U.S. officer: Iran sends Iraq bomb parts

[Logan13]

U.S. officer: Iran sends Iraq bomb parts
AP
02/11/07
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.

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.

The U.S. officials said there was no evidence of Iranian-made EFPs having fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents who operate mainly in Anbar province in the west of Iraq, Baghdad and regions surrounding the capital.

"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.

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.

Last week, U.S. officials said they were investigating allegations that Shiite lawmaker Jamal Jaafar Mohammed was a main conduit for Iranian weapons entering the country. Mohammed has believed to have fled to 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.

As road travel has become unacceptably dangerous in Iraq, U.S. forces increasingly have turned to helicopters for transportation of troops and supplies. Simmons said U.S. helicopters were in the air for 240,000 hours in 2005 and he estimated the total figure this year would reach 400,000 hours.

North of Baghdad, a suicide truck bomber crashed into a police station, killing at least 30 policemen. A total of 73 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.

[DTBusta]

Yes true, we must stop this. Unfortunately this is just now more proof for bush to attack Iran. Lets remember we have lost over 3,000 troops there so far and only 170 have died from Iranian weapons.

[Logan13]

Yes true, we must stop this. Unfortunately this is just now more proof for bush to attack Iran. Lets remember we have lost over 3,000 troops there so far and only 170 have died from Iranian weapons.

Only 170 have died from the Iranian EFP's...........

[mcpeepants]

for the hype on Iran by the white house and the press, this is pretty weak evidence. I bet you could find US serial numbers on weapons being used by the insurgents

[Logan13]

for the hype on Iran by the white house and the press, this is pretty weak evidence. I bet you could find US serial numbers on weapons being used by the insurgents

so it is your stance that Iran is not involved in the Iraq insurgency?

[mcpeepants]

so it is your stance that Iran is not involved in the Iraq insurgency?

never said that. i'm just noticing how the white house is running the Iraq playbook all over again. they're saying they have no intention of attacking Iran but are bringing naval attack groups to the gulf and the black sea as well as patriot missiles. Bush also said that they were waiting for the Iraqi inspection process to complete while sending troops to the gulf and eventually invaded Iraq. De ja vu

[DTBusta]

not as much as there being made out to be. Bush is practically handing Iraq to the shia...and Iran, why bother with all this hype.And yes 170 out of 3,000 is pretty small.

[singern]

Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is supporting and financing and arming.

Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.

[Logan13]

Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is clearly supporting and arming.
Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.

Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.

[singern]

Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.

Your right about that, I have come to belive that in the US, it is more important to discredit Bush than to achieve the goal.

Like Billy Crystal said on SNL, "Better to look good than to feel good"

[mcpeepants]

Thats 170 that we know of and can prove, But the real issue here is that Iraq is a mess, and were it not for the insurgents, terrorists and Sadam supporters, Iraq would be at peace. Why does no one address this simple fact? Iraqi police and military recruitment is at an all time high. They want stability, they want an end to the rule of the terrorists, Which Iran is supporting and financing and arming.

Iran is clearly not interested in a successful peaceful democracy in Iraq, because it causes reflection of there own theocratic oppressive regime.

That doesn't prove Iranian government gave them the weapons. The weapons could have easily come from the black market. If the US analyzed a lot of the weapons being used by the insurgents, al qaieda, the taliban etc, they would find serial numbers from US companies.

The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves. If Russia overthrew the US government and placed a bunch of American puppets to lead it, I doubt you'd salute and support it. You'd probably take up arms to overthrow it.

[mcpeepants]

Because of Iraq turns into a Democratic country, the far-left will have alot of back-peddling to do. It is very sad that a segment of our population is actually rooting with the terrorists and insurgents to win to further their own idealogy.

How so? The far left cared about Iraqis when the US and the west were arming Saddam while he was gasing the kurds and Iranians and starting war with Iran. The far left was against the Iraq sanctions that was leading to the death of thousands while the Clinton adminstration was supported it. I polically important segment of the population was supporting for the death of Iraqis.

[singern]

The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves. If Russia overthrew the US government and placed a bunch of American puppets to lead it, I doubt you'd salute and support it. You'd probably take up arms to overthrow it.

Defend themselves from who? The US set them free, the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists, and militants who are mostly foreign insurgents, and local Baathists.
If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace. No one but those who support the militants are denying this....

[mcpeepants]

Defend themselves from who? The US set them free, the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists, and militants who are mostly foreign insurgents, and local Baathists.
If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace. No one but those who support the militants are denying this....

You call that freedom? The Iraqi population is also against the occupation too. So would you lay down your arms if the Russians overthrew the government?

[Logan13]

You call that freedom? The Iraqi population is also against the occupation too. So would you lay down your arms if the Russians overthrew the government?

overthrew the gov't from whom? Funny thing is, actually the sad thing is, I think that you would welcome it...........

[mcpeepants]

overthrew the gov't from whom? Funny thing is, actually the sad thing is, I think that you would welcome it...........

Would you lay your arms?

[Logan13]

Would you lay your arms?

give me a scenario. But to compare US to Iraq under Saddam is very telling..........

[singern]

You call that freedom? The Iraqi population is also against the occupation too. So would you lay down your arms if the Russians overthrew the government?

When your leader was a ruthless butchering dictator, and now you have a democratically elected government with a working constitution based on law, and democracy, you bet I call that freedom.
As for the occupation , Do you think the US wants to stay in Iraq?
If the Iraqis themselves could stand up to the foreign insurgents and militants, we would be happy to leave.

[mcpeepants]

give me a scenario. But to compare US to Iraq under Saddam is very telling..........

Right now. because it building missile defense on former Soviet States. Let's say the overthrow Bush and put Pat Buchanan in charge. Lets assume nukes are not used and Russia decisivly beats the our armed forces

[singern]

I know this is directed to Logan, but the scenario is Mute since Bush is an ally of Russia, not to mention he isnt a ruthless dictator who kills his own people, or assassinates his political rivals. To compare the US and Bush to Iraq and Sadam just doesnt work. You could however use Chavez, Ahmenajad, Castro, or Asad as workable examples.

[Logan13]

Right now. because it building missile defense on former Soviet States. Let's say the overthrow Bush and put Pat Buchanan in charge. Lets assume nukes are not used and Russia decisivly beats the our armed forces

that is a worthless scenario, it was done in 1984's Red Dawn.

[juicedOUTbrain]

From 1993s The Wolfowitz Doctrine
"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf (Iraq), we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."

From 2000s Rebuilding Americas Defences
"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

From 1999s Clean Break Strategy
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Yes the US government wants to stay in Iraq...And no, foreign troops on your land is not freedom...

[mcpeepants]

When your leader was a ruthless butchering dictator, and now you have a democratically elected government with a working constitution based on law, and democracy, you bet I call that freedom.
As for the occupation , Do you think the US wants to stay in Iraq?
If the Iraqis themselves could stand up to the foreign insurgents and militants, we would be happy to leave.

I believe Bush plans on staying because they are building several permanant military bases in Iraq. With the rise of Islamic extremist, I see less freedom for woman, minorities, gays,intellectuals etc in Iraq. Millions of people have been internally displaced and thousands (a lot of them doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, the middle class) have fled Iraq. When Saddam was doing most of his butchering, the 1980s, the US was supporting him with weapons. If we cared so much about Iraqis, we would of armed Saddam and would kept sanctions that long, that only hurt ordinary Iraqis. I think foreign only make a minority of the insurgent.

[Logan13]

I believe Bush plans on staying because they are building several permanant military bases in Iraq. With the rise of Islamic extremist, I see less freedom for woman, minorities, gays,intellectuals etc in Iraq. Millions of people have been internally displaced and thousands (a lot of them doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, the middle class) have fled Iraq. When Saddam was doing most of his butchering, the 1980s, the US was supporting him with weapons. If we cared so much about Iraqis, we would of armed Saddam and would kept sanctions that long, that only hurt ordinary Iraqis. I think foreign only make a minority of the insurgent.

the newest base is slated for Africa.

[juicedOUTbrain]

I think foreign only make a minority of the insurgent.

Estimates suggest that only around 5% of the insurgency in foreign...But they are a powerful and influencial 5%...

[mcpeepants]

that is a worthless scenario, it was done in 1984's Red Dawn.

You just asked me to give a scenario. I chose Pat Buchanan because he is an isolationist and treats use foreign policy like a rattlesnake. We won't strike unless threatened. I think Putin would want someone like in power in US.

[singern]

I believe Bush plans on staying because they are building several permanant military bases in Iraq. .

Thats where we disagree.
The US president, the government, the people, and the military are all united in one common goal, and that is to finish the job and get out of Iraq.
haven't heard anything about building bases but since we tend to rebuild every country we defeat in war it wont surprise me if we are building military bases for the Iraqi military.

[mcpeepants]

the newest base is slated for Africa.

here's some stuff on the permanant military bases in Iraq:

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...iraqbases.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/0...esolution.html

[mcpeepants]

Thats where we disagree.
The US president, the government, the people, and the military are all united in one common goal, and that is to finish the job and get out of Iraq.
haven't heard anything about building bases but since we tend to rebuild every country we defeat in war it wont surprise me if we are building military bases for the Iraqi military.

If your the US is planning to leave, they wouldn't be building permanant military bases.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...iraqbases.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/0...esolution.html
Edit/Delete Message

[mcpeepants]

Estimates suggest that only around 5% of the insurgency in foreign...But they are a powerful and influencial 5%...

agreed

[singern]

If your the US is planning to leave, they wouldn't be building permanant military bases.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...iraqbases.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/0...esolution.html
Edit/Delete Message

I dont believe the bases are for the us to stay, more likely they are for the US until we leave, and then for the Iraqi military. The United States will not allow it in any form. And I think that is obvious if you look at the last election results.
and although your links do speak of bases, the only ones saying that we will stay is speculation from a couple democrats.

[DTBusta]

God damit. I'd support Bush if the ends justified the means, but they dont. Yeah it would be so nice as to say "with out" the insurgents it would be peaceful. No one to blame here except for Bush's original expectations. They new it to be false but went all over th news channels lying about what they would expect and what they would expect to find. They have to answer to these errors. This is the president, bad intelligence bad...who else are they going to blame now. Us for wanting to know why there have been soo many errors. Dam Id support Bush if they were good at carrying out war but they aren't. They should have caught saddams vice President but we don't hear how he went underground with millions in cash and is now most likely funding the sunni insurgency. They are playing dumb when the admin officials say they didn't know of the 3 different sect of muslims that exists there and that such a civil war would break out. Many saw that coming and many new the 3 existed except bush admin officials which I have personally heard being questioned and denied they knew of the 2 different sects.
http://www.debianhelp.org/node/1226

[DTBusta]

Iranian tactics here seem to mirror the americans in pushing the soviets out of Afghanistan..?


maybe its that they saw what worked and are taking pointers.

[eliteforce]

When the republicans like bush say they want to get out of Iraq, they mean just to lower the troop level in Iraq to about 20,000-with Iraqi militias keeping the order under them; and then continue to have all sorts of security contractors and other contractors there, and a massive US embassey that actually serves as a shadow government-thats why the insurgents(freedom fighters) must force a US withdrawel. The insurgents in Iraq have freqently said that if the US aggrees to a swift withdrawel (a few months) then they will not shoot the Americans in the back as they are leaving and will pretty much observe a cease fire.

Also notice how Iraq's puppet regime-4 years into the occupation has no real army, they almost have no tanks, they have a few armoured vehicles (all under the direct control and close scrutiny of the American military. They have no air-force except for a few transport planes but no combat aircraft or helicopters. The Iraqi military is broken up into many defacto militias, mostly riding around in pickup trucks. With the american occupation ended they can't even hold a single block of baghdad...

so singurns notion that "If the terrorists would lay down there weapons, Iraq would be at peace....the Iraqi population is overwhelmingly against the terrorists." is totally false, you cannot have security with no real chain of command + most shiite AND Sunni Iraqis support attacks on US troops, as high as 90% in some areas, so when they say they are against "terrorists", that doesn't mean their militia, it just means the other militia.

[singern]

When the republicans like bush say they want to get out of Iraq, they mean just to lower the troop level in Iraq to about 20,000-with Iraqi militias keeping the order under them; and then continue to have all sorts of security contractors and other contractors there, and a massive US embassey that actually serves as a shadow government-thats why the insurgents(freedom fighters) must force a US withdrawel. The insurgents in Iraq have freqently said that if the US aggrees to a swift withdrawel (a few months) then they will not shoot the Americans in the back as they are leaving and will pretty much observe a cease fire.
.

I dont know if you are wrong or right, but Im curious if this is your opinion, or if you are privy to government intel that the world at large isnt.

[juicedOUTbrain]

I dont know if you are wrong or right, but Im curious if this is your opinion, or if you are privy to government intel that the world at large isnt.

Or you could read a study by the British Ministry of Defense, and reported in the Sunday Telegraph, a conservative newspaper that strongly supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

From the Washington Post
"Four out of five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and British troops in their country, and two out of five believe insurgent attacks on those troops are justified, according to a "secret" poll conducted by the British Ministry of Defense."

The poll's findings as reported by the Sunday Telegraph:

• 45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 percent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 percent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• 67 percent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 percent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 percent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

• less than one percent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation," according to the Telegraph. A spokesman for the British Conservative Party was quoted as saying, "The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution."

Source

[eliteforce]

and really, that 45% number includes the Kurds, so it's skewed downward, in al anbar province it's in the 90s, and it's pretty high in places like sadr city. Considering that Iraqis know that attacks on US troops leads to violence in their neighborhoods as the Americans try to subdue the guerilla resistence with house-to-house searches, or that when the insurgents attack US patrols, the patrols shoot back all over the place causing civilian death and property damage, yet many of them still approve of attacks on coalition troops; it's pretty high.

[mcpeepants]

i agree kind of with eliteforce's post. by reducing the numbers of troops and keeping them in bases. troops casualties would be low to zero and allow Iraq to fall of minds of most of the media and American public. this would allow the administration and the next to stay as long as they want.

[eliteforce]

Of cource in reality Bush is a fool & it doesn't work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7bRf...elated&search=

now thats what you call a mortar! see, if the US troops stay in isolated bases they get those babies comin down on them until they are forced back out to patrol-so they can get hit with a roadside bomb, they will never be able to prevent casualties or reduce the costs of the occupation. if you search more on youtube you will see video of US bases coming under mortar or rocket fire, katushas etc.

i love it when the 2 guys bump into each other trying to drop the bomb into the tube, me first!

[eliteforce]

this one is really good, i wish i could get aljazeera english on my tv, cnn,fox, even bbc world is such a useless peice of shit compards to the real journalism they do at aljazeera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIYHt...elated&search=