Iran - Assertions about meddling

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
U.S. Set to Assert Evidence Against Iran
By KATHERINE SHRADER and ANNE GEARAN

Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON
The Bush administration is haunted by the history of intelligence blunders about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction as the United States tries to document that Iran is providing lethal help to Iraqi fighters.

After weeks of preparation and revisions, U.S. officials are preparing to detail evidence supporting administration's claims of Iran's meddlesome and deadly activities. A briefing was scheduled Sunday in Baghdad.

Artillery shells that were used to make a car bomb lay gathered by Iraqi police near the scene of a car bomb blast in central Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, Feb. 10, 2007. Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected. While the Bush administration and military officials have repeatedly said Iranians have been tied to terrorist bombings in Iraq, they have said little about evidence to bolster such claims, including any documents and other items collected in recent raids in Iraq. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
The Iran dossier, some 200 pages thick in its classified form, was revised heavily after officials decided it was not ready for release as planned last month. What is made public probably would be short, and shorter on details than the administration recently had suggested.

No one who has seen the files has suggested the evidence is thin. But senior officials ? gun-shy after the drubbing the administration took for the faulty intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq invasion ? were underwhelmed by the packaging.

Officials from several intelligence agencies scrutinized the presentation to make sure it was clear and that "we don't in any way jeopardize our sources and methods in making the presentation," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley recently said some Iran material was overstated. Privately, officials say they want to avoid the kind of gaffe akin to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's case for war before the United Nations in 2003.

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions," Powell said as he laid out unproven claims of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." It later turned out that Iraq did not have such weapons.

The evidence on Iran is intended to give backbone to the administration's claim that an emboldened Iran is playing a dangerous game across the Middle East: meddling in conflicts and seeding terrorism beyond its borders while rushing to acquire nuclear know-how that could produce a bomb.

Government officials familiar with the dossier's documents and slides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the materials still were classified, said they make a compelling case about Iranian actions in Iraq.

Among the evidence the administration planned to present are weapons that were seized over time in U.S.-led raids on caches around Iraq, said one military official. Other evidence includes documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil, a city in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq about 220 miles north of Baghdad, this official said.

In that raid, the U.S. captured five Iranians. They included the operations chief and other members of Iran's elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. Tehran said it was a government liaison office and called for the release of the five, along with compensation for damages.

The dossier also details Iran's role in providing Iraqi fighters with the "explosively formed penetrator" devices that can pierce the armor of Abrams tanks with nearly molten-hot charges. One intelligence official said the U.S. is "fairly comfortable" that it knows with some precision the origin of those Iranian-made explosives.

While traveling in Europe on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there. Gates did not how the U.S. knows that, and officials in Washington declined comment.

A senior U.S. government official said Saturday that members of Congress were shown proof in December. "I'm convinced from what I've seen that the Iranians are supplying and are giving assistance to the people in Iraq who are killing American soldiers," said independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The evidence in the dossier also includes what is known about Iranian efforts to train Iraqis in making bombs, using firearms and other military skills. But officials described internal disagreement about how closely Iranians can be linked to the training: Is there an Iranian in a classroom or some other setting showing Iraqis how to place and detonate roadside bombs?

That, the official said, is less clear.

Analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of the National Intelligence Director and elsewhere have been double- and triple-checking the information to ensure it is well supported.

Officials said that is particularly the case when the material comes from sources with agendas. For instance, groups such as the Mujahedeen Khalq, which advocates for the overthrow of Iran's rulers, have provided some useful information to the United States in the past, but officials said material from them and other similar sources must be handled carefully.

The vigorous fact-checking brings up a recurring problem: the precise nature of Iran's actions is often murky, but the intelligence must be solid. After mistakes on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials recognize there is skepticism about U.S. intelligence claims,
............................................................

:scared :scared
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Stealth-Bomber.gif
 

Underbar

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 30, 2007
161
0
0
Where's the map of Israel's nukes?

The several hundred existing ones, as opposed to Iran's imaginary ones?
 

Underbar

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 30, 2007
161
0
0
LOL. You must have moved from glory road to corner of bullspit and make believe.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's controversial president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday his country will make an announcement in April about new nuclear achievements.

Reports surfaced last fall that Tehran was trying to produce 3,000 centrifuges and expected to meet the goal by March of this year. The report was published by the Iranian Student News Agency and quoted a member of parliament.

However, a senior U.S. official said some officials had expected Ahmadinejad to announce in his speech Sunday that Iran had put those centrifuges in place.

The production of 3,000 centrifuges would allow Iran to begin industrial scale production of nuclear fuel -- a move that has raised international concern that the country might ultimately produce nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad said Iran will not come to the negotiating table with Western nations if suspension of Tehran's nuclear program is a precondition for talks.

"If you seek negotiation why do you insist on suspension? If we suspend, what do we want to talk about?" he asked, as a crowd dressed mostly in black -- some holding signs reading "Down with America" -- looked on.

"How come your factories and reactors are working day and night while you're asking our factories and centers to stop its facilities? Our nation will never accept such conditions."

The president warned the Western nations that Tehran will not permit any of its "rights" to be taken away, by word or by action.

"The world must know that if they try to deny that right to us they will be the most hated nation," he said. Applause rippled through the crowd.

Iran has repeatedly said uranium enrichment is its right and will not be abandoned, despite United Nations demands.

The U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran in December for its failure to halt uranium enrichment activities. The sanctions require the prevention of any supply, sale or transfer to Iran of any equipment, technology or information that could contribute to enrichment activities or to nuclear weapons systems.

Ahmadinejad brushed away the threat of further sanctions in his speech Sunday, calling them "ineffective."

"It is a tactic from 30 years ago. It does not have any effect on us," he said.

Asked about U.S. reaction to Ahmadinejad's speech, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe reiterated Washington's willingness to talk to Iran once it complies with the U.N. Security Council resolution.

"The international community is united in this, but unfortunately, we didn't hear anything today that leads us to believe Iran is going to take the steps expected of them," Johndroe said.

Ahmadinejad said Tehran has brought on "the most transparent solution" in an attempt to build confidence with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

On Saturday, Tehran announced it is now in compliance with demands made earlier by the IAEA that it make its nuclear program more transparent.

Surveillance cameras have now been installed at the Natanz nuclear facilities, making it "possible for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor Natanz nuclear site thoroughly," Iran's state-run news agency IRNA reported.

On Friday, the IAEA decided to suspend nearly half its aid projects in the heavily scrutinized country.

Meanwhile, Iran's top nuclear negotiator told global security officials meeting in Munich, Germany, that his country did not pose a nuclear threat to any nation, The Associated Press reported.
....................................................
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
A ray of hope? A well written read..

A ray of hope? A well written read..

Israel and Iran ? and the Bush Administration


by Gabriel Kolko

DIGG THIS
There has been a qualitative leap in military technology that makes all inherited conventional wisdom, and war as an instrument of political policy, utterly irrelevant, not just to the United States but also to any other state that embarks upon it.

Nations should have realized this a century ago but they did not. But there have been decisive changes in balances of power, and more accurate and destructive weapons ? and soon nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them ? are becoming more and more available to the poorer countries. Technology is moving much more rapidly than the diplomatic and political resources or will to control its inevitable consequences.


The United States should have learned its lesson in Vietnam, and its public is aware of it to a far greater extent than its politicians. The war in Iraq has reaffirmed the decisive limits of technology when fighting against enemies who are decentralized and determined. It has been extraordinarily expensive but militarily ineffective, and America is ineluctably losing its vast undertaking. Rivals are much more equal, and wars more protracted and expensive for those who persist in fighting them. America?s ambitions for hegemony throughout the globe can now be more and more successfully challenged.

Nowhere is this truer than the Middle East, where the U.S.? long-standing alliance with Israel, which shares its fascination with military power, has produced colossal political failures for both nations.
The ultra-modern Israel Defense Force finally learned this in Lebanon last July, when Hezbollah rockets destroyed or seriously damaged at least 20 of its best tanks and they were fought to a draw ? abandoning the field of battle and losing their precious myth of invincibility.

Growing demoralization well before the Lebanon war plagued Israel, and the percentage of Jews with higher academic degrees that migrated grew steadily after 2002. Israel exports brainpower to an extent very high by world standards. The Lebanon war and talk ? both from Israeli and Iranian leaders ? of "existential" threats to the state?s very existence only gravely aggravated this defeatism and the desire to leave. At the end of January, 78 percent of the Israeli public was "unhappy" with their leaders for a variety of reasons.
Israeli politics has always been highly unstable by any standard but the corruption and other scandals that are now plaguing it exceed any in its history, paralleling its loss of confidence in its military power. Alienation from the political class in Israel has never been greater and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cronies hope that spreading fear of the Iranian bomb will help them ride out a political storm that has seen his poll-rating plummet to a record low. But fear works both ways, frightening the people who can migrate most easily and keeping out tourists and foreign investors.
Moreover, the Israeli public?s anxiety has not been lessened by reports of the efficacy of anti-missile systems that Israel has installed at great expense. The Iranians have mastered all of the technical bases of missile technology, according to Israeli experts, and although the quality and precision of its missiles may leave something to be desired they can inflict immense damage. Israeli specialists also argue that the missile defense shield that Israel possesses ? in common with those of all other nations ? is not sufficient to protect it. Syria has missiles also ? not so effective as the Iranian but much closer and capable of inflicting much damage if used.
Notwithstanding the apocalyptic proclamations on Iran?s imminent nuclear power by Olmert?s major rival, Binyamin Netanyahu, or by the prime minister himself and some of his cabinet on occasion, this hysteria is politically motivated and intended to garner public support.
Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, told the Israeli Knesset last December that diplomatic efforts were "far from being over" ? and that an Iranian nuclear bomb was at least two years or more off. Many Israeli strategists, including Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, now regard Bush?s war in Iraq as a highly destabilizing disaster for the entire region and a major boon to Iran?s power, and they regret having endorsed it. A war with Iran would be far more dangerous. Worse yet, efforts to demonize Iran have failed. Only 36 percent of the Jewish population of Israel polled last month thought an Iranian nuclear attack the "biggest threat" to Israel.
Serious Israeli strategists overwhelmingly believe, to cite Reuven Pedatzur in Ha?aretz last November, that "mutual assured deterrence, can be forged, with high degree of success, between Israel and Iran." Israeli strategic thinking is highly realistic. Early this February a study released at a conference by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University predicted that Iran would behave rationally with nuclear weapons and "that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential national interest" for it. Iran "will act logically, evaluating the price and risks involved." A preemptive attack on Iran nuclear research sites would "be a strategic mistake," Pedatzur warned the conference, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons against them sheer folly. "Our best option is open nuclear deterrence."
Israeli experts have come to the realization that American policy in the Middle East is not merely an immense failure but also a decisive inhibition to Israel reorienting its foreign policy to confront the realities of the region that the Jews have chosen to live in. It has ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq and created an overwhelming Iranian presence. In Palestine its campaign for democracy has brought Hamas to power. Troop escalation in Iraq is deemed futile. "It?s a total misreading of reality," one Israeli expert is quoted when discussing America?s role in the region. Israeli interests were no longer being served. American policies have failed and Israel has given a carte blanche to a strategy that leaves it more isolated than ever.
Peace?or War
The only security Israel can have will be a result of its signing peace accords with the Palestinians and the neighboring countries. It is no more likely than the U. S. to defeat its enemies on the field of battle and its arms have been neutralized. The war in Lebanon was only an augury of the decisive limits of its military power. It is in this context that secret Israeli talks with Syria have enormous significance. They began in January 2004 in Turkey with the approval of Sharon, moving on to Switzerland, where the Swiss Foreign Office played the role of intermediary. By August 2005 they had reached a very advanced form and covered territorial, water, border and political questions. Details remained to be ironed out but they were a quantum leap in solving one of the region?s crucial problems. When the Baker-Hamilton Study Group filed its recommendations last December, negotiations with Syria were especially stressed ? a point Baker reiterated when he testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last January 30th. Baker undoubtedly knew about the secret talks and Syria?s explicit statements it wished to break with radical Islamic movements and was ready to discuss its ties with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
These nominally secret talks were made public on January 8, 2007 when Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview with an Israeli paper of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria.
Ha?aretz? Akiva Eldar then published a series of extremely detailed accounts, including the draft accord, confirming that Syria offered a far reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel?s security and is comprehensive ? and divorce Syria from Iran and even create a crucial distance between it and Hezbollah and Hamas. The Bush Administration?s role in scuttling any peace accord was decisive. C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, sat in at the final meeting, two former senior CIA officials were present in all of these meetings and sent regular reports to Vice President Dick Cheney?s office. The press has been full of details on how the American role was decisive, because it has war, not peace, at the top of its agenda.
Most of the Israeli Establishment favors it. On January 28 important Israelis met publicly in Jaffa and called the Israeli response "an irresponsible gamble with the State of Israel" since it made Cheney arbiter of Israeli national interests. They included former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak, former Shin Bet chief Ya?akov Perry, former directors of the Foreign Ministry David Kimche and Alon Liel (who negotiated the deal and believes it is very serious), and the like. Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Foreign Minister, has since supported their position and argued that it is "too important" for Israel to endorse yet "another failure in the U.S. strategy."
But Olmert has explicitly said that the Bush Administration opposes a negotiated peace with Syria. Therefore he is opposed to it also. Olmert?s contradiction is that he wants to remain closely allied to the U.S., whatever its policies, yet he is now one of the most unpopular prime ministers in Israel?s history and in power only because of Sharon?s stroke. Israel is a crucial pillar of American policy in the entire region but this policy is failing. An alliance with America is Olmert?s recipe for political defeat when the inevitable election is called. That is his problem.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top