U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops

[chance1]

what next? does the U.S. have the ability to make this claim given WMD fiasco? it doesn't get any easier does it




U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military Sunday presented evidence it says shows an elite Iranian force under the command of Iran's supreme leader is behind bombings that have killed at least 170 U.S. troops in Iraq.
U.S. officials have made general statements in the past year about Iranian involvement in Iraq, but haven't provided many details.
The charges came at a Baghdad briefing by a senior defense official, a senior defense analyst and an explosives expert, all of whom asked to remain unnamed.
The officials focused on EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, as evidence that Iran is involved in arming Iraqi insurgents. EFPs can punch through heavily armored vehicles.
The U.S. military officials said EFPs are manufactured in such a specific way that they can be traced to Iran.
Also, the U.S. military says 81 mm mortar shells used in deadly attacks in Iraq can also be directly traced to Iran.
The U.S. military said the munitions are being provided to Shiite groups in Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds force, which answers directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The military officials said a senior operations officer for the Quds force was among several Iranian officers arrested in Irbil, Iraq, in the past few weeks.
According to the U.S. military, other Iranian officers have provided information that Iran also is arming a prominent Iraqi political organization.
The officers were detained during a December raid on the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a powerful Shiite political group with close ties to Iran.
The raid also netted documents that confirmed the arms sale, the U.S. military said.
Officials with the political organization said the munitions were used for security purposes. However, the U.S. military officials disputed that, saying the kind of mortars and sniper rifles provided are not used for self-defense.
Iranian U.N. ambassador claims 'fabricated evidence'

In an interview Friday with National Public Radio, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Javad Zarif said Iran has not provided weapons to Iraqi insurgents and does not want to do so.
"Iran has no interest in providing weapons to any insurgent groups in Iraq. But the problem is that the United States has decided on a policy and is trying to find or fabricate evidence if it cannot find one -- and I believe it hasn't been able to find an evidence -- in order to substantiate and corroborate that policy," he said.
"And that seems to be at the bottom of this problem, and it's an alarming problem because if you're looking for a crisis, then you're certainly not looking for solutions."
Some Iraq war critics are skeptical about the U.S. military's contention that Iran -- which has good diplomatic relations with Iraq -- is trying to foment warfare there.
They liken the Bush administration's highlighting of Iranian involvement in Iraq to the administration's run-up to the war in Iraq, contending officials are attempting a find a reason to invade Iran. The administration denies this.
Before the Iraq war, the administration warned that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored weapons of mass destruction and hinted of an operational link between al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq -- information never proven.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

We knew that was coming.
Let's build up public outrage against Iran to justify another invasion.
We were told Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein was in bed with Al Qaeda. We invaded and defeated the Iraqi Army. We took out Hussein, his sons and key supporters.
Then we were told "Oops, there were no WMDs or al Qaeda links" and guess what? We're still there.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I beleive I've seen this play/ploy before.
Insurgents in Iraq, or anywhere else, get their weapons from any available sources. The U.S. has supplied plenty of insurgents with weapons worldwide.
What's next, Iraqi insurgents get their weapons from Syria? Big friggin' surprise!

 

[JayHawk]

This is about pressure on Iran and stability in Iraq. Not invasion plans. DOn't let venom in your thoughts make stupidity out of your voice.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Well maybe there should have been more voices before.
Just because govt sources say it's so, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
We've been down that road before.

 

[jackoroe]

Of course, we could always ignore the evidence and hope Iran gets tired of blowing up soldiers and stop on their own. I also have a bridge for sale, should you be interested!

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Ignore the evidence? No.
Question the evidence? Yes.
"Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us"
I'm logging off, the distant sound of war drums from the White House is giving me a throbbing headache.
Anticipating the next press release of "evil doers yadda yadda, 9-11 yadda, yadda, apple pie yadda, yadda and let's get 'em boys" is already making me sick to my stomach.

 

[69Strat]

We were told Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein was in bed with Al Qaeda. We invaded and defeated the Iraqi Army. We took out Hussein, his sons and key supporters.
Then we were told "Oops, there were no WMDs or al Qaeda links" and guess what? We're still there.

I think one of the main objectives in Iraq was to position the US so it can protect its interests in that region and use it as a staging area. Realistically, all nations will be fighting for oil in the next 20 to 25 years, so in order to sustain the oil dependent American lifestyle, it will requires aggressive actions. I don't condone what has happenned to the Iraqis, but that's the harsh reality, which most people don't want to face.

 

[69Strat]

Ignore the evidence? No.
Question the evidence? Yes.
"Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us"

The irony is that it seems to have become a perpetual process.

 

[Kulindahr]

The motives involved in this sort of thing are such that by looking at motives, you'll never figure it out.
If they've got the evidence, it should be turned over to some independent outfit that doesn't care about the politics, for an impartial analysis. No one can trust U.S. intelligence at this point, and the Iranians have been involved in enough machinations that they can't be believed at all. The UN is worthless because of the anti-American sentiment and the large number of member nations who don't even honor the charter and thus aren't trustworthy.

Maybe Switzerland, the Vatican, and some other traditionally neutral places could hire some folks so we could believe them. As it stands... no one speaking about it is on my trust list, so I barely even care.

 

[naked gent]

This story is an early indication that the Bush administration hasn't learned a thing from the Iraqi bungle and doesn't think the american public has either. Far from being contrite they're willing to try and pull the same wool over the same eyes.

Last time around americans didn't ask too many questions, I hope they won't repeat the mistake.

I have two problems with the story the accuracy of which I'll accept although its limited scope is telling. I don't know who is referring to those who Iran is helping as "insurgents" but the if it was the goverment the reporter should have asked for clarification, if it was the reporters words he's a moron.

There's two sides in this civil war and they both can't be "insurgents" by definition its not possible. If by insurgents we mean anyone who might kill an american then we're not only incorrect but demonstrate the same kind of ignorance that got us here in the first place. More important than which side might kill an american is which side targets americans and if the shia which run the goverment which we support are targeting us its really is time to leave.

The lack of scope is another question we should be asking. If Iran is arming the shia militias then who is arming the sunni militias? Since we know they too are being armed by somebody and since that somebody is beyond doubt the surrounding sunni countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia and since those countries are our friends part of the story should include information about how we're trying to get them to refrain from sending weapons into Iraq.

A story all about Iranian involvement with nothing about Saudi involvement is a story once again priming us for war.

 

[sparky95]

It doesn't really matter at all if Iran is behind the bombs- even if there is evidence to confirm it nobody in the world outside of the U.S is going to belive what the current American govt says!

 

[radical matt]

Hm...the way I see it is there is a certain danger here. The fact that no one will believe it simply because of past failures on the part of this administration is dangerous in the sense that sometimes, the boy who cried wolf actually IS calling out that there's a wolf. To summarily dismiss anything as simply "another lie" is to invite disaster. On the flipside, to blindly accept it is also potentially inviting disaster.

As far as what the Iranian Ambassador says, one way or another, Iran and its officials, especially its envoys to the UN, are FAR from neutral and have blamed America for things unture and trivial before, and they also have their national self-interest. So for him to say what he said is natural and expected, but should not be taken as anything more than an official goverment position; that is, one that is likely a lie, but even if it's not, is not the truth. ^_^


The thing that bothers me, sorta like naked_gent, is how vague it is. The US Army officials "asked to remain unnamed." If you have telling and damning proof that a foreign nation is intentially opposing efforts in an already tense situation, attempting to destabalize an already critically unstable nation, then it seems that you'd be giving an official report, and those things tend to include names. The only reason you don't give your name is if you don't want a paper trail leading a trail of crap back to you when the shit hits the fan.

There's also a difference between "can be traced to..." and "came from the military/government of..." The wording here can be very telling of the report. This is like saying "I THINK so-and-so did this" as opposed to saying "So-and-so DID do this."

Also, "other Iranian officers have provided information that Iran also is arming a prominent Iraqi political organization"? Let's see, first we have unnamed Iranian officers (that I'll accept) who have "provided" this information (out of the goodness of their hearts?), which says their government (who that are presumably loyal to) is arming an organization (which will also remain unnamed), something that would NOT bode well for their country in the international community. Is it just me, or does this sound kinda hokey to anyone else?

Also, that the US Military "the kind of mortars and sniper rifles provided are not used for self-defense" kind of buggs me. Second Ammendment debate aside, Iraq is in a state of near "civil" war, if not in civil war already. Not only that, but presumably this unnamed "Iraqi political organization" has enemies/opposition that DO use weapons rather than words in their "debates". So I don't find mortars and sniper rifles as overly unrealistic, given the militant climate over there, for defense...though also for offense, against their political rivals if not the US military as well.



Gee, I think I've set a new personal record for the most quotation marks in a post...


However, I must warn that the language used in reports like this does tend to be vague, and again, sometimes the boy who cried wolf is actually seeing a wolf on the prowl. So we should view this with an air of caution, demanding more evidence before accepting the claims, but simply because this is coming from the US Military is absolutely no reason to dismiss it as nothing. As it is, I would suggest we keep open minds and await more evidence and proof to emerge, and then make a judgement based on that.

As for invading Iran. Three words; Not, Gonna, Happen. Bush doesn't have enough years left in office for anything short of another 9-11 to get this nation to rally behind him for another war. Now then, that said, if another 9-11 happens and is tied to Iran...

 

[ryankeith]

I am just a little skeptical about any evidence the Bush Administration claims they have after all the lies and deception in evidence used to get into Iraq.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

It sounds so much like accusations about the yellow cake uranium that was allegedly coming from Africa.
The Govt lied about that to stir up favorable public support and approval.
"Scooter" Libby is currently under investigation because they outted Valerie Plame as a US agent, because her husband exposed the scheme as a blatant lie.
So I repeat, don't ignore the intelligence, simply ensure that it's true before we overreact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Watching the interview with the Iranian President tonight on TV... I didn't get any more enlightened. The man is a politician after the fashion of Bill Clinton and George Bush" never answer the question you're asked, answer the question you wish you'd been asked.
He did make one good point -- having the Americans hand his people documents doesn't constitute evidence. Seeing the pieces, seeing a trail that shows where they came from and where they were, would be evidence.