Iran Discussion

[Jason Tate]

The Bush administration has repeatedly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16841358/site/newsweek/) claimed (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html) that Iran is responsible for the surging violence in Iraq. But on multiple occasions, the Bush administration has “ordered a delay in publication of evidence (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/iran.php)” to support its claim. U.S. allies who have seen the evidence said that it “still falls short of an airtight case.”


In an inteview with CNN yesterday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said that Iran is “stoking” and “igniting” sectarian violence in Iraq. But he was unable to actually offer any such evidence.

Today’s new National Intelligence Estimate (http://dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf) (NIE) explains why Iran is not a driving force behind Iraq’s violence: Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq.
The NIE acknowledges that Iran is trying to cause trouble. But it also notes that sectarian violence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101152.html) — not Iranian support — is the most immediate threat. Moreover, as the New York Times wrote yesterday, “more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/opinion/01thu1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and% 20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin). If Mr. Bush isn’t careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country along.”

[Love As Arson]

War with Iran is desireable and, perhaps, inevitable, but not due to the reasons given by the Bush administration. Rather, the decision to attack Iran is predicated upon purely economic reasoning. More specifically, China is seeking to establish an Asian security grid, in which a coalition is formed with Russia, Iran, itself, Venezuela and Bolivia, so that the hold western power has on energy supplies is broken. Expect the rhetoric against Iran and leftist governments in Latin America to increase as the government proceeds to deal with these developments, with a compilation of direct intervention and proxies.

[Love As Arson]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/50/targetiran.shtml

[cjprocknroll]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ei=5065&en=7febec32f88064b5&ex=1171774800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[Jason Tate]

Newsweek on “The Hidden War With Iran. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/)” At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. …
A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

[Lueda Alia]

Why am I not surprised?

[IAPAI]

“They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. …

statements like this make it more believable that the US ignored the warning signs before 9/11.

[cjprocknroll]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html

[Jason Tate]

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html
If this is really our strategy, can we just nuke the entire region so we can stop dicking around with this shit.

[Love As Arson]

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn02102007.html

It's no doubt true that Iran has been arming the Shi'a. What Gordon fails to mention is that over 90 per sent of the IEDs used against US troops in Iraq have been detonated by the Sunni insurgents , who of course are not supplied by Iran. More generally, the prime point of interest of the intelligence briefings given to Gordon and other journalists is the timing. At any point in the past couple of years the US could have gone public with roughly the same accusations.

[1Roth4]

statements like this make it more believable that the US ignored the warning signs before 9/11.

im not sure if they ignored warning signs. im sure the U.S gets hundreds of terror threats every day. disyphering which are more imenent is probably more difficult that we anticipate. i'm sure they never thought 9/11 would amount to what it did. I would say they underestimated warnings.

but you know. the whole bush administration was responsible for 9/11... so... there kinda goes my argument:-|

[Jason Tate]

“Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq12feb12,1,4049727.story?coll=la -headlines-world) when presenting the most detailed evidence yet that Iran is supplying weaponry to anti-US forces in Iraq?” IraqSlogger.com’s Eason Jordan asks (http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1326). “After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning ‘dossier’ of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name? That’s disgraceful and unacceptable (http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1326).”

[Salomonbz90]

I agree with Eda..this is not shocking at all.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

If this is really our strategy, can we just nuke the entire region so we can stop dicking around with this shit.


seriously
thats what scares me about where we are at.

Three options:
1. Leave
2. Keep half-assing it
3. Make it a parking lot

when you look at it like that, seems like an obvious choice rises to the top

[Jason Tate]

As the Bush administration ratchets up pressure on Iran, Vice President Cheney’s top national security aide has been quoted by the Washington Post — in the 10th paragraph on page A18 (http://www.correntewire.com/wapo_cheney_aide_says_2007_attack_o n_iran_is_real_possibility) — that war with Iran is “a real possibility (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001275.html)” this year: Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.
Those with knowledge of the build-up to war in Iraq will recognize John Hannah’s name. In Bush’s second term, he replaced Scooter Libby (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-ignatius0123.artjan23,0,7656447.sto ry?coll=hc-headlines-oped) as the head of Cheney’s national security staff. During Bush’s first term, he personally wrote the first draft (http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv) of the infamous speech that Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered to the United Nations, according to Powell’s former aide Lawrence Wilkerson.
Moreover, Hannah was a top source for false pre-war intelligence from Iraqi exiles (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660169/) that was “stovepiped” past the intelligence agencies and sent directly to the White House:
For months, Cheney’s office has denied that the veep bypassed U.S. intelligence agencies to get intel reports from [Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress]. But a June 2002 memo written by INC lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide on Cheney’s staff, as one of two “U.S. governmental recipients” for reports generated by an intelligence program being run by the INC and which was then being funded by the State Department. Under the program, “defectors, reports and raw intelligence are cultivated and analyzed”; the info was then reported to, among others, “appropriate governmental, non-governmental and international agencies.” The memo not only describes Cheney aide Hannah as a “principal point of contact” for the program, it even provides his direct White House telephone number.
John Hannah’s comments about Iran should be taken seriously. He knows how to mislead a nation into war.

[Jason Tate]

At Sunday’s briefing in Baghdad, U.S. officials attempted to tie the Iranian government to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, claiming that “Iran’s export of the bombs to Iraqi Shiite militias was a deliberate strategy of the regime (http://www.nysun.com/article/48477).” But today, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace disavowed this claim. He told reporters he has no evidence of any links (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm) between the explosives killing Americans and top Iranian officials:
We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this,” he said. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.
Pace isn’t the only one concerned about the intelligence presented at Sunday’s briefing:
Indeed, while the specific intelligence on the explosive formed projectiles is no longer disputed in the intelligence community, the CIA is questioning whether their export from Iran represents a strategy of the regime or the rogue actions of one of its security services, known as the Quds Force. [New York Sun, 2/12/07 (http://www.nysun.com/article/48477)]
The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 2/12/07 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479.html)]

[Jason Tate]

At today’s White House press briefing, Press Secretary Tony Snow faced intense questioning over administration claims that Iranians have smuggled weapons into Iraq with “the approval of senior Iranian officials (http://voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm).” Yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace seemed to contradict this claim, saying that he has not seen evidence that the Iranian government “clearly knows or is complicit (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/pace-iran-iraq/)” in the weapons smuggling.
CNN’s Ed Henry pressed Snow: “When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to be saying something different than the White House, does that raise questions about how solid this evidence is?” But Snow insisted that the White House and Pace were “not on separate pages.”
Later, Henry accused Snow of repeatedly “changing what my question is.” Snow said, “No, no, I’m trying to clarify your question,” but Henry interrupted. “I don’t need it clarified. I’m trying to tell you — I know what my question is, and basically, [Pace is] saying that he doesn’t see evidence that the Iranian government is clearly behind it. That’s my — I’ve asked that three or four times, you haven’t answered that.”

[Jason Tate]

Reporting on Iran's alleged ties to the supply of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq on the February 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, national security correspondent David Martin uncritically reported what he said was CBS News consultant Reza Aslan's belief that "supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, 'If you want us to stop, let's talk.' " Similarly, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reported on the February 12 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume that some have asked if "the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government." Neither Martin nor Baier told viewers that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly said he has seen no evidence directly linking the Iranian government to the supply of EFPs.
A February 12 McClatchy Newspapers article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16683913.htm) reported that Pace said "he hasn't seen any intelligence to support the claim" that "Iran's government shipping powerful explosive devices to Shiite Muslim fighters in Iraq to use against American troops." Also, according to a February 12 [I]Washington Post report (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479_pf.html), the U.S. military's briefing that sought to link Iran to EFPs in Iraq was "notable for what was not said or shown," adding that the military officials who briefed reporters "offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops." The Post article also noted that "the military briefers were not joined by U.S. diplomats or representatives of the CIA or the office of the Director of National Intelligence."
The only criticism of the administration's briefing that Special Report aired -- aside from that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- came from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who said: "I'm getting uneasy that they're trying to create a premise, set a premise for some future broader military action in Iran." The report also included comments from President Bush and White House press secretary Tony Snow characterizing opposition to the U.S. military's briefing as merely "political." Baier did not report Pace's comments despite noting that "Snow was asked directly if the administration is confident the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government."
From the February 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
MARTIN: These specially shaped charges have triggered an increasingly high-stakes standoff between the U.S. and Iran. Today, Iran denied accusations by U.S. officials in Baghdad that these deadly devices were manufactured inside Iran. A State Department spokesman responded with some decidedly undiplomatic language.
SEAN McCORMACK (State Department spokesman): The Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity.
MARTIN: The diabolic genius of the device, which has killed 170 coalition soldiers so far, is the concave lid. When a vehicle triggers an infrared motion detector, the explosive charge propels the lid, which changes shape in flight into a molten slug able to penetrate the thickest armor. It is a sophisticated killing device, which makes a cruel mockery of the term U.S. officials first used to describe roadside bombs -- improvised explosive device, IED for short.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just one by itself is enough to cause catastrophic damage. They're the most lethal form of IED that we've encountered here in Iraq so far.
MARTIN: Iranian expert and CBS News consultant Reza Aslan has no doubt it comes from Iran, and no doubt Iran is capable of much worse.
ASLAN: If Iran truly wanted to see Iraq become a failed state, it could unleash a level of violence in that country unlike anything the United States has seen before.
MARTIN: Aslan thinks supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, "If you want us to stop, let's talk." Despite rumors of war heightened by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, Aslan says chances of a diplomatic solution are not dead.
ASLAN: The great irony of all this is that this ratcheting-up of the militant rhetoric from the United States may actually lead to an opening of negotiations.
MARTIN: But officials say one of the arguments against holding talks with Iran is that with the war in Iraq going badly, the U.S. would be negotiating from a position of weakness, Katie.
COURIC: David Martin at the Pentagon tonight.
From the February 12 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: In an interview with CSPAN, a day after senior military officials in Baghdad laid out what they called firm evidence of Iran shipping explosives into Iraq, President Bush shrugged off suggestions that the presentation is a prelude to war.
BUSH: I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, "He wants to go to war," is -- first of all, I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political.
BAIER: The president was asked what he would say to lawmakers calling for specifics on how he'll deal with all the problems Iran is causing.
BUSH: I say we've got a comprehensive policy, aimed to solve this peacefully.
BAIER: This after a detailed briefing in Baghdad Sunday, where senior military officials said highly sophisticated weapons, known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs, can be directly tied to Tehran from serial numbers and markings found on the roadside bombs. Senior officials said these EFPs have killed more than 170 U.S. and coalition troops by penetrating even the newest armored vehicles, sending hot, molten metal through Humvees.
The official said the supply trail of the EFPs, Iranian-made mortar shells, and rocket-propelled grenades began with Iran's revolutionary guard's Quds force in Tehran, and led directly to Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army, loyal to radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
White House officials stood firmly behind the report.
SNOW: You cannot deny that these weapons exist. You cannot deny that there is presently no manufacturing capability within Iraq able to produce those kinds of weapons.
BAIER: Snow was asked directly if the administration is confident the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government.
SNOW: There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.
BAIER: While Iranian officials Monday strongly denied sending explosives into Iraq and accused the U.S. of fabricating evidence, in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly danced around the question.
AHMADINEJAD: We are asking for peace. We are asking for security, and we will be sad to see people get killed, no matter who they are.
SAWYER: Would you like to see the pictures? Because they say they have the serial numbers and they are from Iran. It's a fact, they say.
AHMADINEJAD: We don't need such things. The U.S. administration and Bush are used to accusing others. We are opposed to any kind of conflict in Iraq.
BAIER: Sunday, top Democrats expressed their own doubts about the administration's charges.
DODD: This administration has tried, in the past, to sort of doctor the numbers, to cook the books to serve their policy goals. We've seen that in the Iraq conflict. I'm getting uneasy that they're trying to create a premise, set a premise for some future broader military action in Iran.
BAIER: Which prompted a firm response from the White House.
SNOW: These guys are trying to create an issue maybe for their own political fortunes, and they need to stop it. This is clearly a case where people are hyping something up. I don't know how much clearer we can be. We're not getting ready for war in Iran, but what we are doing is, we're protecting our own people.
BAIER: Meantime, on the nuclear front, European Union leaders today agreed to implement United Nations sanctions on Iran for not suspending its uranium enrichment, but those same EU leaders said that Iran is now, quote, "showing new ambition to negotiate." Bush administration official reaction: We'll see. Brit.

[Jason Tate]

Yesterday, ThinkProgress highlighted (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/snow-iran-intel/) CNN’s Ed Henry’s aggressive questions about whether the administration is standing behind claims that the “highest levels (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace14feb14,1,1760552.story?coll=la -headlines-world)” of the Iranian government have ordered weapons shipments to Iraqi insurgents.
Today, Henry continued his dogged pursuit to get to the bottom of the administration’s contradiction with Gen. Peter Pace, who said he has not seen evidence that the Iranian government “clearly knows or is complicit (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/pace-iran-iraq/)” in the weapons smuggling. Henry confronted Bush about this contradiction and forced him to acknowledge “I don’t think we know” whether the Iranian government is ordering the weapons shipments.
While other reporters are already hyping and overstating (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/14/cnn-iran/) the administration’s claims on Iranian intelligence, Henry has maintained healthy skepticism of their public statements. “What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?” Henry asked Bush. “Ed, we know [Iranian weapons] are there,” the President responded, again dodging the question.

[Jason Tate]

During yesterday’s House floor debate on escalation, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) unwittingly demonstrated his profound ignorance of Iraqi culture. “Some people from the other side seem to believe that if we pull out of Iraq, the Iraqi people are going to go back to tending sheep and herding goats,” he said.

Westmoreland’s statement comes as little surprise. Last year, he led opposition to renewal of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that racism in the South is as irrelevant today as U.S.-British tensions over the Revolutionary War: “Do we treat the British any differently because of the Stamp Act? (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.immig12jul12,0,3704744.story?col l=bal-nationworld-headlines) If we’re going to do that, then let’s go back to the Indians and say they butchered Custer.”
Unfortunately, the civil war in Iraq has decimated the country’s once-thriving professional class (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/16/MNG2MNJBIS1.DTL). Roughly 40 percent of Iraq’s middle class — which at one time included professors, doctors, and business owners — has fled Iraq since the war began, U.N. officials estimate. “The flight has undermined basic services such as water and sanitation and disrupted commerce, making it increasingly difficult for Iraqi society to function.”

[Jason Tate]

As Atrios notes (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#1171 46243664970165), CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said this morning (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_atrios_archive.html#1171 46243664970165):
The bottom line, Heidi, is the US certainly does have intelligence tying these Iranian weapons shipments to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei. It’s not something that the Bush White House wants to talk about in public too much because they really do not want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, the facts aside.
Starr claims the White House doesn’t want to talk about this “too much.” Actually, the White House explicitly denies it. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said yesterday (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/snow-iran-intel/):
SNOW: This is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before. Do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khamenei or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. …
I’m trying to be careful about how we do this. The question is, do we know that some particular senior official signed off? No. It’s an opaque government. It’s not a transparent government.



In other words, CNN is now overstating the intelligence on Iran beyond the overstatements of the Bush administration.

[richter915]

I have a question. This recent interest in Iran is not a surprise but it could have come up any time during this war. Why now does the United States choose to reveal evidence of Iranian support which it could have done maybe last year? also, why would the United States benefit from a war with Iran? What is our national interest in Iran?

[aminorthreat55]

I have a question. This recent interest in Iran is not a surprise but it could have come up any time during this war. Why now does the United States choose to reveal evidence of Iranian support which it could have done maybe last year? also, why would the United States benefit from a war with Iran? What is our national interest in Iran?
To answer your first question, the government recognizes their ability to "win" in Iraq is all but completely gone, so they are merely searching for another scapegoat. I'll leave the other two for someone who feels like writing a page about it, because I don't.

[Jason Tate]

In his February 2 Nieman Watchdog column (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.vie w&backgroundid=00156), washingtonpost.com blogger Dan Froomkin warned that the media's coverage of the Bush administration's posture toward Iran suggested that "the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all." Apparently bearing out Froomkin's concerns, media outlets such as The New York Times, CBS, and NBC have continued to report Bush's allegations about Iran's role in Iraq in a muddled, incomplete manner -- at times offering rebuttals to baseless and unsourced allegations of Iranian influence, while at other times serving as little more than stenographers.
In advising journalists to be skeptical of authority, Froomkin offered several suggestions:

Don't assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
Just because they say it, doesn't mean it should ... make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
Don't print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true. Michael Gordon, The New York Times
A February 10 New York Times article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ex=1328763600&en=a969c2a825f5e668&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) by reporter Michael Gordon on the Bush administration's claim that the "most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq ... is being supplied by Iran" appeared to contravene every one of Froomkin's suggestions:

"Don't assume everything administration officials tell you is true": Gordon uncritically reported that the "assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device" -- a weapon known as an "explosively formed penetrator" (EFP), used in roadside bombs -- "to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete." The article also uncritically quoted from an "intelligence assessment," which apparently claimed that "Iran is implementing a deliberate, calibrated policy -- approved by Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and carried out by the Quds Force -- to provide explosives support and training to select Iraqi Shia militant groups to conduct attacks against coalition targets."
"Demand proof for every assertion": Gordon offered no indication that he asked for proof for these allegations.
"Just because they say it, doesn't mean it should ... make the headlines": The article was headlined: "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says."
"Don't print anonymous assertions": Gordon claimed he obtained "specific details" regarding Iran's involvement in Iraq from unnamed "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies." In his article, Gordon did not include any skeptical or critical analysis of these allegations, aside from noting that "Iran has publicly denied the allegations." As Editor & Publisher noted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003544369) on the day the article came out, Gordon is "the same Times reporter who, on his own or with [former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion."
By contrast, in a February 12 article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/middleeast/12weapons.html?ex=1328936400&en=138e7e1c0e4b857e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss), to which Gordon contributed, the Times reported that anonymous "senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war," and that "officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans." The Times added:
That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.
In a February 13 article by Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti, headlined "Doubts Greet U.S. Evidence On Iran Action (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13weapons.html?ex=1329022800&en=440b2180d0b983de&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)" (the headline of the online version of the article was changed to "Skeptics Doubt U.S. Evidence on Iran Action in Iraq"), the Times again noted that the administration offered no "direct evidence," and that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "told reporters that he 'would not say' that Iran's leadership was aware of or condoned the attacks."
David Martin, CBS News
As Media Matters for America noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130013), during a February 12 report on the CBS Evening News on Iran's alleged ties to the supply of EFPs, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin uncritically quoted State Department spokesman Sean McCormack's claim that the "Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity." Martin also uncritically reported what he said was CBS News consultant Reza Aslan's belief that "supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, 'If you want us to stop, let's talk.' " Martin did not note in his report that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he "would not say" that Iran's government knew about or condoned the attacks, as noted by the Times on February 13. According to a February 12 McClatchy Newspapers article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16683913.htm), Pace said:
"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "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."
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
Similarly, on the February 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported that "questions swirled today about the administration's long-awaited evidence," adding: "The U.S. claims the targeted explosives used in Iraq are made in Iran. Even if true, would that prove Iran's government was involved?" Mitchell noted that "administration officials ... acknowledge that the evidence is at best, quote, 'circumstantial,' " but at no point did she mention Pace's refusal to affirm that the government of Iran was involved.
From the February 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MITCHELL: The Bush administration is on the defensive today, denying that it is exaggerating intelligence about Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq to justify a U.S. attack on Iran.
[begin video clip]
Is the government in Tehran responsible for the deadly, armor-piercing devices that have been targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, as the White House and Pentagon claim? The president on C-SPAN today denied trying to create a pretext for war with Iran.
PRESIDENT BUSH: My reaction to all the noise about, you know, "He wants to go to war" is -- first of all, I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political.
MITCHELL: But questions swirled today about the administration's long-awaited evidence laid out for reporters yesterday in Baghdad by U.S. military officials who, in a highly unusual step, would not give their names. The U.S. claims the targeted explosives used in Iraq are made in Iran. Even if true, would that prove Iran's government was involved?
TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.
MITCHELL: Tehran, which celebrated the anniversary of its revolution yesterday, today denied the U.S. charge.
A spokesman said: "The United States has a long history of fabricating evidence." How involved is Tehran? U.S. intelligence officials have some doubts. Nine days ago, the government's 16 intelligence agencies reported that Iran's influence was not "a major driver of violence" in Iraq. That same day, the White House said it wasn't satisfied the Pentagon's case against Iran was solid.
STEPHEN HADLEY (national security adviser): Quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts.
MITCHELL: So, why is the evidence now ready? Or is the administration trying to provoke a confrontation with Iran?
BRUCE RIEDEL (former CIA official): This is extremely dangerous territory we're moving into now. We're accusing the Iranians of killing American soldiers on a battlefield. That raises the ante pretty high between us and Tehran.
[end video clip]
MITCHELL: Today, administration officials say they had to make their case to protect U.S. troops from a growing threat, but they acknowledge that the evidence is at best, quote, "circumstantial."

[Lueda Alia]

I feel like they're trying to make Iran sound like the monster they made Iraq seem to be. It's unbelievable.

[Jason Tate]

t Sunday, the Bush administration finally presented its long-delayed intelligence briefing (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/iran-cooked-intel/) on Iranian arms shipments into Iraq. Prior to the presentation, a U.S. official told the New York Times that it had been delayed because they were “trying to scrub (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/news/iran.php)” the intelligence, adding “the last thing we want to be accused of is cherry-picking.” While much of the information had previously been known, the highlight of the presentation — as reported by ABC World News — was that it was “the first time military officials…made the link to the highest level of Iran’s government.” But the briefing “offered no evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479_pf.html)” to substantiate that claim. After coming under intense scrutiny for an intelligence presentation that was approved by the highest levels (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/iran-cooked-intel/) of the administration, the White House has slowly backed off its claims of Iranian government involvement.
Today, CNN reported that the White House is now blaming the anonymous intelligence briefer who presented the information. According to CNN’s Ed Henry, the White House says the anonymous intelligence briefer went “a little too far” in stating the evidence. But, as Henry said, “that begs the question why the administration has taken so long to clarify those comments.”

[captainhampton]

I feel like they're trying to make Iran sound like the monster they made Iraq seem to be. It's unbelievable.

nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon. damn administration how dare they make Iran look like the monsters.

[Jason Tate]

nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon. damn administration how dare they make Iran look like the monsters.
Nothing you've announced at all is a valid reason for attacking the country. More importantly you're using words that can be credited to fringe Iranians and not those as a whole.

And at the base of the argument is the simple fact that none of the accusations you've thrown make the country look like any more of "monsters" than the US itself. Listing the "monster" qualities of countries is not the kind of activity the United States wants to engage in ... because we will loose that battle most of the time.

[captainhampton]

Nothing you've announced at all is a valid reason for attacking the country. More importantly you're using words that can be credited to fringe Iranians and not those as a whole.

And at the base of the argument is the simple fact that none of the accusations you've thrown make the country look like any more of "monsters" than the US itself. Listing the "monster" qualities of countries is not the kind of activity the United States wants to engage in ... because we will loose that battle most of the time.

how come you don't ever criticize Iran? it's always blaming the US with you.

[Jason Tate]

how come you don't ever criticize Iran? it's always blaming the US with you.
Because I don't live in Iran and have no real say over what the country does or doesn't do. What am I supposed to criticize them for? Taking pages out of our playbook? Following in our footsteps? Acting like douchebags?

I have a hard time taking an ethnocentric role toward another country and have an even harder time acting as arbitrator in a situation that makes our country look like giant hypocrites.

[captainhampton]

Because I don't live in Iran and have no real say over what the country does or doesn't do. What am I supposed to criticize them for? Taking pages out of our playbook? Following in our footsteps? Acting like douchebags?

I have a hard time taking an ethnocentric role toward another country and have an even harder time acting as arbitrator in a situation that makes our country look like giant hypocrites.

haha i don't even know how to respond to that. what am i supposed to criticize them for? HAHAH, I must have missed the time a US president declared his intentions to wipe a country off the map. but i'm sure it's in our "playbook" right?

[Jason Tate]

haha i don't even know how to respond to that. what am i supposed to criticize them for? HAHAH, I must have missed the time a US president declared his intentions to wipe a country off the map. but i'm sure it's in our "playbook" right?
Didn't we address these allegations in another thread? Not only was it shown to be one man's comments but it was shown not to be indicative of the entire country or even those with the actual power.

Furthermore I think our President's words toward other countries have been very influential in our current plight. The difference being we've acted on these words ... the same can obviously not be said for the Iranian comments you overstate as your only reason against the country.

[Heartcore]

This sounds like were trying to stew up phoney reasons for a another preemptive attack on another middle eastern country when we're already in enough of a mess with the war we've already started.

[Love As Arson]

I have a question. This recent interest in Iran is not a surprise but it could have come up any time during this war. Why now does the United States choose to reveal evidence of Iranian support which it could have done maybe last year? also, why would the United States benefit from a war with Iran? What is our national interest in Iran?
As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shia Iran.

The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential clerics also have long- standing relations with Iran, including Sistani, who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.

Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial, bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too. This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and controlling large portions of the world's oil reserves. It's not unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran's lead in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.

Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling to act independently of the United States. China, however, can't be intimidated. That's why the United States is so frightened by China.

China is already establishing relations with Iran -- and even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin of that power grid.

Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington.
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01102006.html

how come you don't ever criticize Iran? it's always blaming the US with you.
Is Iran the sole superpower?

nuclear proliferation.
It's nuclear program is in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, which states that they are free to engage in nuclear power for civilian purposes. The evidence provided does not indicate they are using it for nuclear weapons. As such, there is no basis for the rhetoric spouted by the Bush administration.

Holocaust denial,vicious anti-Western rhetoric
Free speech? I assume it extends to the leaders of countries. Moreover, if that is a basis for attack, then may one attack the US due to its comments on the Middle East?

lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.
Israel destablized Lebanon and made Hezbollah a viable power in the country when it began its assault on the nation. Hezbollah fought the Israelies, and in doing so, became heroes to a public that was attacked for no particular reason. Further, after the assault, Hezbollah was quick to respond with financial help for those that had their homes destroyed. They are not viewed as terrorists, rather as freedom fighters.

[captainhampton]

Didn't we address these allegations in another thread? Not only was it shown to be one man's comments but it was shown not to be indicative of the entire country or even those with the actual power.

Furthermore I think our President's words toward other countries have been very influential in our current plight. The difference being we've acted on these words ... the same can obviously not be said for the Iranian comments you overstate as your only reason against the country.

President of Iran has no power. yup that's it.

you think that's the only reason,
have you read any of my posts? nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.

the fact that you put us on the same level if not worse than them is laughable.

[Love As Arson]

Consider that the US nearly wiped a nation of the map with two atomic bombs in efforts to demonstrate its power.

[captainhampton]

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01102006.html


Is Iran the sole superpower?


It's nuclear program is in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, which states that they are free to engage in nuclear power for civilian purposes. The evidence provided does not indicate they are using it for nuclear weapons. As such, there is no basis for the rhetoric spouted by the Bush administration.


Free speech? I assume it extends to the leaders of countries. Moreover, if that is a basis for attack, then may one attack the US due to its comments on the Middle East?


Israel destablized Lebanon and made Hezbollah a viable power in the country when it began its assault on the nation. Hezbollah fought the Israelies, and in doing so, became heroes to a public that was attacked for no particular reason. Further, after the assault, Hezbollah was quick to respond with financial help for those that had their homes destroyed. They are not viewed as terrorists, rather as freedom fighters.

oh because they are not a superpower makes them immune from criticism?

never said that what they said about the holocaust warranted an attack, just that they deserve criticism for that.

calling Hezbollah freedom fighters is way off base.

[thejetstolehome]

oh because they are not a superpower makes them immune from criticism?

never said that what they said about the holocaust warranted an attack, just that they deserve criticism for that.

calling Hezbollah freedom fighters is way off base.

to some it might not be.

[Jason Tate]

President of Iran has no power. yup that's it.

Relative to being able to carry out the threats - correct. Considering all those around him have said they don't support those words and that it's, "simply big talk " that he's expected to say - correct. It's been presented that he's more of a figure head; furthermore, I have seen no evidence that states he's capable/willing/or has a timetable of pulling off these threats. Nor do I support the idea that simply because he used less tasteful and tactful wording in describing the demolition of a country than us, that's a valid reason for war. It does not benefit the United States to start wars or instigate conflict with every country who talks big/tough talk toward others. It's in our best interest to figure out who is thumping their chests and who is actually thinking of going through with mass genocide. There's a big difference between the two.

you think that's the only reason,
have you read any of my posts? nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric,

Of course I read this the first time, and I addressed them the first time as well. None of these are reasons, they're excuses. The majority of these "reasons" are based around words (denial, threats, rhetoric) and I'm sorry - but I cannot see how anyone could logically attack a country based on words alone. That's not a precedent I'm comfortable setting or having my country engage in -- that, to me, appears to be not only grossly hypocritical, but also also an extreme abuse of power.

lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.

Again, while America engages in the same activities in other countries (and in this case the same country), I am unable to agree with this rational. If our country was not actively participating in similar "sponsorship of terror" and hadn't done this so frequently in the past -- then maybe I would see your train of thought. However, at the present, getting America involved in this conflict, based on shoddy reason, is only encouraging a downfall to our nation.

the fact that you put us on the same level if not worse than them is laughable.

I'd say it's only laughable to those with a severe lack of historical knowledge.

[Love As Arson]

oh because they are not a superpower makes them immune from criticism?
No, but the criticism should be leveled at those with the most power, who are misusing it.


never said that what they said about the holocaust warranted an attack, just that they deserve criticism for that.
Is it backwards? Certainly, however, the questions the president have asked have had less to do with questioning the Holocaust, but why it is that the Palestinians were forced off of their land for something that happened to European Jews.

calling Hezbollah freedom fighters is way off base.
To an American, living in relative luxury, they may not be. However, a Lebanese person, who finds that their government is not helping them, but this group is, both by physically fighting them and providing them with the means to rebuild their town, will see them as a liberator.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

did anyone see Conan tonight?

he made a joke about Bush using an old Iraq speech and just switching all the Qs to Ns, and using it for Iran. I hope someone saw it, cause it was actually funny when he said it as opposed to me summarizing it, although sometimes it seems like thats what happening. true....therefore funny.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

and to add a serious note

I also fail to see the reasons why a war in Iran would be beneficial, legitimately justifiable, or at all in line with the righteous position that we claim to own.

We are using diplomacy with North Korea, why not try it with Iran......O wait, its because they actually have the nukes. So if we're scared, we invade, if we're really scared, we'll talk. hmmm.

[Lueda Alia]

nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon. damn administration how dare they make Iran look like the monsters.
If someone denies the Holocaust, I call them ignorant not people I need to get rid of.

[Lueda Alia]

did anyone see Conan tonight?

he made a joke about Bush using an old Iraq speech and just switching all the Qs to Ns, and using it for Iran. I hope someone saw it, cause it was actually funny when he said it as opposed to me summarizing it, although sometimes it seems like thats what happening. true....therefore funny.
That was my point. I feel like they're acting the same way as they did back then. We all know what happened after Iraq's invasion.....

[Jason Tate]

On the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory asserted, "I don't think there is any evidence" that "there is active planning going on to confront Iran militarily." In fact, in the previous two years there have been numerous reports of evidence that the Bush administration is doing exactly that, including recently the naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, as well as a new military campaign targeting Iranian officials in Iraq.
In early 2005, The Washington Post reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12140-2005Feb9.html): "The U.S. military is updating its war plan for Iran" but claimed that such planning was "routine." According to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, by April 2006, the Bush administration was engaged in planning and internal deliberations relating to a possible nuclear strike in Iran. In an April 17, 2006, New Yorker article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact), Hersh reported that the administration "has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack." According to Hersh, "Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups" were in the process of "drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups." Hersh followed up in a July 10, 2006, New Yorker report (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact), in which he wrote that "the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President's direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran." According to Hersh, anonymous "active-duty and retired officers and officials" reported that "senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President's plans" and warned "the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear program."
Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html?internalid=A OT_h_09-17-2006_what_would_war_) in a September 17, 2006, Time article that the military had issued "a 'Prepare to Deploy' order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," in which the units were told "to be ready to move by Oct. 1, [2006]." Additionally, "the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf." These two moves combined, according to Duffy, "would seem to suggest ... that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran." By December 2006, as The New York Times reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/middleeast/21navy.html?ex=1324357200&en=89d268b4a9650a47&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), "Pentagon and military officials" announced that "[t]he United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran." According to the Times, "Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran," but "acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased" and Iran may view the move as "provocative."
Indeed, on December 11, 2006, the first of the two Naval aircraft carriers, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, arrived (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27005) in the Persian Gulf, and approximately one month later, a second aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, was also deployed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27314) to the region. According to the Defense Department, "The John C. Stennis Strike Group will operate in the Persian Gulf region with the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, already in the Central Command Area of Operations. The presence of two aircraft carriers, while not unprecedented, demonstrates U.S. resolve to bring security and stability to the region." A January 4 Associated Press article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/04/national/w073127S23.DTL) characterized the naval buildup as being "aimed partly as a warning to Iran." As The Washington Post reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/28/AR2007012801075.html) January 29, "Vice President [Dick] Cheney said the deployment this month of a second aircraft-carrier task force to the Persian Gulf delivered a 'strong signal' of the United States' commitment to confront Iran's growing influence in the region." The Post also noted that the Stennis' "deployment is one of several recent steps by the United States to oppose Iran. ... Other actions included a program to kill or capture Iranian agents operating inside Iraq as well as moves to squeeze the country financially." The Stennis' deployment to the Persian Gulf marks the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Gulf since the United States first invaded Iraq in 2003.
As part of the administration's plan to increase pressure on Iran, U.S. troops in Iraq raided two Iranian government offices in Iraq, according to The Washington Post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html) on January 12. The Post further reported that, according to unnamed U.S. officials, "[w]hile the public focus is on Iraq, the administration is now spending as much time on plans to contain Iran as on a strategy to end Iraq's violence." The January 11 raids were at least the second round of raids targeting Iranian officials in Iraq. More recently, on January 19, Reuters reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1) that, according to Wayne White, a former Middle East analyst for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, "U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country." White stated that the U.S. plans involved "taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability."
From the February 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
GREGORY: You'll notice when I and others posed the question, "Are you trying to make a case against Iran?" He doesn't actually answer that question. The president chooses to say it's preposterous to suggest we're trying to provoke Iran. "Iran is up to no good in Iraq" is the argument and is the evidence. But at the same time, that confrontation, that stance is something that I think the White House thinks may actually do some good diplomatically.
Having said all of that, I think that is something different than saying that there is active planning going on to confront Iran militarily. I don't think there is any evidence to support that, even though war critics like Hillary Clinton today, running for president, said, "If that's what the president is up to, he's got to come to Congress for authorization."
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): What about a middle case that he is willing to risk a war with Iran?
GREGORY: Well, I just -- I don't think we know how to answer that at this point. I don't know how to answer that.

[BoiledFrogs.]

i was reading the newest time issue today...i really don't think Iran has the balls to do anything
ever since the sanctions and America's inquiry on the nuclear war shit
they quickly halted everything there ball less i tell you
and nothing to worry about

[captainhampton]

our buddies Iran are at it again with the British sailors. how do you see things being played out?

[thejetstolehome]

badly.

[captainhampton]

badly.
yeah i just get the feeling that this isn't going to end anytime soon.

[thatwasamoment]

I sent my brother an email telling him about the SLC mayor wanting Bush impeached, knowing he would get a laugh out of it.

And his reply was this shady message saying, "you think that's funny, just watch the news, the shit will hit the fan". Im guessing he's referring to Bush making more of an ass of himself, but this time with Iran.

I saw on the news today that the ship my brother is on was sent to go to the Gulf. Interesting stuff.

[FScott]

I think the Iranian President likes to tease because he knows how much leverage the US war with Iraq has given Iran. You can say Iran aims for nuclear weapons proliferation but according to themselves and the IAEA inspectors, everything Iran is doing with their nuclear technology is for electric power- which is permissible under the NPT. In recent elections Iranian moderates have been replacing the Presidents friends, support for him is weakening so if he keeps his nuclear technology shady relations with the US with remain tense and anti-Americanism with lead to nationalism, a way help with the approving ratings of the President (Iran) considering the poor economy.

[captainhampton]

I think the Iranian President likes to tease because he knows how much leverage the US war with Iraq has given Iran. You can say Iran aims for nuclear weapons proliferation but according to themselves and the IAEA, everything Iran is doing with their nuclear technology is for electric power- which is permissible under the NPT.

but the question is, do you believe them when they say it is for electric power?

[FScott]

Thats the thing, I do not think the US will have any public support for invading Iran unless we are struck first. So i think its a wait and see kind of thing. Not a good way to put it really.

[Ambulance X]

i was reading the newest time issue today...i really don't think Iran has the balls to do anything
ever since the sanctions and America's inquiry on the nuclear war shit
they quickly halted everything there ball less i tell you
and nothing to worry about

Never underestimate the danger of a country and population that is blinded by religious fundamentalism.

[FScott]

I'm surprised Isreal has not taken the inisiative with airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilties like they did in Iraq in the 80's.

[captainhampton]

Thats the thing, I do not think the US will have any public support for invading Iran unless we are struck first. So i think its a wait and see kind of thing. Not a good way to put it really.
fair enough. what do you think should be done if they do not release the British Sailors?

[Ambulance X]

Thats the thing, I do not think the US will have any public support for invading Iran unless we are struck first. So i think its a wait and see kind of thing. Not a good way to put it really.

The point is that we are being struck by Iran, as they are supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Iran has the blood of American soldiers on their hands.

[FScott]

Since many of the Iranian President's radical friends have been voted out of office by moderates, I think that the Iranians keeping their nuclear power shady will keep US Iranian relations tense and the Iranian President can build support for radicals with anti-Americianism.

[captainhampton]

The point is that we are being struck by Iran, as they are supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Iran has the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
some people still refuse to believe that is true.

[FScott]

The point is that we are being struck by Iran, as they are supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Iran has the blood of American soldiers on their hands.

Is there conclusive evidence? The reason I ask is because I have not heard much on Iranian involvment (lately) and on the news the US says it is still questionable. The American people and international community are going to want hard evidence before diving into another war again.

[x togepi x]

but the question is, do you believe them when they say it is for electric power?

why would the IAEA lie?

besides, Irans real government, not the president, has declared nuclear weapons illegal under islam. you just never hear about that sort of stuff because its better news to report on their president threatening to blow everyone up, yet he has no support and can be vetoed by Iran's ruling council.

[Ambulance X]

Is there conclusive evidence? The reason I ask is because I have not heard much on Iranian involvment (lately) and on the news the US says it is still questionable.

I'm not sure any evidence needs to be presented in the first place. Actually, even if the administration did present evidence, I wouldn't care, they've lost all credibility. I think it's just common sense that Iran is supporting the insurgency.

[captainhampton]

why would the IAEA lie?

besides, Irans real government, not the president, has declared nuclear weapons illegal under islam. you just never hear about that sort of stuff because its better news to report on their president threatening to blow everyone up, yet he has no support and can be vetoed by Iran's ruling council.

what do you think should be done if they don't release the sailors anytime soon?

[x togepi x]

we should nuke them and the rest of the middle east since they're always wrong and america is always right.

[FScott]

I'm not sure any evidence needs to be presented in the first place. Actually, even if the administration did present evidence, I wouldn't care, they've lost all credibility. I think it's just common sense that Iran is supporting the insurgency.


Without evidence then I guess its a matter of opinion. But I really do not think the administration (or the next) will risk a war without evidence. The American people are fed up.

[FScott]

I'm not trying to stick up for Iran because I do not know if their aim is WMD's or not, apparently no one knows for sure. When a country has a WMD this gives them leverage and power. What Iran wants more than anything is power in the Middleast with US presence. They want to shape Iraq according to their interest (they do not want an American style democratic ally on its border like we dont want a communist style government on ours). But they have already attained power without Nuclear Weapons- the idea of the Iranians having nuclear weapons gives them that power on its own (by keeping their rehetoric radical and nuclear business a little less than transparent). And I'm sure they are aware of that.

[cfear]

we should nuke them and the rest of the middle east since they're always wrong and america is always right.

Yay!

[atticus1492]

we should nuke them and the rest of the middle east since they're always wrong and america is always right.

There ya go.

[senatorlamb]

I guess everyone has heard about the British sailors captured by Iran? From Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O5VM7O1&show_article=1):

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Britain would not negotiate over British sailors and marines held hostage by Iran. In an interview with ITV News, Blair again called for the unconditional return of the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized by Iranian authorities last week.

Britain's Sky News meanwhile said Iran had released another letter by captured sailor Faye Turney, this time calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq

"The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable.

"What you can't do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there's some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that's not acceptable," he said.

Britain took its case to free its 15 sailors and marines held by Iran to the United Nations on Thursday, asking the Security Council to support a statement that would "deplore" Tehran's action and demand their immediate release.

But Security Council diplomats said the brief press statement circulated by Britain's U.N. Mission is likely to face problems from Russia and others because it says the Britons were "operating in Iraqi waters"—a point that Iran contests.

The British move came as Iran rolled back on its promise to release the sole female British sailor among the captives, who were seized last week. The Iranian military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said that because of the "wrong behavior" of the British government, "the release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr reported.

Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, also hinted that the British crew members may be put on trial.
The standoff and broader tensions in the Gulf region helped fuel a spike in world oil prices.

Iranian state television, meanwhile broadcast about five seconds of video it says was of the operation that seized the British sailors and marines. In the video, gunshots are heard and a helicopter is shown hovering above inflatable boats in choppy seas. Then, the British seamen and marines appear seated in an Iranian boat, presumably after their capture.

The British statement was to be discussed later Thursday at a closed- door meeting of the Security Council.

The text circulated to the 14 other council members said: "Membe
rs of the Security Council deplore the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 (United Kingdom) naval personnel."

It added that the British crew was "operating in Iraqi waters as part of the Multinational Force-Iraq under a mandate from the Security Council under resolution 1723 and at the request of the government of Iraq" and it called for their "immediate release."

A press statement is the weakest action the Security Council can take, but the statement must be approved by all council members. Diplomats said Britain was also weighing a stronger presidential statement, which unlike a press statement, is read at a formal Security Council meeting and becomes part of its official record.

The council diplomats said informal discussion of the proposed British statement indicated the issue of where the incident took place raised problems for some council members, including Russia. Some members also want to hear the Iranian side, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

The British government said that its sailors and marines were seized Friday after completing a search of a civilian ship near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the border between Iran and Iraq, under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of Iraq. Iran says the British vessels were inside its territorial waters.

Blair's official spokesman dismissed a suggestion Wednesday by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that Britain should resolve the crisis by admitting that its personnel had made a "mistake" and crossed into Iranian waters.

The British initially circulated a press statement, which is the weakest action that the U.N. Security Council could take, but diplomats said they might be considering a stronger presidential statement, which unlike a press statement, is read at a formal council meeting and becomes part of its official record.

Mottaki had said Wednesday that sailor Faye Turney, 26, would be released within 48 hours. Britain said it was halting all discussion with Iran except negotiations to free the detained sailors, and expressed outrage over Iran's broadcast of images of the captured service members.

Larijani said on Iranian state radio that: "British leaders have miscalculated this issue."
If Britain follows through with its policies toward Iran, Larijani said "this case may face a legal path"—a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Blair's official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a "confrontation over this."

"We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place,'" said the spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

But in a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show the captives on Iranian television.

"Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in," he said. "It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity."

Britain's ambassador to Tehran lodged an official complaint of Iran's decision to show the video, the Foreign Office said.

"Today the British ambassador in Tehran met with Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials to protest about the TV pictures of Leading Seaman Faye Turney," said a Foreign Office spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with department policy.

In the video that was broadcast Wednesday on Iran's Arab-language satellite channel, Turney said her group had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. The segment showed her wearing a black head scarf, sitting in a room before floral curtains and smoking a cigarette.

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said. "They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested. There was no harm, no aggression."

Britain's Ministry of Defense released coordinates that it said proved the captured naval personnel were seized 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters.

Oil prices rose by more than $1 a barrel Wednesday to a six-month high as the U.S. Navy completed its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

President Bush has discussed the 15 Britons with Blair, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said, and fully backs the British position.
___
Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, Tariq Panja in London and Salah Nasrawi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, contributed to this report.

[senatorlamb]

Interesting... From the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece):

The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.

The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.

"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.

Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.

In a little-noticed remark, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year-old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni-Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations. "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country?" he asked. "Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries."

It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flout the authority of the Iraqi President and the head of the KRG simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials.

For more than a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.

The targeted generals
* MOHAMMED JAFARI
Powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, responsible for internal security. He has accused the United States of seeking to "hold Iran responsible for insecurity in Iraq... and [US] failure in the country."

* GENERAL MINOJAHAR FROUZANDA
Chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the military unit which maintains its own intelligence service separate from the state, as well as a parallel army, navy and air force.

[selftitled85]

Interesting... From the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece):

that article is pretty bad. it is pure speculation and...if you havent noticed...the iranians like to make a fuss on a lot of crap.

now i am not saying that it is not the truth...but that whole article is based almost solely on speculation which is the worst way to come to a conclusion.

that said...america would never attack iran...we dont have the army, resources, the morale, the guidance, etc.

it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen.

and if iran truly says they will try for a nuke...we dont need to do anything. for im sure the israeli air force (the best in the world) would completely destroy any chance iran would have.

if you dont think israel will...just look at the past 20 years for the middle east...whenever a key middle eastern nation has tried to make nukes or anything really crazy that would directly threaten iisraeli borders and power...they would launch assassination attempts (with great success) to ensure nothing would happen.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

that article is pretty bad. it is pure speculation and...if you havent noticed...the iranians like to make a fuss on a lot of crap.

now i am not saying that it is not the truth...but that whole article is based almost solely on speculation which is the worst way to come to a conclusion.

that said...america would never attack iran...we dont have the army, resources, the morale, the guidance, etc.
I agree. It makes 0 sense. We don't even have the right troop levels in Iraq(not that we ever did), the fact Bush has less then 30% support for the current war, and that theres a democratic run congress. It's virtually impossible to do it. So why all of the effort.