Thread: Latest Iran News & Iranian Culture Journal

Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain


WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.

Why Accuse Iran of Meddling Now? U.S. Officials Explain (February 15, 2007) Mr. Bush’s remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons — and to push back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the conclusions was not credible.

Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush dismissed as “preposterous” the contention by some skeptics that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about Iran’s role. He publicly endorsed assertions that had until now been presented only by anonymous military and intelligence officials, who have said that an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force has provided Shiite militias in Iraq with the sophisticated weapons that have been responsible for killing at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more than 600.

“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”

The House of Representatives is debating a resolution disapproving of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. And so Mr. Bush used his appearance to defend that decision as necessary in the face of deteriorating security in Baghdad. Asked about a possible American response to Iranian interference, he said, “We will continue to protect our troops.” With skeptics asking why the intelligence about Iran’s meddling is coming to light now, a number of possibilities have been raised, including the increase in attacks and American casualties in recent months.

American intelligence officials have said they think that top leaders in Iran must have approved of the attacks on the American forces, in part because the Quds Force has historically reported to the country’s top religious leaders. But aides to Mr. Bush, mindful of the criticism about its use of intelligence before the Iraq war, said the White House wanted to be careful not to make that kind of accusation without hard proof.

As Mr. Bush discussed Iran in Washington, the chief American military spokesman in Baghdad provided a more detailed, on-the-record account of how the administration believed the weapons, particularly lethal explosive devices known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, got to Iraq. The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, was also careful not to link the actions of the Quds Force directly to Iran’s top leaders. He said American assertions about a link between the weapons and the force were based on information obtained from people, including Iranians, detained in Iraq in the past 60 days.

“They in fact have told us that the Quds Force provides support to extremist groups here in Iraq in the forms of both money and weaponry,” General Caldwell said. He added: “They have talked about how there are extremist elements that are given this material in Iran and then it is smuggled into Iraq. We have in fact stopped some at the border and discovered it there, coming from Iran into Iraq.”

The coordinated messages out of Baghdad and Washington were an effort by the White House to tamp down reports of divisions within the American government about who in Iran should be held responsible for the weapons shipments. A senior Defense analyst said at a briefing in Baghdad over the weekend that the effort was being directed “from the highest levels of the Iranian government.” But Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a contradictory account this week, telling The Associated Press that while some bomb materials were made in Iran, “that does not translate that the Iranian government, per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.”

At Wednesday’s news conference, Mr. Bush suggested that it did not matter whether senior leaders were involved. “What matters is, is that we’re responding,” Mr. Bush said. He said that if the United States found either networks or individuals “who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them.”

Some experts said the question of Iran’s responsibility remained important. “There’s a big difference between saying that there is a rogue element doing things and then asking the Iranian government to rein it in, as opposed to saying this is a calculated deliberate strategy of the Iranian government,” said Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. “That has very different implications in terms of how do you hold Iran culpable.”

The administration’s claims about Iran have been met with intense skepticism, from Democrats in Congress and from experts like David Kay, who led the search for illicit weapons in Iraq. Some critics have said the White House is using Iran as a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and some have suggested that the administration, which has been trying to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, is laying the foundation for another war.

On Wednesday, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, took to the Senate floor to call on Mr. Bush to seek authorization for any military action against Iran. “We cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself,” she said.

Mr. Bush has said that he has no intention of invading Iran and that any suggestion that he was trying to provoke Iran “is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief’s decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm’s way.” But experts say that the ratcheting up of accusations could provoke a confrontation. Gary Sick, an expert on Iran at Columbia University, said there was a “danger of accidental war.” He said, “If anything goes wrong, if something happens, there’s an unexplained explosion and we kidnap an Iranian, and the Iranians respond to that somehow, this could get out of control.”

Mr. Bush has also refused to meet with Iran’s leaders, and he said Wednesday that he did not believe that it would be an effective way of persuading the Iranians to give up their nuclear goals. “This is a world in which people say, ‘Meet! Sit down and meet!’ ” he said. “And my answer is, if it yields results, that’s what I’m interested in.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington, and Marc Santora from Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/wo...html?th&emc=th

Neno, what is your take on Iran?
Leann

Originally Posted by bambiebdgrl

Neno, what is your take on Iran?
Leann

I can only Pray it is done Politically. But if Telhan keeps up with that Nuke Material. It will be another Main Event.

Originally Posted by neno

I can only Pray it is done Politically. But if Telhan keeps up with that Nuke Material. It will be another Main Event.

Its kind of a two fold-I would be very sad if we went to war with Iran, but it would make the dinar more valuable. Please do not get me wrong- this is very hard for me - my brother is graduating marine boot camp this coming week and I really do not want to see him go to Iraq nor Iran. He is also invested in the Dinar, but I know he understands what I'm saying. The dinar would go up in value, in the event of either UN sanctions or war, is that correct?
Leann

Originally Posted by bambiebdgrl

I would be very sad if we went to war with Iran, but it would make the dinar more valuable.

Going to war with Iran will make the dinar more valuable? How do you come to that conclusion? Going to war with Iran has the potential of destabilizing the whole region. Then the potential of Russia and China siding with Iran. Going to war with Iran would/will be a very bad thing for Iraq's stability. You think it is bad for US soldiers in Iraq now an air raid on Iranian targets would initiate missle launches on US forces in Iraq.

Letting Iran continue its potential for nuclear weapons development is already having a destabilizing affect in the region. It's a major concern. Just imagine the day that Iran does have nuclear weapons capability. Talk about destabilization! You think Iran's neighbors could care less if Iran becomes nuke capable? Of course they care. Every oil producing nation region would be threatened which most certainly would result in serious world wide implications. Russia and China may or may not side with Iran if some intervention takes place however, if they do side with Iran they would'nt dare enter in any direct military conflict. Besides, if any action were taken, it would be only to halt Iran's nuclear weapons development, not an all out war with them. That would be their choice and they would be foolish to do so.

Originally Posted by bambiebdgrl

Its kind of a two fold-I would be very sad if we went to war with Iran, but it would make the dinar more valuable. Please do not get me wrong- this is very hard for me - my brother is graduating marine boot camp this coming week and I really do not want to see him go to Iraq nor Iran. He is also invested in the Dinar, but I know he understands what I'm saying. The dinar would go up in value, in the event of either UN sanctions or war, is that correct?
Leann

Congrats to your brother and tell him "thank you" from me and my family. He and the young men like him make us very proud to be Americans.

Originally Posted by MOK-

Letting Iran continue its potential for nuclear weapons development is already having a destabilizing affect in the region. It's a major concern.

Yeah and I guess the Israelis nuclear weapons that they ALREADY HAVE is not a major concern and has not had a destabilizing affect in the region already??? At any rate on to the dinar news....lol

Originally Posted by Pippyman

Yeah and I guess the Israelis nuclear weapons that they ALREADY HAVE is not a major concern and has not had a destabilizing affect in the region already??? At any rate on to the dinar news....lol

You guessed right. Israel has had nukes for decades and has never threatened any of their neighbors with them. The destabilization comes from their neighbors who hate them with an irrational hatred.

Originally Posted by Dinar Cha Ching

You guessed right. Israel has had nukes for decades and has never threatened any of their neighbors with them. The destabilization comes from their neighbors who hate them with an irrational hatred.

Absolute fact....With all the time Israel has been attacked she has never once chosen the nuclear option........she has never been the aggressor.....outside of taking action to prevent more costly attacks for her IE the bombing of Saddam nuclear site back in the early eighties.....which we all know was a weapons program designed for use against Israel...the first gulf war proves this when the mad man tried to pull Israel into the war with Scud attacks.

Iran having the same capability is even more dangerous than when Iraq was persuing them. I have articles where Iranian officials have threatened Europe with missile attack. I would do all I could to prevent her from proceeding. She intends to destabilize the region and dominate it. A very bad scenario for our investment. By stopping her we can avert a major war in the future.