General: Iran Training Shiite Insurgents

Easy-8

Active member
General: Iran Training Shiite Insurgents
Associated Press | August 24, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Iranian government is training and equipping much of the Shiite insurgency in Iraq, a senior U.S. general said Wednesday, drawing one of the most direct links by the Pentagon.


Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero also said it was too soon to tell if the latest security crackdown in Baghdad has proved successful.

Barbero said it is a "policy of the central government in Iran" to destabilize Iraq and increase the violence there.

"I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these (Shiite) extremist groups and also providing advanced IED technology to them," Barbero said. "IED" refers to the improvised explosive devices - roadside bombs - that have caused much death and destruction in Iraq.

Barbero, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would be inappropriate to specify when, where and how many Iranians have been training Iraqi insurgents.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other U.S. military leaders have talked about Iran's funding of the insurgency, but generally have been reluctant to directly blame the Tehran government.
Barbero said there continue to be problems policing the borders, particularly the one between Iraq and Syria, as Iraqis construct forts and slowly build up their own border patrol forces.

While some incidents of violence have declined a bit in Baghdad, Barbero said it is too early to tell if U.S. and Iraqi forces are winning the war there.

"After several weeks, we're not ready to make an assessment," he said.
Despite a recent buildup, Barbero said the Pentagon still intends to reduce the number of troops in Iraq as conditions improve and the Iraqis take over more control of their security.

Critics who question whether the U.S. military has a plan to win the peace in Iraq point to recent announcements increasing the number of American troops there - more than three years after the war was launched.

In recent weeks, the U.S. has increased the number of troops there from a low of about 125,000 in June, to the current level of 138,000 - all part of an effort to stem the escalating violence in Baghdad.

On Tuesday the Marines announced they will involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to fill positions largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. No more than 2,500 would be brought back at any one time.

The recent moves will make it difficult for the military to meet its previously stated goal of decreasing the number of troops in Iraq to about 100,000 by the end of the year.

The latest call-up, is "a warning that valuable resources are being misspent on the conflict in Iraq rather than being sent to the front lines in the war on terrorism," said Rep. Ike Skelton, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,111060,00.html
 
obiously iran wants the US military to be tied up in iraq as long as possible so that we cant impede their nuclear program.
 
i was wondering when an offical announcement about this would be made. you'd have to be living under a rock not to have at least speculated that Iran had something to do with the problems in Iraq.
 
It would have to be a very big rock ......

bigcanada813 said:
i was wondering when an offical announcement about this would be made. you'd have to be living under a rock not to have at least speculated that Iran had something to do with the problems in Iraq.
The rock would have to be monstrous for you to NOT have figured this one out. Iran has been the power behind almost 90% of the terror being perpetrated in the Middle East and around the world ... so why should them training Shiite "insurgents" (terrorists) come as a surprise.

Sooner or later the free world is going to have to stomp on Iran very very hard ... this is the ONLY hope that that part of the world has for ANY possibility of peace. As far as the rest of the world, if Iran ever gets tactical nuclear weapons the rest of the world better prepare for a nuclear strike somewhere (more than likely Israel). The leadership in Iran is short a pickle or two in the sanity department.
 
The problem is that there's no movement in iran that really threatens the current regime. The people are more or less disatisfied with how the economy and iran's politics are going, but i haven't heard about any counter movement to the theocracy. Maybe if there was something like that then iran would worry much more about domestic matters and stop trying to screw up the mid east more.

The real irony is that with oil prices so high thanks to rising demand in the US and elsewhere, iran is getting all this money to carry out covert operations from everyday consumers in western and developed countries.
 
The future war with Iran seems to be coming up. It may not be this year it may not even be this decade but I have the feeling it will happen sooner or later.
 
WarMachine said:
The problem is that there's no movement in iran that really threatens the current regime. The people are more or less disatisfied with how the economy and iran's politics are going, but i haven't heard about any counter movement to the theocracy.


Yea, but i guess the only politicaly active groups that aren't nipped in the bud are those already indoctrinated in the views of the Islamic Republic system. And surprisingly the current President is a populist, he appeals to both the theocratic orthodoxy as well as to younger, more 'modern' and liberal minded people.
 
By the time we go to war with Iran,we may pull a Somolia tatic and hit high heels and ditch the middle east,and by the time we leave Iraq and Afhganistan ,no one will want to join the US military for about a decade.

We will maybe have a 110,000 men to commit to the easy part ,the Invasion,not the occupation,Iran is about twice the size of Iraq or Afhganistan for that matter.
 
Iran will be another American military struggle,I m truely sorry to say this,and Im not saying this out of disrespect,but the US ,would be,in my opinion,better for human Causilaties over all ,if the United States Dropped Iraq,and focus more on Ahfganistan.

It would leave the US will bad PR,but will help us concentrait on rebuilding country that its citizens agree with.

In reality,some predict that Iraq will become a battle ground of ethic cleanseing between insurgancies ,ad foerign fighters,and its the perfect Worse Case Sceneario ,think about it,if Iraq crumbles after the pull out,all those lives,money ,political agruements,and partnerships,wasted....

It truely saddens me to think of this...:cry:
 
Na the iranians think they cant find us conventionally so for whatever reason we would be invadeing them for. No ones told me this yet.
 
Iran is three times the size of texas, i don't think we could invade the country and not face tremendous casualties. Afghanistan was successful because they had a weak military and partisans already fightign against them. Iraq was successful because we controlled their airspace and their army was weakend from the previous war.

Iran has none of those problems and it's also more mountainous in the populated parts than afghanistan is, making the fighting even more difficult. At worst we could bomb them heavily, but that would lead us no where and would only invite the animity of the countries that need iranian oil.

That's why i don't think we can ever invade them like its neighbors, it's really not something that can solve anything. What is necessary is to build up momentum for change from the populous like the eastern europeans when the iron curtain fell. Without that support, anything we do would be meaningless.
 
Afghanistan was successful because they had a weak military and partisans already fightign against them.

A-teams on the ground guiding bombs into tanks the Northren Alliance(the good guys) hadnt been able to destroy for 3 years helps a lot to.

Iran is three times the size of texas, i don't think we could invade the country and not face tremendous casualties. Afghanistan was successful because they had a weak military and partisans already fightign against them. Iraq was successful because we controlled their airspace and their army was weakend from the previous war.
Beleive what you want, but if they fight us at the type of war we are the best at. There going to lose and lose badly. There tanks versus our tanks in a big open desert = lots of dead iranians.

You dont think we could attain air supermacy over Iran quickly? Especially with the ability to base out of Iraq?

Not saying invadeing Iran is a good idea, just saying they are really no match for the US in a conventional sense, and would be fairly limited to populated areas.
At worst we could bomb them heavily, but that would lead us no where and would only invite the animity of the countries that need iranian oil.
Im lost. Bombing Iranian nuclear sites would slow down their program considerabely, and I find it highly unlikely they would stop selling oil. Their country would collapse faster than a lap around Daytona.
What is necessary is to build up momentum for change from the populous like the eastern europeans when the iron curtain fell. Without that support, anything we do would be meaningless.
That takes time, and I'm not so sure about this youth movement bull crap check out some Iranian forums. There f'ing Nazis just screaming for American blood.
 
Last edited:
WarMachine said:
The problem is that there's no movement in iran that really threatens the current regime. The people are more or less disatisfied with how the economy and iran's politics are going, but i haven't heard about any counter movement to the theocracy. Maybe if there was something like that then iran would worry much more about domestic matters and stop trying to screw up the mid east more.

The real irony is that with oil prices so high thanks to rising demand in the US and elsewhere, iran is getting all this money to carry out covert operations from everyday consumers in western and developed countries.

huh? You got to be kidding me!

You need to read weblogs more. There were huge anti-regime protests in Iran 2 months ago.

IN Tehran in June, several thousand people held a peaceful demonstration calling for legal changes that would give a woman's testimony in court equal value to a man's. The demonstrators, most of them women, were attacked with tear gas and beaten with batons by men and women from Iran's State Security Forces, according to Amnesty International.



A scene from a Womens Rights March in Tehran in June.

Iranian women may not travel without their husband's permission but they are allowed to wield a truncheon against other women.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top