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.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I see, but do they propose something, it's not *only* about getting the boys back, the US still need a plan for Iraq and the middle east: either they get the fuck out of there for real, or they take care of the peace processes ....

[Donington2007]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

[The Dog]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

[The Dog]

I see, but do they propose something, it's not *only* about getting the boys back, the US still need a plan for Iraq and the middle east: either they get the fuck out of there for real, or they take care of the peace processes ....

if they have one, i haven't heard it.  they might be apt to just let the M.E. slug it out after we leave.  i've heard a few diff suggestions, but nothing like "THIS IS OUR PLAN"

its a big criticism of the dems, one that will be played upon as we get closer to 08 for sure.  They may not have started the problem, but unfortunately they might inherit it.  a plan is needed.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The problem with talking to Iran is "what's in it for them?"

Iran is pretty much doing what it wants anyway, so asking them to stop arming insurgents is not gonna work.
What are the consequences if they don't? Bomb them? The US is already overextended militarily and we don't really need a 3rd war. So we are not in a good spot.

[TAP]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588810,00.html

As the Bush Administration inches closer to confronting Iran, don't expect it to produce a bona fide smoking gun. Despite the claims made at the highly secretive military briefing in Baghdad over the weekend, intelligence conclusively implicating Iran in attacks on American forces isn't there ? and never will be.

There's little doubt that the Iranians have free run of much of Iraq; are supplying arms and ammunition to Shi'a militias; and are committed to seeing the United States fail in that country. Iran already essentially owns Basra as well as several other large Shi'a towns in the south. And, unlike our own, Iranian interests in Iraq are unambiguous. In 2004, when I was in Qum, an influential Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sanae, told me with chilling clarity: Should the situation in Iraq deteriorate to the point that the Shi'a are seriously threatened, Iran will have no choice but to step in militarily. Even, he made clear, at the risk of American retaliation.

But that does not answer this question: Are the Iranians themselves pulling the trigger, killing our troops, or are they ordering their Iraqi surrogates to do so? There are a couple of good reasons the Administration can't tell us. For one, the group the Administration named Sunday as providing weapons to the insurgents ? the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds force ? is virtually impenetrable. Secretive and disciplined, the Quds force is more a cult than anything else. Its members are all believers, meticulously selected, vetted and controlled. Another reason we'll probably never catch the Quds force red handed is that it communicates sensitive information by courier. No blogs or calling home to brag to mom about everything they're doing in Iraq for Allah and Iran.

The Quds force maintains the same discipline when comes to handling its Iraqi surrogates. It demands and gets plausible deniability. I got a glimpse of that when I was in northern Iraq in the 1990s. Iraqi Shi'a leaders under Iran's thumb would only meet me with their official Iranian minders standing by. I had the impression every word that came out of their mouths was pre-approved by Tehran.

This leaves the Administration in a quandary, especially trying to sell a confrontation with Iran to a suspicious Democratic Congress and an American public that now knows it was duped by bogus intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

If indeed a confrontation is in the cards, I don't see that the Administration has a choice other than to provoke an incident ? force the Iranians to fire back in the clear light of day, letting the United States invoke self defense, U.N. Article 51. Options might include arresting or assassinating the Mahdi Army leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, chasing Iranians in hot pursuit across their border, or, more bluntly, bombing a Quds Force base in Iran in the name of force protection.

In any event, don't expect Condoleezza Rice to appear in front of the U.N. with a stack of grainy satellite photographs and sketchy telephone intercepts. She's going to need something a lot more convincing, and it's doubtful she'll ever get it.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

[TAP]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588147,00.html

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who make up the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush Administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Maliki's own Dawa Party has close ties to Iran and has in the past deflected questions about Iran's support for the Shi'a militias, instead fingering Iraq's Sunni neighbors ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan ? for aiding terrorist groups. "We don't deny that Iran has an interest in Iraq, and that is a matter of concern," said Abu Firas al-Saedi, a senior Dawa leader. "But the real question is: 'Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?'" That sentiment was echoed by parliamentarian Falah Shansal, from the Shi'a bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "There are groups in Saudi Arabia who finance terrorism in Iraq," he said. "Why are the Americans not talking about this?"

Some Shi'a leaders acknowledge that Iran may be meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say the solution lies in diplomacy. Washington's aggressive finger-pointing, they say, can only antagonize the Iranians further, and hurt Iraq's interests. "To end the violence, Iraq needs the help of all its neighbors, and we have to be very diplomatic about how we approach them," Shansal said.

Meanwhile, Iraq's largest Shi'a party denied U.S. claims that two Iranian agents were seized at the home of the party's leader, Abdel-Azziz al-Hakim. Ridha Jawad Taki, a spokesman for Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRII), said the two were diplomats and were grabbed as they were on their way to the home of President Jalal Talabani, Hakim's neighbor. "They were invited by the President to discuss the security situation," he said. "And they were released after two days."

[TAP]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/pace.iran/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace appeared Tuesday to question Bush administration assertions that the Iranian government is supplying weapons to Shiite militant groups in Iraq.

"We know that the explosively formed penetrators are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a trip to Australia about what senior military officials call EFPs.

"What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this. It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say, based on what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit," Pace said.

[guns_n_motley]

of course Iran is giving it to them!! and of course the government knows! its in their interest to support their muslim side.

We dont need invasion. this guy even though a dictator, is more like Kim Jong Il. he wants to play Big boy in town. we just need to send him a message that we are the bigger

Look how much N Korea has backed down!! threaten with a couple of cruise missiles, or even just threaten that if a nuclear missile is built we will Bomb it with a stealth. should be enough to have them back down.

The one thing these dictators dont want is to be taken out of power. all you have to do is show them your muscles per say and they will back down.

[The Dog]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588147,00.html

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who make up the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush Administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Maliki's own Dawa Party has close ties to Iran and has in the past deflected questions about Iran's support for the Shi'a militias, instead fingering Iraq's Sunni neighbors ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan ? for aiding terrorist groups. "We don't deny that Iran has an interest in Iraq, and that is a matter of concern," said Abu Firas al-Saedi, a senior Dawa leader. "But the real question is: 'Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?'" That sentiment was echoed by parliamentarian Falah Shansal, from the Shi'a bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "There are groups in Saudi Arabia who finance terrorism in Iraq," he said. "Why are the Americans not talking about this?"

Some Shi'a leaders acknowledge that Iran may be meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say the solution lies in diplomacy. Washington's aggressive finger-pointing, they say, can only antagonize the Iranians further, and hurt Iraq's interests. "To end the violence, Iraq needs the help of all its neighbors, and we have to be very diplomatic about how we approach them," Shansal said.

Meanwhile, Iraq's largest Shi'a party denied U.S. claims that two Iranian agents were seized at the home of the party's leader, Abdel-Azziz al-Hakim. Ridha Jawad Taki, a spokesman for Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRII), said the two were diplomats and were grabbed as they were on their way to the home of President Jalal Talabani, Hakim's neighbor. "They were invited by the President to discuss the security situation," he said. "And they were released after two days."

That is a chilling article - and if history repeats itself it makes total sense.  If there is one things americans love to do its rally around a tradgedy and then go along with the govt no questions asked.

[Donington2007]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

'terrorist'?

this isnt an attack on your choice of words. and you made good points about my China statement.

but i find it hilarious that the media programed everyone into thinking that the iraqi insurgents are terrorists. how would you feel (not you but any american reading this) if canada invaded us like in south park the movie. then you and a bunch of your neighbors get together to fight the canadians and the media in canada is calling you a 'terrorist'

it's similar to calling a suicide bomber a coward. tim mcveigh was quoted in his letter to fox news channel as saying 'calling them cowards is the ultimate in Orwellian double-think.'

the u.s. media calls the iraqi insurgents terrorist and calls other suicide bombers cowards for no other reason than to make the families of their victims feel better. it's like a mental mass-drugging of a verbal anti-depressant.

edit-----shit i cant believe i came up with that. i'll have to remember that for verbal conversations off-line. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

what you said sounds familiar ... oh wait ...

[Donington2007]

what you said sounds familiar ... oh wait ...

whatever, i'm totally buggin' 

[The Dog]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

'terrorist'?

this isnt an attack on your choice of words. and you made good points about my China statement.

but i find it hilarious that the media programed everyone into thinking that the iraqi insurgents are terrorists. how would you feel (not you but any american reading this) if canada invaded us like in south park the movie. then you and a bunch of your neighbors get together to fight the canadians and the media in canada is calling you a 'terrorist'

it's similar to calling a suicide bomber a coward. tim mcveigh was quoted in his letter to fox news channel as saying 'calling them cowards is the ultimate in Orwellian double-think.'

the u.s. media calls the iraqi insurgents terrorist and calls other suicide bombers cowards for no other reason than to make the families of their victims feel better. it's like a mental mass-drugging of a verbal anti-depressant.

edit-----shit i cant believe i came up with that. i'll have to remember that for verbal conversations off-line. 

I hear you - just what I was typing at the moment.  I usually refer to the guys with guys in iraq as "insurgents".  I don't think the discussion should be a debate on semantics (as our French friend LOVES to do haha).

I don't recall anyone calling them cowards for years.  Again, even if they were, its just semantics.  you could call them teddy bear gum drops - who cares!   I think most people realize the insurgents/terrorists/wat-evers you want to call them are deadly, smart, well organized etc...

[LeftToDecay]

Apparently Colin Powell just held a flashy powerpoint presentation at U.N, featuring 100% authentic  footage of  high  tech mobile Iranian weapon supplying trucks. Rather than mere vechicles, these are pretty much weapon factories on wheels.
They drive around Iraq tossing Ak 47s and illegeal dum dum bullets all over the place like it was nothing.

Here's a screenshot i took

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

HannaHat, you maybe can overpass semantics
some don't
and the general public, along with the head of your admnistration, is building all their strategy and opinions from this "semantics" of holy war (both sides), superiority of morals and civilisation, irrational acts ...

LeftToDecay > i stopped reading after "powerpoint" ....

What is the problem? Iran supplying weapons or the insurgents having weapons?
It would be ok if they got weapons from someone else?

[The Dog]

HannaHat, you maybe can overpass semantics
some don't
and the general public, along with the head of your admnistration, is building all their strategy and opinions from this "semantics" of holy war (both sides), superiority of morals and civilisation, irrational acts ...

LeftToDecay > i stopped reading after "powerpoint" ....

What is the problem? Iran supplying weapons or the insurgents having weapons?
It would be ok if they got weapons from someone else?

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

[Donington2007]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

(this thread is doing well. does that mean we've moved past the idiocy concerning political threads in the pinned thread at the top of this forum?)

that would normally be the case. but its a fact now that the reason for invading was based on intelligence that was wrong and lied about. so should we bomb another country that is fully capable of kicking our ass in iraq and end up in a wider conflict? remember you're not hearing the news in the mid-east and all of those arab countries now know that they have a right to help iraqi's resist the occupation. just because fox news doesnt tell us this is the mind set over there doesnt mean its not a reality.

in U.S. law if a search warrant is later found in court to have been drawn up or served illegally....... the accused is set free. nothing close to that has happened as a result of the iraq blunder, which wasnt really a blunder and was deliberate anyway. 'blunder' is another word that the U.S. media sucesfuly used as a way to continue to justify whats happening in a iraq. i like 'lies' better.

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

[The Dog]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

[Donington2007]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

no i don't.

but still, why don't you tell us how many congress men and women there are, and then tell us how many have a child serving in iraq or afghanistan. the numbers are still embarrasing because they know to keep their kids and immediate relatives out of the military. there could be no other reason because in pre-vietnam times it was the opposite.

[Bill 213]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.? i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.? but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place.?

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

no i don't.

but still, why don't you tell us how many congress men and women there are, and then tell us how many have a child serving in iraq or afghanistan. the numbers are still embarrasing because they know to keep their kids and immediate relatives out of the military. there could be no other reason because in pre-vietnam times it was the opposite.

By shoving a silver spoon down their throats their kids don't have to join the military.? Don't forget the US armed forces are strictly volunteer and because these days serving for this country has become a joke because the leadership can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, then the enticement to join the services isn't the same as it was pre-nam.......but even if the congressmen and such do have children that join the military, there are also ways around serving in a combat zone.? Just look at Bush during his National Guard tenure in Nam...Daddy worked some strings and got him a cozy little job (which he didn't even show up for half the time).?
You know James Stewart of It's a Wonderful Life fame was a one star General...how incredible is that.? The man had already had huge box office success and he left it all behind to serve his country.? In this day and age we have a sports star (Tillman from the Arizona Cardinals) go and join the Army to fight in the war and his own fucking men kill him.? The whole world has changed considerably since pre-nam.

My view on this whole Iran thing is this.....those weapons could have gotten into the country in a million different ways.? Christ for all we know the US government could have planted them in order to get attention drawn away from the fuckup and have a new front to battle with the Democrats in this childlike bickering.? What cracks me up is watching those videos of the terrorist training camps they show and you see them wearing American BDU's and using old M16 A-1's and other former US Army stuff.? We put the majority of those weapons into Iraq many years ago.? Maybe we should be sanctioning ourself since we armed Saddam Hussein's outfit.? Either way, this situation has gotten extremely fucked up to the point that soon there will be no chance possible for diplomatic solutions.?
It seems to me that Bush is the one always quick to dismiss any type of diplomatic solution with the "we will not cooperate with terrorists" arguement.? Another thing that strikes me quite odd is....with 80% of America supposedly unhappy with him as President and the rest of the world looking at us thinking we're the scum of the planet and the continous fuck ups by the administration running the country....you think we'd do something to show our displeasure (not violently).? Voting the Democrats into power made a statement, but so far Bush has basically shrugged it off with not one bit of worry.? Perhaps it's time the people of the US started to take action to remove the President.? After all this is OUR country, not some asshole wanna-be Texan from Connecticut.? If the 80% of Americans that supposedly hate Bush would unite and take it to Washington, take it to the White House....stand outside demanding Bush resign the presidency and show him that we are no longer willing to accept an administration that has no concern with bettering the USA.?
It's a long shot, but really something needs to change.? No matter how many troops we put in Iraq...that situation is not gonna change.? We've already done more damage to that country than Saddam Hussein ever touched.? If those people wanted democracy, they would have fought for it.? They prefer to be ran by a government that forefronts religious views and our brand of democracy will not mesh with that no matter how hard you try to shove it down their throats.? If they descend into civil war of course Iran will step in and help the Shiites out, but isn't that what Reagan and Bush Sr. were paying Saddam Hussein to stop all those years ago in the 80's?? So fucked up.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Oh boy...war with Iran...

Iraq is bordered by Iran...Iran shares a border with Afghanistan.

WOW!  A three-front war!

[The Dog]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.? i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.? but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place.?

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

no i don't.

I figured you didn't.

Jim Webb is the current senator of Virginia.  His victory was the deciding factor in giving the Democrats the majority in the senate.  His son, Jimmy is an infantry Lance Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, and currently serving in Iraq. His unit is based out of Camp Lejeune.  In tribute to Jimmy and "all the people sent into harm's way", Webb wore his son's old combat boots every day during his 2006 Senate campaign.

I agree with you, the people who were behind this war should have the balls to send their kids (Then again, can you imagine the idiot bush twins in iraq? I think they'd do more harm then good).

[Gordon Gekko]

Oh boy...war with Iran...

Iraq is bordered by Iran...Iran shares a border with Afghanistan.

All those in favor of invading Iran, raise your hands.

[eddie_dean]

Oh boy...war with Iran...

Iraq is bordered by Iran...Iran shares a border with Afghanistan.

All those in favor of invading Iran, raise your hands.

Hey Budfox, are you sure you're not SLCPunk?

The media is completely hyping this intel and exaggerating what the whitehouse put out.  Don't kid yourselves into thinking you're some how brighter.  These are darktimes indeed.  Worldwar III is coming and many want to elect doves with no militay experience or knowledge into the whitehouse.  The same scare tactics you accused the administration of ae no different than Bud's post.

[Gordon Gekko]

Hey Budfox, are you sure you're not SLCPunk?

No-dishonest men are never right.

But I know who you are though: Randall Flagg.

Given the recent past it is nearly impossible to believe anything this administration will say - especially given the arrogance of the President when asked in his press conference for evidence of Iran's government's role in the supply of deadly bombs to Iraqi insurgents being used to kill and maim US soldiers. We were told nothing more than "he knows it". Like that is going to fly with our former allies, much less at home.

[The Dog]

Oh boy...war with Iran...

Iraq is bordered by Iran...Iran shares a border with Afghanistan.

All those in favor of invading Iran, raise your hands.

Hey Budfox, are you sure you're not SLCPunk?

The media is completely hyping this intel and exaggerating what the whitehouse put out.  Don't kid yourselves into thinking you're some how brighter.  These are darktimes indeed.  Worldwar III is coming and many want to elect doves with no militay experience or knowledge into the whitehouse.  The same scare tactics you accused the administration of ae no different than Bud's post.

The MEDIA is hyping the intel?!?!?!? HAHAHAHAH THats the funniest thing I've ever read on this site.  The Admin is infamous for hyping (false) intel.  This is Bush wagging the dog and banging on the fear drums.

[TAP]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

[The Dog]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

Yeah b/c Iran's military exercises are just for fun, theres no meaning behind them at all right?

Whatevs ya'll - i'm TOTALLY buggin!! 

hahah 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

Yeah b/c Iran's military exercises are just for fun, theres no meaning behind them at all right?

Whatevs ya'll - i'm TOTALLY buggin!! 

hahah 

maybe Iran has nothing to lose
but really, tell me, are you guys already planning an escape from earth ?
tell me
is there a huge lader out of earth, with an exit sign, in nevada ?

[gandra]

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.

tell just one thing : "why did us goverment and cia give support to iran radical soldgers agains Serbs military in bosnia"

well i don't get it,in bosnian war you have two sides:

-Serbs-people whose living more than 800 years on that teritory
-muslims whose live there too,but on his side you had more than 10000 soldgers from radical islamistics organizations like Alkaide

And us goverment gave suport to radical islam there

tell me fuckin WHY?

Now in Kosovo usa want to give indipendence for another radical muslims country

simply I don't get it?

[mrlee]

i dont like the leader of iran, i saw an interview with him, the amount of fake propaganda bullshit he came out with, was really annoying.

[gandra]

i don't like iran govermant too,they are soo radical,but i don't understand why did usa give a support for them in bosnia and now in kosovo???
Well 1995, 18 years old guy from my school (i don't know him a personaly),went in bosnia to war against muslima.
he was killed 6 months later,and after 5 years imuslims soldger from iran take his head in his hands found pic in one book where some

[The Dog]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

Yeah b/c Iran's military exercises are just for fun, theres no meaning behind them at all right?

Whatevs ya'll - i'm TOTALLY buggin!!?

hahah?

maybe Iran has nothing to lose

so does the US...its called 10 to 20 city blocks.  Nice way to avoid the issue.  Figures though.  If the US is building a ladder then I guess France is building a big hole in the sand to just stick their heads in. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

Yeah b/c Iran's military exercises are just for fun, theres no meaning behind them at all right?

Whatevs ya'll - i'm TOTALLY buggin!!?

hahah?

maybe Iran has nothing to lose

so does the US...its called 10 to 20 city blocks.  Nice way to avoid the issue.  Figures though.  If the US is building a ladder then I guess France is building a big hole in the sand to just stick their heads in. 

I guess so, but we're going to build a new  aircraft carrier  warship with the UK ! yay !
what's funny too is that the best tank out there ... is french

Financial sanctions are the way to go with Iran, in a smart way, i ain't talking about a heavy boycott the way it went in iraq, this would only lead to radicalism.

Also, as i said, giving Iran a role, mission in the region as a Local power to handle regional peace would be a great way to make them enter the international community the way it has to be done.

[The Dog]

I really don't undestand this suicidal tendencies the USA have.
Don't they understand there is only one earth, one planet.

Or maybe they are already trying to leave Earth ...

Yeah b/c Iran's military exercises are just for fun, theres no meaning behind them at all right?

Whatevs ya'll - i'm TOTALLY buggin!! 

hahah 

maybe Iran has nothing to lose

so does the US...its called 10 to 20 city blocks.  Nice way to avoid the issue.  Figures though.  If the US is building a ladder then I guess France is building a big hole in the sand to just stick their heads in. 

Financial sanctions are the way to go with Iran, in a smart way, i ain't talking about a heavy boycott the way it went in iraq, this would only lead to radicalism.

Doesn't seem like they give a shit about sanctions:


Iran's nuclear defiance risks new sanctions

VIENNA (AFP) -
Iran has failed to comply with a UN Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report that opens the door to new sanctions.

The United States, which accuses of Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, said international powers want to haul Iran back before the Security Council. France called for a new sanctions resolution.

But Tehran insisted that it would not halt its nuclear work.

----I don't think they are going to stop until they get nukes.  N. Korea just wanted attention and respect, Iran wants the nuke.  To those who say "well who is anyone to tell them they can't have it"...if Iran gets the bomb then the other ME nations will feel the need to get them as well.  That is not good for the region and the world.

[The Dog]

Who would have thunk it...the US had bad intelligence???  sigh 

 
    Two weeks ago, the Bush administration organized an intelligence briefing for journalists in Iraq to demonstrate that Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents. According to the anonymous briefers, the weapons -- particularly explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s -- were manufactured in Iran and provided to insurgents by the Quds Force -- a fact that meant direction for the operation was ?coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government.?

    Well. A raid in southern Iraq on Saturday seems to have complicated the case. There, The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.), troops "uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had thought were made only in Iran." The main feature of the find were several copper liners that are the main component of EFPs. But, The New York Times reports, "while the find gave experts much more information on the makings of the E.F.P.?s, which the American military has repeatedly argued must originate in Iran, the cache also included items that appeared to cloud the issue."

    Among those cloudy items were "cardboard boxes of the gray plastic PVC tubes used to make the canisters. The boxes appeared to contain shipments of tubes directly from factories in the Middle East, none of them in Iran."

[Bill 213]

Bad US intelligence  NO WAY IS THAT POSSIBLE!  I don't believe it for one second that the US would use bad intelligence to try to continue and drag this war out as long as possible until Bush can gain somewhat of a makeshit victory to trick the people into thinking that the mission is a success.  Nahhhh!

[polluxlm]

America sells to Israel, they sell to Iran and that's again sold to Iraq, which again is occupied with american weapons.

Funny how that works.

The first step is understanding that there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. It's all just silly games and schemes from every involved party to gain power and money.

Don't take sides with anyone, side with yourself, cause that's the only place you might find some honesty and truth.

[The Dog]

America sells to Israel, they sell to Iran and that's again sold to Iraq, which again is occupied with american weapons.

I really doubt israel is selling weapons to Iran.  I've never heard anything like that before.

[polluxlm]

America sells to Israel, they sell to Iran and that's again sold to Iraq, which again is occupied with american weapons.

I really doubt israel is selling weapons to Iran.? I've never heard anything like that before.

Not surprising. It's not something the media reports much about.

Money transcends politics, always.

Edit: Fuck, I can't find the article. Let me try and get back to it later.