Iranian Sees Border Danger

Status
Not open for further replies.

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Los Angeles Times
January 23, 2007
The consul in Basra says the chaos is crossing into his nation -- a flow of violence opposite to that claimed by the U.S.
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — A ranking Iranian diplomat on Monday said the chaos of Iraq was spilling over into his country, spreading a destabilizing influence to its Arab population.
The assertion by Mohammad Reza Baghban, the Iranian consul in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, runs counter to the Bush administration analysis that violence and instability flow the opposite direction — from Tehran to Baghdad.
"If you take a look at the discoveries of the Iranian police, you will find arms, ammunitions and other illegal equipment smuggled from Iraq to Khuzistan and other Iranian provinces," Baghban said in a rare interview.
Khuzistan is an oil-rich, ethnically Arab province in mostly Persian Iran that has experienced outbreaks of violence over the last few years by suspected separatists.
Allegations that weapons flow from Iran into Iraq are unsubstantiated, despite a strong presence of British and American troops in the border region of southern Iraq, Baghban added.
"The Americans are used to speaking nonsense and none of their allegations are documented," Baghban said. "Can they offer any evidence of what they say?"
Baghban said American and British troops stationed at the Mehran and Shalamcheh border outposts have had ample opportunity to monitor the frontier between Iran and southern Iraq, which is dominated by Shiite Muslim militias and political parties with roots in Iran.
Iran and the U.S. have been locked in a decades-long cold war that has heated up recently over allegations of Iranian interference in Iraq as well as Tehran's nuclear ambitions. U.S. troops this month stormed an Iranian government office in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, arresting half a dozen officials on suspicion of aiding armed groups. Five of them remained in custody Monday.
Baghban said he had no fear that American or British troops would raid his consulate, which enjoys a higher degree of protection under international law. He added that his staff maintains relations with local British consular officials.
Besides its embassy in Baghdad, Iran operates consulates in the predominantly Shiite cities of Basra and Karbala, and two lesser-rank offices in Iraqi Kurdistan. All the locations, except Baghdad, are areas with ethnic and historic links to predominantly Shiite Iran.
The diplomatic stations have granted tens of thousands of visas to Iraqis, even as Americans permit only tiny numbers of Iraqis to travel to the U.S., Baghban said. In Basra alone, 10,000 to 30,000 visas are issued every month, he said.
"They travel to Iran for different purposes like pilgrimage, visiting their relatives or for medical treatment," Baghban said. "There also are Iranians coming to Iraq for pilgrimage, commerce or family visits, and they might pass by Basra. But currently, they are not numerous."
 
Their in for a long wait then, because the only one who will overthrow the Iranian Regime will be the Iranians. The US will not intervene. Nor am I convinced that will calm Iraq. The Iranian Shites and the Iraqi Shiites tend to stick together.
 
Ah yes, the US can't prove that Iran is supplying the insurgents in Iraq with weapons unless we capture a picture of a caravan of camels with RPG's on their backs crossing a line in the sand clearly labed "IRAN" on the west side and "IRAQ" on the east side of the line. On the other hand Iran merely has to say they have weapons that were smuggled into Iran from Iraq, which ironically is the same thing that British and American forces have said in Iraq, but when the Iranians say it it's fact.
 
Ah yes, the US can't prove that Iran is supplying the insurgents in Iraq with weapons unless we capture a picture of a caravan of camels with RPG's on their backs crossing a line in the sand clearly labed "IRAN" on the west side and "IRAQ" on the east side of the line. On the other hand Iran merely has to say they have weapons that were smuggled into Iran from Iraq, which ironically is the same thing that British and American forces have said in Iraq, but when the Iranians say it it's fact.

Lots of Iranian trucks full of weapons were captured in Iraq a year ago...
 
Id love to see a source for this, because wouldnt that be a dilleberate and intentional act of war?

Keep your eye on the news

Plus they have been talking about this since the middle of 2005, I'm sure they have been building a case the entire time....
 
Last edited:
Iranian-Made IEDs Are the Most Deadly U.S. Forces Have Seen, and Their Use Is on the Rise

January 30, 2007 2:33 PM

Richard Esposito and Maddy Sauer Report:

Ht_iraq_ross3_060306_nr The most deadly improvised explosive devices being used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq continue to come from Iran, and Iran continues to provide more tactical training, according to explosive experts working with the U.S. military.

The Iranian-made devices are known as EFPs, or Explosively Formed Projectiles. When exploded, the copper disc center becomes a molten liquid bullet that can penetrate the thickest armor the United States has.

Earlier this month, CIA Director General Michael Hayden told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that the EFPs from Iran cause more casualties on an incident-for-incident basis than any other type of improvised explosive device.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS

* Photos Anatomy of a Bomb
* Blotter Executions on Tape: Iraqi vs. Iraqi
* Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?
* Click Here to Check Out the Latest Brian Ross Webcast

"EFPs are coming from Iran. They are being used against our forces," said Hayden. "They are capable of defeating some of our heaviest armor."

ABC News first reported on the use of EFPs last March when U.S. officials told ABC News that they discovered the link to Iran via tell-tale manufacturing signatures -- certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant.

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq without provoking a direct confrontation, but a looming question remains. According to CIA Director Hayden and others, most of the EFPs are provided to the Shia militias, while it is the Sunnis who are responsible for many more U.S. deaths. Officials are now asking, could Iran be arming both sides of the sectarian violence?

Either way, Clarke says the evidence is clear that the Iranians know they are causing damage to the U.S.

"I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops," said Clarke.

Iran has denied supplying weapons to fighters in Iraq saying the country only has political and religious ties to Iraq's Shiites.

Today U.S. officials said the presentation of evidence against Iran by U.S. military officials in Iraq would be delayed until next week or possible the week after due to concerns over revealing sensitive intelligence.

Some of that evidence, according to U.S. military officials, includes Iranian-made weapons seized in Iraq with manufacturing dates as recent as 2006, suggesting brand-new weapons are going directly from Iranian factories to militias fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. The U.S. has also seized documents that allegedly prove Iranian intelligence is arming and training Shia militias.

The delay comes after a very strong warning to Iran from the U.S. Secretary of Defense late last week.

"We're not simply going to stand by and let people bring sophisticated IEDs into the country that can disable an Abrams tank, and give them a free pass," said Gates.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl contributed to this report.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/iranianmade_ied.html

Ask and ye shall receive my technologically stupified forum member.
 
Last edited:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/iranianmade_ied.html

Ask and ye shall receive my technologically stupified forum member.

Nice article, but to me thats not a deliberate act of war. The RPGs that they use werent made in Iraq, and the AKs were most likely made in Russia, but I dont hear anyone saying that the Russians are supplying terrorism. And the "documents" refered to in the article that you posted are made public, we can't actually know if that is proof or not. If you can find me a source that says that the Iranians are DIRECTLY SUPPLYING the insurgents, then I will accept that it is.

The question is not whether the insurgents are using Iranian weapons, that is a documented fact. The question is whether the Iranian government is directly supplying the insurgency, and this is the accusation that will require a lot more than circumstancial evidence to prove.
 
I'll say it. The Russians are supplying anyone with cash and the friggin Penguins are too. But since you want proof why not take your doubting Thomas tailfeathers and didi to the god damn AO and scope out Iraq first hand. No? Then you need to STFU when people who are there tell you otherwise.

I'd like to see what your definition of "deliberate act of war" is when lead is coming your way, or in this case molten copper.
 
I'll say it. The Russians are supplying anyone with cash and the friggin Penguins are too. But since you want proof why not take your doubting Thomas tailfeathers and didi to the god damn AO and scope out Iraq first hand. No? Then you need to STFU when people who are there tell you otherwise.

I'd like to see what your definition of "deliberate act of war" is when lead is coming your way, or in this case molten copper.

Or, I can not STFU, and continue this debate like a rational human, which you seem unwilling to do. If you are going to accuse a SOVREIGN NATION, whether you like that nation or not, of supplying terrorists, then you are going to need proof of it.

My definition of "deliberate act of war" is that a country is directly attacking, or directly supplying nations or elements that are directly attacking the USA (or any other nation, just the USA in this example). Im not in the buissness of condemning other nations based on circumstantial evidence, I need hard documented FACT.
 
Or, I can not STFU, and continue this debate like a rational human, which you seem unwilling to do. If you are going to accuse a SOVREIGN NATION, whether you like that nation or not, of supplying terrorists, then you are going to need proof of it.

My definition of "deliberate act of war" is that a country is directly attacking, or directly supplying nations or elements that are directly attacking the USA (or any other nation, just the USA in this example). Im not in the buissness of condemning other nations based on circumstantial evidence, I need hard documented FACT.

Good post, war is something you don't wage willy nilly.
 
There will be proof soon enough, bet on it... hope you don't mind the smell though for those who haven't smelled a dead body before the first time you do tends to stick. The USAF is about to increase flights along the border so you'll get proof only the nasally impaired can ignore.

Word to the wise, its best not to lecture soldiers and veterans about war when you yourself are short in the tooth.
 
I doubt there is going to be a full blown war with Iran. It is going to be more of us spitting in their face every chance we get. Cross the border and you'll get ****ed up type of deal.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between supplying and selling, there's also a difference between Russia 20 years ago and Russia today, how would we fight a war against Russia for selling arms to the Iraqi's some 20-40 years ago? Attack the 20 odd nations who formerly comprised the Soviet Union to punish them? We've sold guns to people all over the world, selling them weapons isn't much of a threat towards any other nation, other than to say "See, they have our **** now so you better watch what you do." sort of thing. However supplying is different, supplying means to give weapons to another nation/group, not sell. And in all honesty, Iran would be foolish not to supply the Iraqi (and foreign born) insurgents because the more we struggle in Iraq the less likely we are to invade Iran, think about it, if Iraq had been a cake walk the White House would be full of confidence and want to invade Iran ASAP thinking it would be just as easy. Since Bush was making it look like Iran was going to be hit with an air strike or invaded at any moment Iran hardly had anything to lose by supplying the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and abroad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top