An unpalatable truth for Bush: most foreign insurgents in Iraq are Saudis - World Socialist Web Site Of course the Saudis are the majority of the foreign insurgents. So when do we attack Saudi Arabia.?
Ravenman, you middle cite does your case more damage than it lends support.
So, then, is it your case that Iran has supplied such in that past, but no longer does so?
I agree mostly, see post #27. But how is the Iranian economy a failed one, or the Iranian state a brutal one, or Iranian personal freedom curtailed, by standards of the region?
I believe the economy disastisfaction is well documented but your other points are worthy of a thread by themselves. Jobs and prosperity are a universal need.
There is an obvious disconnect with modern society and Mid-East Islamic states. It’s like bringing someone from 300 AD into the 21st century. Without a tremendous amount of outside influence that is a big gap to fill. The internet is the outside influence capable of bridging that gap and new technology appeals to the younger generation. What started as a free speech revolution in Iran has been whittled down over time. The cable cutting incident doesn’t sound like an accident to me considering the recent crackdown on internet cafes and government filtering of content.
So to answer your question, I see 2 standards in Iran. The old standard which carriers hundreds of years of social behavior versus a new standard borne out of the influence of the internet on the younger generation.
The standards of the region don’t matter. What matters is what Iranian people are accustomed to and what they’re asking for. Regarding brutalities, I wouldn’t know. But there has been of significant degradation of the Iranian economy, recently, causingin particular regarding the price of basic goods.
The standards of the region don’t matter. What matters is what Iranian people are accustomed to and what they’re asking for.
Regarding brutalities, I wouldn’t know. But there has been of significant degradation of the Iranian economy, recently, causing a lot of insatisfaction, in particular regarding the price of basic goods. Same with personal freedoms, in particular during the recent election, the conservatives have been even more heavy handed in eliminating the progressist candidates than usual. The infight amongst the conservatives, between the clerics and the supporters of Ahmadinejad doesn’t seem to calm down, either.
So, indeed, it seems to me that the situation within Iran is worsening.
–
As I said before, I don’t know whether the rockets fired at the Green Zone were linked to Iran or not. The point is that I am unaware of anyone who can provide a coherent, fact-based refutation of the evidence of Iran supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents.
So, it seems clear to me that Iran has provided weapons in the past. There apparently was some sort of hiatus late last year. I cannot say with any certainty whether that hiatus continues to that day or has ended, but it is certainly plausible that the arms transfers have resumed. Do you seriously think that Iran is incapable of reversing its suspension five months later? Is that what your point is? Or do you have a point at all?
(I’m almost laughing at how you think my cite damages my case: I think it shows that Iranian arms claims aren’t just a US-invented fiction, as the unnamed European country apparently had evidence of the transfers; and it shows that arms transfers suspended after Iran was confronted about it.)
Evidence that you have not provided, you have provided statements that such evidence exists, and is damning and undeniable. And yet, you seem unable or unwilling to provide the actual evidence itself, you fall back on challenging anyone to prove a negative. Prove Iran isn’t supplying weapons? Hell, prove *Belgium * isn’t supplying weapons! It is such a commonplace as to be a cliche, one simply cannot prove a negative. If that’s all you got, you got squat, as in diddly.
I don’t know, and neither do you. The difference being that I don’t claim to know. And a negotiated hiatus seems rather odd behavior for an implacable enemy bent on killing our troops, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
Oh, please, feel free to chuckle away, I’m not delicate. But your rock-solid evidence? An unnamed country “apparently” had evidence? Well, then, what became of it? Where is it now? I should like to see it. Apparently, so would you, seeing as your case rather depends upon it.
Well…is there any evidence that Belgium provided weapons to Iraqi insurgents in the past? If so, then certainly they could be put on the list of potential suppliers. Iran on the other hand has such a history…and being they are in closer proximity to Iraq than Belgium I think it’s reasonable to assume the probability a bit higher in their case than in Belgium’s…YMMV of course.
I don’t think you can make a judgment one way or the other to be honest. Iran was under a lot of pressure at the time…so, they could still be ‘an implacable enemy bent on killing our troops’, but one who doesn’t particularly want to get the shit pounded out of them at this time. It’s not a mutually exclusive scenario after all.
The point however is that Iran negotiated a hiatus on supplying such weapons…ehe? Kind of telling that, wouldn’t you say?
It is however more than you have provided, ehe?
I’m not sure why it’s so implausible to some that Iran has supplied weapons to Iraqi Shi’a groups in the past or that they could conceivably be supplying them currently…or that those same weapons were used in the recent dust up. Those were fairly sophisticated weapons (as are many of the shaped charge IED’s the insurgents have been using)…they had to come from somewhere, unless folks want to make the claim the insurgents have been able to make them all.
This doesn’t mean that Iran did or did not have any knowledge or factor in the decision processes to attack those targets of course.
-XT
Perhaps there was a slight gap in your memory, but I provided four cites coming from four different sources that all strongly indicate that Iran has provided arms in the past. I cannot help but wonder why you think I haven’t provided any evidence, other than you prefer not to deal with the substance of the cites I have provided.
I’m trying to figure out if you have a point or if you’re merely being argumentative. I’ve provided cites from differing and reputable sources that all indicate that Iran has in the past provided arms to Iraqi insurgents. So far as I can tell, those sources seem credible, and their reports of what weapons have been provided and how seem consistent. I’m not finding any good reason to doubt the sources that I have cited already. If you have some reason to doubt them, perhaps you can share it.
Whether Iran is behind the latest attack on the Green Zone, I don’t know either way. Based on Iran’s past behavior, I think it is plausible that Iran may have provided the rockets, but I’m waiting for more evidence to come in.
I don’t believe Iran is an implacable enemy bent on killing our troops, so why don’t you keep your words out of my mouth. My best guess on the hiatus issue is that of the many factions of the Iranian government, some see Iraq as an opportunity to attack the US directly at a relatively low risk to Iran, in the same way the CIA provided arms to the Muj in Afghanistan to attack the Soviets. This is speculation, but it could well be that the Iranian government may not be united on the question of whether they should be involved in providing arms to Iraqis. It wouldn’t be the first time that the Iranian government was divided on foreign policy matters.
But back to the larger issue, I’m not sure what your take is in all of this, other than feebly trying to challenge the case I’ve made so far by cleverly refusing to advance any coherent argument of your own. Do you reject the idea that Iran has ever provided weapons to insurgents? If so, why? What is your counter-argument to the cites that I have provided?
First, how do you know they didn’t ? Where’s your evidence that they can’t be made in a basement; some, at least, can.
And second, the world is awash in weapons, and in people who hate America, and in people who hate our conquest of Iraq. There are far more possibilities than Iran.
Shaped charge IED’s are fairly sophisticated…so are rockets, mortars, etc. Instead of proving a negative (which is what you are asking me to do), why don’t you show me some evidence that those kinds of weapons CAN be manufactured in primitive and clandestine environments such as the insurgents in Iraq would be living under? It’s possible (and even probable) that some of the weapons and IED’s the insurgents use are either remnants of Saddam’s horde or things they have been able to make…but it’s highly improbable (IMHO) that the majority of the sophisticated one’s were home grown or still laying about post-Saddam and post several years of heated insurgency.
Certainly the world is awash in weapons and ammo…and in SOVIET weapons and ammo, to be sure. And certainly it’s highly probable that nations (and groups) other than Iran are supplying various factions in Iraq. But you are burying your head in the sand if you can’t see that Iran is ALSO supplying various Shi’a groups with weapons and technical and tactical knowledge…and that they just happen to share a common border with Iraq. This makes the probability a bit higher than, say, the Outer Mongolian Horde for the Liberation of Iraq to be supplying Soviet style arms and ammo, wouldn’t you say?
-XT
Weapons sellers know no borders. Weapons from any manufacturer can be any place in the world.
I think the Iran connection is an excuse to attack them. I do not see them as a major player. Saudi Arabia is. The neocons do not want to stop in Iraq. McCain is a neocon and wants more wars. Our economy can not afford him.
…well you see here is the problem. I don’t want to speak for elucidator, but the cites that you posted had very little substance to them at all. All of them post allegations but do not substantiate them. From your New York Times link:
It should be a relatively easy task to provide this evidence. You may remember the press conference held in Iraq last year where the evidence was put on display by “unnamed officials.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iraq.main/index.html
The veracity of that evidence was questioned by many after the conclusion of the conference:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/post_33.html
So has the evidence gotten any more solid since then? Can you provide a cite?
I don’t think anyone would suggest that people’s lives should be put in danger by revealing sources of intelligence: those that put their lives on the line to to supply intelligence should absoutely be protected.
But the evidence of Iranian and Quds involvement seems dependent on the testimony that includes that of Iranians detained in Baghdad and across Iraq in detentions which the Iranians claimed were arguably illegal and alleged that US forces “tortured” them. Whether the allegations are true or not, there is no independent oversight of these detentions, and the evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.
As to the links with Hezbollah, Gareth Porter writes in this Op-Ed:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39810
Links between Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army? Sure, I can buy that. Links between Hezbollah and Iran? Sure, the evidence over the years seems to support this. But simply putting the words Hezbollah, Iran, and Iraqi insurgents all in the paragraph and expecting me to buy this as evidence that Iran is directly supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency? Show me the money: show me the paper trail. Give us the testimony. Put the detained Iranians on trial, let the evidence become public, and if Iran is responsible for the deaths of US forces in Iraq then they should be made responsible. But so far the evidence is unconvincing.
Again, as claimed by Gareth Porter:
And claimed by Juan Cole:
The McClatchy cite is particularly bad. The money quote:
We don’t know the name of the official who leaked this story and we don’t know the name of which of the many, many countries in Europe allegedly stopped the shipment. Which country do you think it was? The United Kingdom? France? Germany? Monaco? Latvia? Estonia? Was this story reported by any other media?
This is not evidence of anything: it is, as elucidator has stated, simply “statements that such evidence exists, and is damning and undeniable.”
“The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq” could best be described as an opinion piece" the section you quoted does not appear to be supported by any of the citations listed at the end of the report. Besides the section you quoted, what did you find particularly convincing?
I will not argue that my rebuttal citations are supplied by unbiased, emotionally detached sources. I will argue that the charge that Iran is or has been supplying support and weapons for insurgents in Iraq are unproven, and that the evidence put forward by the US and Iraqi administration has been beyond weak, and that your citations do no more than parrot the “official line” of the adminstration without providing anything further than “simple statements.”
Former presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said this only two months ago:
He said this four years after all the major reports concluded that this was an extremely unlikely possibility. Repeat certain memes often enough, and they simply become part of percieved reality. “Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “Part of the war on terror.” “State sponsors of terror.” “Captured on the battlefields.” “Iran is supporting the insurgency” is just the latest in a long line of repeated statements that have simply been adopted as part of the current percieved reality. It may very well be true, but the evidence provided by the US Administration does not show this. Simply stating something does not make it true.
30,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the inital invasion according to Woodward’s “Plan of Attack.” The death toll of US soldiers has just hit 4000. The amount of civilian deaths is debatable, and probably unknowable, but President Bush has adimitted at least 30,000 civillian deaths, Iraq Body Count claims 80 thousand, and of course the disputed Lancet report claims a possible half a million additional deaths due to all causes. There are at least a million people displaced by the war, power is hovering about ten hours a day in the capital city, and potable water supplies, constantly below pre-war levels since the start of the invasion, have now been removed from the metrics on the Brookings Institue monthly reports. Iraq is currently broken and there is no plan on the table to fix it.
And all of this was the result of the Bush’s administrations push for war against Iraq: which, like the current allegations against the Iranians, was constructed from poor foundations. You can only cry wolf so many times: the case against Iran needs to be laid out on the table or else we should remain skeptical, and rightly so.
No, it doesn’t make sense. It makes sense for Iran to aid the Shiites although I don’t know how many of the Shiites’ first language is Persian and not Arabic. The US deposing Saddam was a plus for the Shiites and Kurds. No, the longer the US stays in Iraq the more chances the Shiites can grab power or split off with the Kurds.
What Banquet Bear said.
Ravenman, I asked for evidence, not its cousin. Its rather like I were in a restaurant and asked for the menu, and the waiter brings me a collection of restaurant reviews of his workplace.
“But I asked for the menu…”
“Well, these clearly prove that such a menu exists, no? Look here, from the* Podunk Examiner-Shopper*, where it says ‘the menu is moderately priced…’”
(Good show, that, BB, tracking down those references. I might have done the same, were I not so lazy and easily…oooh! Shiny!)
What makes you think that they are under “primitive” conditions ? You seem to be operating under the assumption that these are a bunch of unsupported fringe groups, when in fact the majority of the population supports them killing us. They have military and oil industry explosives experts in the country, plenty of explosives from looted armories and such, the Iraqi military is full of factionalists, and so on. I see no reason to assume that they NEED Iranian assistance, and they people who claim they are getting it are known liars.
And in AMERICAN weapons, as well.
Not much, since they probably don’t want to give us an excuse. Not that they wouldn’t be justified in doing so, but it is the side that claims something is happening that needs to provide the evidence. And in this case, unless the evidence is from someone not associated with America or it’s allies, it’s probably a lie.
Uh uh… no, they aren´t. Get a copper disk or bowl, mold some plastic explosive into a parabolic or even a simple conic shape behind it and voila, you have an hypersonic penetrator. The basic principle, the Monroe Effect if memory serves well, goes back to the 19th century.
All way back to 1989 some german terrorists fragged a banker that way… wait a second. Here´s the link: Alfred_Herrhausen
First of all, my hat is off for your through and substantive reply. It is so much more enjoyable to debate substance, not analogies of restaurant menus.
Let me clarify something I said just a few posts ago. I had said that it is possible that the Iranian government may have different views on providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents. I should have said that it is entirely plausible that it is not the Iranian government that is directly handing over the weapons. It could well be that the weapons are being bought from private manufacturers and smuggled across the border, not at the direction of any agency of the Iranian government, though some may be turning a blind eye to it.
And so the op-ed you quote here asks a very good question: are the arms transfers something that the Iranian government, in all its complexity, is arranging? The op-ed points out that nobody knows the answer to that answer for sure. But the op-ed doesn’t challenge the essential matter that arms are coming from Iran.
I note that the NYT story specifically says that the newspaper was presented with some evidence that it chose to keep secret.
I agree.
Are the Iranians you previously implied were tortured and illegally detained the same Iranians you now advocate putting on trial?
When the NYT says that the EFPs had been traced by forensic means to Iranian manufacture, are you simply saying that you won’t believe it until you get the specific characteristics and the exact place of manufacture? The NCRI – a group which must be treated with extreme caution, let me be the first to say – believes it has traced the manufacture to three specific sites: link. I would be extremely cautious about believing any claim of NCRI by itself, but it does seem to fit into a pattern of claims about Iran having manufactured the EFPs.
Link. Again, I’m not sure what is being argued here: if one things that there were no arms from Iran going into Iraq, it would be odd for the US military to also make up out of whole cloth a lie that the arms shipments had been suspended. The linked story goes further, saying that Bob Gates said that Tehran assured Baghdad they’d crack down on arms shipments. I think it’s hard to have it both ways: that there were no Iranian weapons in Iraq, and that the Iranian government agreed to crack down on arms shipments anyway.
It is based upon Cordesman’s visits to Iraq, IIRC. Cordesman is a respected figure in defense circles. I think his opinion – if you want to call it that – is considerably more informed on military matters than that of the editorial board of the USA Today which you quoted earlier. Let’s not use double standards.
Let me be clear: I opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, so I have no quibble with your statements about Bush and Iraq. But there seems to be the implication that if Iran is supplying arms to Iraqis, that it would be justification for war, or something like that. I do not believe that is the case. War with Iran would be wrong, even if it was official Iranian government policy to supply arms to kill Americans. The prospect of war with Iran would be completely disproportionate to the Iranian “threat.” The fundamental problem is that there are a ton of Iraqis who hate that we’re still there, not that Iran is giving them weapons. And as others have pointed out, it is quite likely that weapons are filtering into Iraq from everywhere, so the probability that Iran, too, is a source of weapons really shouldn’t be so shocking.