississippi said he did not think the United States was trying to make a case for attacking Iran. Lott said the U.S. should try to stop the flow of munitions through Iran to Iraq but that "you do that by interdiction ... you don't do it by invasion."

The EFPs, as well as Iranian-made mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades, have been supplied to what the military officials termed "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He is a key backer of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The U.S. officials glossed over armaments having reached the other major Shiite militia organization, the Badr Brigade. It is the military wing of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leaders also have close ties to the U.S.

Many key government figures and members of the Shiite political establishment have deep ties to Iran, having spent decades there in exile during
Saddam Hussein's rule. The Badr Brigade was formed and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

An intelligence analyst in the group said Iran was working through "multiple surrogates" ? mainly in the Mahdi Army ? to smuggle the EFPs into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran and the Basra area of southern Iraq.

The analyst said Iraq's Shiite-led government had been briefed on Iran's involvement and Iraqi officials had asked the Iranians to stop. Al-Maliki has said he told both the U.S. and Iran that he does not want his country turned into a proxy battlefield.

"We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran.

U.S. officials have alleged for years that weapons were entering the country from Iran but had until Sunday stopped short of alleging involvement by top Iranian leaders.

During the briefing, a senior defense official said that one of the six Iranians detained in January in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Force.

He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a 10-month absence, the officer said.

The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down the toilet, he said. They had also tried to change their appearance by shaving their heads. Bags of their hair were found during the raid, he said.

The dates of manufacture on weapons found so far indicate they were made after fall of Saddam Hussein ? mostly in 2006, the officials said.

In a separate briefing, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons, deputy commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, said that since December 2004, U.S. helicopter pilots have been shot at on average about 100 times a month and been hit on an average of 17 times in the same period.

He disclosed a previously unknown shootdown, a Blackhawk helicopter hit by small arms fire near the western city of Hit. The craft crash-landed but there were no casualties. Simmons was on board.

The major general said Iraqi militants are known to have SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles but none of the most recent five military crashes were caused by those weapons. He said some previous crashes had been a result of such missiles but would not elaborate.

North of Baghdad, a suicide truck bomber crashed into a police station, killing at least 30 policemen. A total of 76 people were killed or found dead across Iraq. The U.S. military said Sunday a soldier was shot and killed the day before in volatile Diyala province northeast of the capital. A second soldier was reported killed Sunday in western Baghdad.

[The Dog]

Lets, for a minute, assume that these accusations are 100% correct (I've come to SERIOUSLY doubt intelligence reports from most, if not all, US agencies).

If Iran is infact arming and aiding Iraqi insurgents/militants would we have the right to retaliate militarily?  If so, SHOULD we do so?

Again, lets not argue the intelligence - assume its correct just for discussions sake (I honestly don't know what to believe anymore) ----  so, if its true, now what do we do??

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

If it's correct then we need to put these parameters in the balance of the negotiations on iran nuclear program.

i dont think molitary retaliation would be a good idea.
the US troops are not even on their soil ... their presence is still an ackward position regarding international law so ....

more over it would just critalize the touchy situation the Marines are. It will put the conflict openly at a larger scale. bad move.


ps: did you *see* how i didnt attack your person ! crazy huh ! 

[The Dog]

If it's correct then we need to put these parameters in the balance of the negotiations on iran nuclear program.

i dont think molitary retaliation would be a good idea.
the US troops are not even on their soil ... their presence is still an ackward position regarding international law so ....

more over it would just critalize the touchy situation the Marines are. It will put the conflict openly at a larger scale. bad move.


ps: did you *see* how i didnt attack your person ! crazy huh ! 

well thats b/c you responded intelligently and rationally.  lets hope you can keep it up this time.

I'm not sure military action would be a good idea either - but if we did it wouldn't be in the form of an invasion the way we did with Iraq.  I could see a strategic bombing campaign with some sanctions thrown in for good measure.

Unfortunately, like you said, the region is so unstable b/c of the mess in Iraq that I doubt anything militarily will happen, and Iran knows this.  But it does make me mad that they are adding to the mess by arming/aiding insurgents (or so it seems) and that their arms/aid are contributing to more american soldiers being killed.  If Iran truly wanted peace and calm restored to the region, they wouldn't be doing this.  I'm surprised with the spotlight pointed at them b/c of their nuke program that they are even doing this.  Should be interesting to see how things turn out. 

[Bodhi]

If it's correct then we need to put these parameters in the balance of the negotiations on iran nuclear program.

i dont think molitary retaliation would be a good idea.
the US troops are not even on their soil ... their presence is still an ackward position regarding international law so ....

more over it would just critalize the touchy situation the Marines are. It will put the conflict openly at a larger scale. bad move.


ps: did you *see* how i didnt attack your person ! crazy huh !?

ahh so the frenchman doesnt think military retaliation is a good idea....i agree..i think the U.S and Iran should have a couple of croussiants and talk it over......and by talk it over I mean attack Iran....nah im just messing around...I would wait until we are 100 percent sure about this report...but for arguments sake assuming this report is accurate...then I think going after people who are supplying our enemy makes sense...but im sure a bunch of people would disagree....

[mrlee]

if this is true, clearly there nuclear weapons program needs to be stopped.

[TAP]

Again, lets not argue the intelligence - assume its correct just for discussions sake

Sorry, I'm going to argue it anyway. It's pretty obvious that the Bushies are itching for an excuse to bomb Iran, if nothing to shift the blame for the Iraq disaster before they leave office. It smells very similar to the build up to the Iraq invasion to me.

[The Dog]

Again, lets not argue the intelligence - assume its correct just for discussions sake

Sorry, I'm going to argue it anyway. It's pretty obvious that the Bushies are itching for an excuse to bomb Iran, if nothing to shift the blame for the Iraq disaster before they leave office. It smells very similar to the build up to the Iraq invasion to me.

no apologies necessary - it's worth discussing the validity of the intelligence, just don't want the discussion to turn anti-american/iraq was a mistake.  we all know it was, but lets deal with this new potential threat.

I kind of a agree with you, when I first heard about this I thought they were wagging the dog.  I agree 100% with Senator Wyden (and yourself) that this sounds a lot like the propaganda we heard in reference to Iraq being a threat.  All that being said, I think this intelligence is a lot more credible given the history between Iraq/Iran as well as the Shia ties to Iran.

I definitely don't see an invasion in their playbook, but it'd be very very easy to bomb Iran with the risk to american lives in any attack being pretty low (cruise missle attack) so it would be a "success" for the Bush admin and could distract from the F ups in iraq, as well as to support the reason we are there in the first place (to fight those who support terror).  Of course it would mean millions/billions more spent and more troops deployed, more questions from the international community and it could be the last straw for a muslimi world already pissed off at us.

how ironic that iran was probably the real threat and b/c of Iraq our hands are tied to do anything about it.   

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Well HH,

Weapon smuggling and providing should be stop i agree. We agree on the objectives, that's normal.
I saw a piece of news telling about these new kind of ground-dair missiles. Many helicopters down lately?
That"s bad. But it reminds of the US governement providing the talibans with Stinger missiles to kick out the russian invaders.


Nevertheless, ?here is what i think:

- a Regional peace process must be started. By Regional i mean involving the actual countries there.
See how the meeting in S.Arabia helped the Palestinian governement.
If you dont involve these countries, we're doomed. Iran must speak to the Iraqi governement, Iran must be taken in consideration for what it is: " a big country that counts in the region"

- This issue (providing weapons) must be put down in the negotiation balance.
I can tell you that if stopping these trades will benefit Iran into gettin theit Civil nuclear program, they will stop.

- this one will make you flip: Insurgents / rebels must be thought as more than "crazy terrorists". I dont wanna get in the Palestinian issue here, but the prerogative in any International Conflict management is to take seriously and rationnaly every party. Even the craziest acts hide rational reasons. Sometimes rational acts hide crazy reasons (Bush's Holy war .... )

- i think that bombing / attack is just purely out of the question.

John "croissants" SDMF "I think going after people who are supplying our enemy makes sense"
- i dont think it makes sense. What do you mean by ennemy? Are they attacking American land? No. American civilians? No.

- Validity of Iranian Government: i think many officials both in Europe and USA are failing to understand what's going on in Iran.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/11/DURAND/14115
I wish you guys could read french, cause this is a very intersting article about the confusion we make between islamic countries and facism.
It goes over all the details of these party (iran, hezbollah) and how they are structaraly and fundamently not facist system.
This is important as we are often using this argument to deminish their validity.

I ask you this question Hannahat, do we have to "think" this issue alone? As a single "iran-usa" issue?
But we technically have Iraq mangled in it too. Then Nuclear. I would say the global position of Iran in the region .. no?


PEACE

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Iranian president answers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_iraq_4;_ylt=AkCHh170AVOnaR19XsCD5alX6GMA

VIDEO Interview by ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2868215

[The Dog]

wat-ever - good post (did i just say that? haha).  seriously, you make some good points.  i think a lot of what you said is talking about the big picture whereas when I started this thread I was really just talking about iran supplying militants with weapons/aid.  i guess in a way its one in the same, but....

anyways, i don't recall typing "crazy terrorists".  the fact of the matter is that you have sunni and shia militants but they are also the main political forces in the country (not counting the kurds of course).  Obviously, they must be considered in any negotiations.  It'd be nice if they could stop shooting each other for a week or two and stop blowing up US forces though....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

That's true.
i know *you* didnt type "crazy terrorists" but i know many international officials do. Even french ones ! (the ones i don't like !)
It's about not seeing a rational person in front of you, and making you miss the big picture.
I do that sometime i guess

You are talking about sunni and shia (i learn the word in english!). Yes.
what can we do about it?
First, i believe that the USA needs to fix all this.
I do also think that, the Israel Palestine conflict MUST be taken care of at the same time, any effort on one of this issue without the other is hopeless, dont you think ?

I think that what just happened in Palestine and in S.Arabia can be GREAT example to follow.
Situation: 2 internal groups fighting each other
Method:
1 - find leaders of both party (even the "insurgents terrorists")
2 - get them together with the help of a neighbor (in this case iran), or at least with a "friendly" international entity (UN, France ....)
3 - get the US troops out of there.

I think that this process would work, only problem, it is UNACCEPTABLE for the American Strategy. For both good and bad reasons.


But why do you think they're blowing US forces ?
And, we must not forget that the 1st victims are the iraqis ... 80 dead today.

I'd like to see what the people in the US think of the Iran issue, was there a recent opinion poll or something?

[TAP]

Again, lets not argue the intelligence - assume its correct just for discussions sake

Sorry, I'm going to argue it anyway. It's pretty obvious that the Bushies are itching for an excuse to bomb Iran, if nothing to shift the blame for the Iraq disaster before they leave office. It smells very similar to the build up to the Iraq invasion to me.

no apologies necessary - it's worth discussing the validity of the intelligence, just don't want the discussion to turn anti-american/iraq was a mistake.  we all know it was, but lets deal with this new potential threat.

Whether it's true or not, from Iran's point of view they have the USA's military on their doorstep and a constant stream of rhetoric about military strikes on their nuclear facilities. They have no chance in a straight fight, so it wouldn't be surprising if they struck at the must vulnerable point, which is the US public's opposition to the Iraq involvement as US military casualties increase. You could view it as Iran being baited into a military confrontation when viewed from a neutral position....that's how I see it.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Again, lets not argue the intelligence - assume its correct just for discussions sake

Sorry, I'm going to argue it anyway. It's pretty obvious that the Bushies are itching for an excuse to bomb Iran, if nothing to shift the blame for the Iraq disaster before they leave office. It smells very similar to the build up to the Iraq invasion to me.

no apologies necessary - it's worth discussing the validity of the intelligence, just don't want the discussion to turn anti-american/iraq was a mistake.  we all know it was, but lets deal with this new potential threat.

Whether it's true or not, from Iran's point of view they have the USA's military on their doorstep and a constant stream of rhetoric about military strikes on their nuclear facilities. They have no chance in a straight fight, so it wouldn't be surprising if they struck at the must vulnerable point, which is the US public's opposition to the Iraq involvement as US military casualties increase. You could view it as Iran being baited into a military confrontation when viewed from a neutral position....that's how I see it.

well mujumbo , you got that straight

well, you know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today:
" the possibility of an american military action is very weak [...] and we know that there senseful people in the USA that will block these kind of illegal actions "

hard to think such "devil" would say something like that !

[Bodhi]

Well HH,

Weapon smuggling and providing should be stop i agree. We agree on the objectives, that's normal.
I saw a piece of news telling about these new kind of ground-dair missiles. Many helicopters down lately?
That"s bad. But it reminds of the US governement providing the talibans with Stinger missiles to kick out the russian invaders.


Nevertheless, ?here is what i think:

- a Regional peace process must be started. By Regional i mean involving the actual countries there.
See how the meeting in S.Arabia helped the Palestinian governement.
If you dont involve these countries, we're doomed. Iran must speak to the Iraqi governement, Iran must be taken in consideration for what it is: " a big country that counts in the region"

- This issue (providing weapons) must be put down in the negotiation balance.
I can tell you that if stopping these trades will benefit Iran into gettin theit Civil nuclear program, they will stop.

- this one will make you flip: Insurgents / rebels must be thought as more than "crazy terrorists". I dont wanna get in the Palestinian issue here, but the prerogative in any International Conflict management is to take seriously and rationnaly every party. Even the craziest acts hide rational reasons. Sometimes rational acts hide crazy reasons (Bush's Holy war .... )

- i think that bombing / attack is just purely out of the question.

John "croissants" SDMF "I think going after people who are supplying our enemy makes sense"
- i dont think it makes sense. What do you mean by ennemy? Are they attacking American land? No. American civilians? No.

- Validity of Iranian Government: i think many officials both in Europe and USA are failing to understand what's going on in Iran.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/11/DURAND/14115
I wish you guys could read french, cause this is a very intersting article about the confusion we make between islamic countries and facism.
It goes over all the details of these party (iran, hezbollah) and how they are structaraly and fundamently not facist system.
This is important as we are often using this argument to deminish their validity.

I ask you this question Hannahat, do we have to "think" this issue alone? As a single "iran-usa" issue?
But we technically have Iraq mangled in it too. Then Nuclear. I would say the global position of Iran in the region .. no?


PEACE

oh im sorry...they are not attacking america they are just attacking americans...youre right...they're not our enemy...man you are clueless...if you werent from France I would think that you had some sort of mental problem, but i just know it was your upbringing so you get a free pass on that....so according to you unless they are attacking our LAND or civlians  they are not our enemy? wow....i dont know about you but someone who is arming people who our troops are fighting seems like an enemy to me....then again you wouldnt be able to see that because France has no enemies...you guys thought the Germans were just visiting......

[Skeba]

man you are clueless...if you werent from France I would think that you had some sort of mental problem, but i just know it was your upbringing so you get a free pass on that...

Stop the insults... If you wanna discuss the topic, do so. But do it in a civil manner.

[sandman]

If it's correct then we need to put these parameters in the balance of the negotiations on iran nuclear program.

i dont think molitary retaliation would be a good idea.
the US troops are not even on their soil ... their presence is still an ackward position regarding international law so ....

more over it would just critalize the touchy situation the Marines are. It will put the conflict openly at a larger scale. bad move.


ps: did you *see* how i didnt attack your person ! crazy huh !?

? I could see a strategic bombing campaign with some sanctions thrown in for good measure.

 

Bingo.

intelligence was wrong in the past, but obviously we cannot disregard all future intelligence. not that i think the US would do that, but the public needs to understand that as well.

and hopefully the US has learned from ALL of its mistakes in the last 4 years.

[The Dog]

If it's correct then we need to put these parameters in the balance of the negotiations on iran nuclear program.

i dont think molitary retaliation would be a good idea.
the US troops are not even on their soil ... their presence is still an ackward position regarding international law so ....

more over it would just critalize the touchy situation the Marines are. It will put the conflict openly at a larger scale. bad move.


ps: did you *see* how i didnt attack your person ! crazy huh ! 

  I could see a strategic bombing campaign with some sanctions thrown in for good measure.

 

Bingo.

intelligence was wrong in the past, but obviously we cannot disregard all future intelligence. not that i think the US would do that, but the public needs to understand that as well.

and hopefully the US has learned from ALL of its mistakes in the last 4 years.

good post - but here is my problem.  Was anyone REALLY held accountable for the bad intelligence that led up to the iraq war?  Think about it, the lives lost, the bad rep we have now, the billions of dollars wasted, the increase in terrorists  = all a direct result of super shitty intelligence.  Did anyone get fired? Was anyone blamed directly?  The same guys who made that decision are the same ones who are pointing the finger and thumping their chests at Iraq.  I don't blame the American public for being a bit wary of these new accusations...

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

What are the stances of Democracts about Iran / Iraq?

It seems that just "want the boys back" ? is that true? they don't go further than that?
About Iran, is there a debate between dem and rep?

[The Dog]

What are the stances of Democracts about Iran / Iraq?

It seems that just "want the boys back" ? is that true? they don't go further than that?
About Iran, is there a debate between dem and rep?

The Dems have been MUCH slower to buy into the new intelligence and haven't been beating the war drums/thumping their chests the way some Repubs have.  Most are calling for negotiations with Iran.