Source

quote:

Iran may be helping Iraqis build bombs By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago BAGHDAD - Iranian intelligence operatives have been training Iraqi fighters inside Iran on how to use and assemble deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday. Commanders of a splinter group inside the Shiite Mahdi Army militia have told The Associated Press that there are as many as 4,000 members of their organization that were trained in Iran and that they have stockpiles of EFPs, a weapon that causes great uneasiness among U.S. forces here because they penetrate heavily armored vehicles. U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell would not say how many militia fighters had been trained in Iran but said that questioning of fighters captured as recently as this month confirmed many had been in Iranian training camps. "We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees debriefs," Caldwell said at a weekly briefing. EFP stands for explosively formed penetrator, deadly roadside bombs that hurl a fist-size lump of molten copper capable of piercing armor. In January, U.S. officials said at least 170 U.S. soldiers had been killed by EFPs. Caldwell also said the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters. "We also know that training still is being conducted in Iran for insurgent elements from Iraq. We know that as recent as last week from debriefing personnel," he said. "The do receive training on how to assemble and employ EFPs," Caldwell said, adding that fighters also were trained in how to carry out complex attacks that used explosives followed by assaults with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. "There has been training on specialized weapons that are used here in Iraq. And then we do know they receive also training on general tactics in terms of how to take and employ and work what we call a more complex kind of attack where we see multiple types of engagements being used from an explosion to small arms fire to being done in multiple places," he said. The general would not say specifically which arm of the Iranian government was doing the training but called the trainers "surrogates" of Iran's intelligence agency. Caldwell opened the briefing by showing photographs of what he said were Iranian-made mortar rounds, RPG rounds and rockets that were found in Iraq. Also Wednesday, Iraqi Cabinet ministers allied to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to quit the government to protest the prime minister's lack of support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Such a pullout by the very bloc that put Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in office could collapse his already perilously weak government. The threat comes two months into a U.S. effort to pacify Baghdad in order to give al-Maliki's government room to function. Meanwhile, bodies lay scattered across two central Baghdad neighborhoods after a raging battle left 20 suspected insurgents and four Iraqi soldiers dead, and 16 U.S. soldiers wounded, witnesses and officials said. The fighting Tuesday in Fadhil and Sheik Omar, two Sunni enclaves, was the most intense since a massive push to pacify the capital began two months ago. Al-Sadr's political committee issued a statement a day after al-Maliki rejected an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal. "We see no need for a withdrawal timetable. We are working as fast as we can," al-Maliki said on his four-day trip to Japan, where he signed loan agreements for redevelopment projects in Iraq. "To demand the departure of the troops is a democratic right and a right we respect. What governs the departure at the end of the day is how confident we are in the handover process," he said, adding that "achievements on the ground" would dictate how long American troops remain. Al-Maliki spoke a day after tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of two Shiite holy cities, on al-Sadr's orders, to protest the U.S. presence in their country. The rally marked the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad at the hands of American forces. "The Sadrist movement strongly rejects the statements of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in which he stood by the continued presence of occupation forces despite the will of the Iraqi people," said the statement, a copy of which was obtained by the AP. "The Sadrist movement is studying the option of withdrawing from the Iraqi government — a government that has not fulfilled its promises to the people," it said. "We are serious about withdrawing," it added. It would not be the first time the Sadrists, who hold six seats in the Cabinet, left al-Maliki's government. Al-Sadr's ministers and 30 legislators boycotted the government and parliament for nearly two months to protest a November meeting between al-Maliki and President Bush in Jordan. The statement expressed anger over the Baghdad security plan launched Feb. 14, calling it "unfair." Iraqi and U.S. troops have been targeting members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been blamed for sectarian killings. Later in the day, the head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament, Nassar al-Rubaie, said U.S. troops had taken over al-Sadr's office in the city of Diwaniyah, the scene of weekend clashes between U.S. and Iraqi troops and al-Sadr's militiamen. "We say that this matter is very dangerous and we put the blame on the Iraqi government for the American destruction of the country," he said. "We have thought before that sovereignty in Iraq is incomplete, but now we say that sovereignty doesn't exist in Iraq," al-Rubaie said. Caldwell said he has no information about the alleged takeover of the office. Iraqi soldiers held a security cordon around Fadhil, and residents hid frightened in their homes, a witness told the AP by telephone, on condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety. The Muslim Scholars Association, a Sunni group, issued a statement quoting witnesses as saying Tuesday's battle began after Iraqi troops entered a mosque and executed two young men in front of other worshippers. Ground forces used tear gas on civilians, it said. "The association condemns this horrible crime carried out by occupiers and the government," the statement said. But the witness in Fadhil said the two men were executed in an outdoor vegetable market, not in the mosque. The Iraqi military was not immediately available to comment on the claim. The U.S. military said the battle began after American and Iraqi troops came under fire around 7 a.m. during a routine search operation. Helicopter gunships then swooped in, engaging insurgents with machine gun fire, the military said. Some Arab TV stations reported a U.S. helicopter was shot down in the fight, and showed video of a charred piece of mechanical wreckage that was impossible to identify. Caldwell said four helicopters sustained minor damage but were able to return to base. He confirmed that one Apache gunship had dropped a missile pod as it left the area. Caldwell said 13 of the 16 wounded Americans had returned to duty and that 20 suspected insurgents were killed and 30 wounded, he said.

___________________

Not that it would be too terribly surprising, but past claims of Iranian involvement with Iraq have been a wee bit exaggerated, back in 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6031401083.html

And most recently back in February in 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

Now this AP article you cite, Krypton, seemingly conveniently left out something that the NYTimes and CNN seemingly had quoted from Caldwell himself (who BTW seems to be around these Iranian involvement claims quite frequently). Do you see anything in the AP article posted about Sunnis receiving training and weapons from the Iranians?

Me neither.

However, here's the NYTimes:

quote:

Arms that American military officials say appear to have been manufactured in Iran as recently as last year have turned up in Sunni-majority areas as well as in the hands of Shiite extremists, the chief spokesman for the American military command in Iraq said in a news conference on Wednesday. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the spokesman, said that detainees in American custody had indicated that Iranian intelligence operatives had given support to Sunni insurgents and that surrogates for Iranian intelligence were training Shiite extremists in Iran. He gave no further description of the detainees or why they would have that information. “We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence sources have provided to Sunni insurgent groups some support,” said Major General Caldwell, who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military contends were largely manufactured in Iran. The weapons were found, some of them lying openly in the back seat of a car in a Sunni majority neighborhood Baghdad and in the car’s trunk. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/w...gin&oref=slogin

And here's CNN:

quote:

Munitions from Iran were found in a black Mercedes sedan in Baghdad's Jihad neighborhood on Tuesday after a tip from a civilian, he said. An Iranian-made rocket was found in the back seat and Iranian weapons were found in the trunk and around a nearby house, Caldwell said. In an unusual development, he said coalition forces have found evidence that Sunni insurgents in Iraq received help from intelligence services in the Shiite nation of Iran. "We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups, some support," Caldwell said. "We do continue to see the Iranian intelligence services being active here in Iraq in terms of both providing funding and providing weapons and munitions." http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

Notice something a bit strange with this part of the story? Sunnis receiving weapons and training from Shiite Iranians?

Anybody who's been keeping up with things going on over there truly buy into this?

Me neither.

C'mon, now. What kind of bullshit are you trying to sell us here? Oh so strangely, Caldwell clammed up on the specifics.

Now look, I don't doubt there's Iranian Shiite involvement. Perhaps not to the level that our Administration wants to claim (which has been shown in the past) such as direct Iranian government involvement, but no doubt there's likely some play here across the border. But Iranian involvement with the Sunni insurgents - the folks that kinda sorta hate the fucking guts of the Shiites completely and blow them up on a daily fucking basis?

Sorry boys, I'll pass on that line.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

We come to question again of how to make diplomacy work with Iran when they are already fighting us proxy style.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton We come to question again of how to make diplomacy work with Iran when they are already fighting us proxy style.

Well since we have no evidence that ties the Iranian government itself behind this proxy war, I'd say we can't hold on such a premise at this time when we all decide to sit down at the diplomatic table and talk. And I think, as the majority of the public thinks, that we should abide by the Iraqi Study Group Report's suggestions and attempt talks with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran.

There have been some very successful Republican presidents who hold this approach of diplomacy pretty closely. I hear incessant cries from Republicans on the radio and in blogs on a return of Reaganism and the good ol' days he brought (which I'll save that debate for another day). Where would we be if Reagan decided NOT to talk to Gorbechev (sp?)? This approach of utter ignorance by this Administration of our enemies will continue to get us nowhere. Of course that doesn't mean we should cave in and cater to Iranian desires, but talks is a first and necessary step for any success in stabilizing Iraq and the entire Middle East. As much as Bush wants it to happen, the reality is painfully clear:

We.

Can't.

Stabilize.

The.

Fucking.

Region.

Alone.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well since we have no evidence that ties the Iranian government itself behind this proxy war, I'd say we can't hold on such a premise at this time when we all decide to sit down at the diplomatic table and talk. And I think, as the majority of the public thinks, that we should abide by the Iraqi Study Group Report's suggestions and attempt talks with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran. There have been some very successful Republican presidents who hold this approach of diplomacy pretty closely. I hear incessant cries from Republicans on the radio and in blogs on a return of Reaganism and the good ol' days he brought (which I'll save that debate for another day). Where would we be if Reagan decided NOT to talk to Gorbechev (sp?)? This approach of utter ignorance by this Administration of our enemies will continue to get us nowhere. Of course that doesn't mean we should cave in and cater to Iranian desires, but talks is a first and necessary step for any success in stabilizing Iraq and the entire Middle East. As much as Bush wants it to happen, the reality is painfully clear: We. Can't. Stabilize. The. Fucking. Region. Alone.

But Iran has been fighting proxy wars when aiding Hezbollah to fight Israel, and aiding Iraqi insurgents in fighting the US. Their finding Iranian-made weapons, and insurgents are admitting they trained in Iran. There is evidence for both.

But I will have to agree with you. I do think some diplomacy wouldn't hurt. Like Nixon reaching out to red China.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton But Iran has been fighting proxy wars when aiding Hezbollah to fight Israel,

Are we Israel? Last I checked, we are in a different continent. Not to say that we shouldn't help Israel (and a $3 billion dollar check every year for their military demonstrates we do quite well), but let's make sure there is a distinction between us and Israel, please.

quote:

and aiding Iraqi insurgents in fighting the US.[Their finding Iranian-made weapons, and insurgents are admitting they trained in Iran. There is evidence for both.

Again, is there evidence of DIRECT OR INDIRECT involvement from Iran's government? Because that is the key distinction here. We cannot acuse the Iranian government of anything unless we have evidence that the government is at play here. At present we simply do not. I agree with the article that it's likely true that there's Iranian weapons, and that Shiite militias may be getting training there. Again I don't deny Iranian involvement. But we cannot hold the Iranian govt's feet to the fire if we do not have evidence that they are the ones doing the training, the selling of weaponry, etc. At present it's much more likely that such ordeals are taking place outside of governmental influence, i.e. religious factions and private citizens in Iran meddling into this shit.

quote:

But I will have to agree with you. I do think some diplomacy wouldn't hurt. Like Nixon reaching out to red China.

Well I'm glad we're coming closer to some agreement. Perhaps the best way to top off the night before bed. Good night.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...