| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: Disturbing News: Iran behind bombings of UK soldiers |
 |
|
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2044332005
Iran blamed over soldiers' deaths
Iran's Revolutionary Guard was blamed for supplying the lethal explosive technology responsible for killing British soldiers in Iraq.
A senior British official said that there was evidence the Iranians were now in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups fighting the coalition forces in Iraq.
He said that the Iranian action could be an attempt to warn off Britain over its demands that Tehran should abandon its controversial nuclear programme.
"It would be entirely natural that they would want to send a message 'Don't mess with us'. It would not be outside the policy parameters of Tehran," the official said.
He said it was believed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had been responsible for supplying the explosives technology used in a series of deadly attacks on British troops over the summer.
"We think it has come from Lebanese Hizbollah via Iran," he said.
He refused to be drawn on whether the IRGC were acting on the orders of the government in Tehran or were operating independently.
Although Iran is Shia Muslim, the official said it now appeared that elements in Tehran were in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups across the border in Iraq.
Sunni Muslims linked to al Qaida have been blamed for trying to ignite a civil war with the majority Shias, who have been the victims of some of the worst of the recent suicide bomb attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A senior British official said that there was evidence the Iranians were now in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups fighting the coalition forces in Iraq.
He said that the Iranian action could be an attempt to warn off Britain over its demands that Tehran should abandon its controversial nuclear programme.
|
If this were an attempt to warn off Britain, wouldn't it have been done in a more public fashion? How can the explosives send a message to Britian if Iran doesn't tell the Brits where the explosives are coming from? It's like kidnapping someone for money, but neglecting to send a ransom note.
Not ruling out the possibility that Iranian explosives were used by the insurgency. Just a bit skeptical about this guy's explanation for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe its a targeted message, not a general public message. One thought could be that its an action as well as a message. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been analyzed as a strike against Japan and a message to the Soviet Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been analyzed as a strike against Japan and a message to the Soviet Union. |
Yeah, but in that case there was no question in Stalin's mind where the bombs were coming from. With the explosives in Iraq, what guarantee would the Iranians have that anyone in Britian is going to even know that they were supplied by Iran?
But I'm far from being an expert on either explosives or military intelligence. If Iran supplied weapons to the insurgency, would they be doing so with the certain knowledge that Britian would find out where the stuff came from?
Plus, would the Iranians be able to ensure that the supplies would be used against the British, as opposed to some other enemy of the insurgents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When the U.S. bled the Soviets in Afhganistan, it had a lot of other govts with it: Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt, even Israel. All were actively involved, just behind-the-scenes. Yet we and our allies aren't the only ones who do this.
So I don't have any illusions that Iran, with interests in Iraq's future, is involved in the insurgency. And I'd also hazard that it's not just a one-time "message" to Britain.
I'd look for potential Syrian involvement as well. I saw something a while back on U.S. forces fighting within the Syrian border at one time.
There are many things going on behind-the-scenes.
And with resepect to the nukes against Japan: I heard that there were also some people who were primarily concerned about the human costs that entailed an invasion of the Japanese mainland... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, this is getting confusing.
According to the BBC, it is the Shiite insurgents who are alleged to be getting explosives from Iran. And the BBC doesn't say anything about Sunni insurgents being armed by Iran.
| Quote: |
The UK official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the bomb technology used against British forces in Iraq had come from the Tehran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, via Iran.
He said that dissidents from the Mehdi army, a militia controlled by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, were suspected of carrying out the attacks.
|
This makes a little bit more sense, at least in terms of which players Iran would be likely to support. Some of the Sunni groups are pretty anti-Shiite, massacaring Iranian pilgrims and whatnot. Can't really see Tehran wanting any part in that.
However, Juan Cole offers this critique of the British claims:
| Quote: |
Personally, I think that if Iran were going to give any Iraqi group weapons, it would be the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Iranians distrust the Sadr Movement, which is Iraqi nativist and often anti-Iranian, and would distrust a splinter group from it all the more.
|
Anyway, I'm still a bit curious about the discrepancy between The Scotsman's reporting and the BBC's reporting. They both seem to be talking about the same allegations, except for details about who was getting the weapons. And it's pretty clear from the way the Scotsman story was written that the writer does know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
From MSNBC:
| Quote: |
Technology used to kill U.K. soldiers?
A senior British official first made the accusation against Iran at a Wednesday briefing, saying Britain believed Iran��s Revolutionary Guard supplied that technology used to kill eight British soldiers in incidents over the summer.
The official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said there was evidence that Iran was in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups battling coalition troops in Iraq.
|
Okay, I really gotta wonder how exactly this guy conducted his briefing. Did he just say "I know the name of a Muslim religious faction which is getting explosives from Iraq, starts with an 'S'" and then they all went back to their offices to write their own version of the story?
One thing I noticed: none of the stories contains a direct quote from the official naming either Sunnis, Shiites, or Sadrists as the recipients of the weaponry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9608488/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is plausible and I'll say even likely that a nation like Iran (and Syria, too) would covertly intervene in the Iraqi War to back forces it is sympathetic with.
This is normal in diplomacy. There are things you do openly; there are things you don't do openly. This has been going on, in recorded history at least, since Biblical times and Sun Tzu.
I'd need much more than anything that any U.S. or British official might allege before saying that Iran (or Syria) is definitely involved, however. As On the Other Hand's concerns remind us: they don't even really have a stellar grasp of the area's politics... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It is plausible and I'll say even likely that a nation like Iran (and Syria, too) would covertly intervene in the Iraqi War to back forces it is sympathetic with.
|
I don't doubt that at all. It's just that I question how sympathetic the Iranians would be to the Sunni insurgency, for the reasons I outlined above.
Looking over all the articles, the most plausible scenario seems to be that the British offical alleged two things:
1. The Iranians supplied weapons to the Sadrists.
2. The Iranians had contact with the Sunnis insurgents.
Juan Cole and the BBC reported the first allegation, without mentioning the second. MSNBC reported the second, without mentioning the first(somewhat strange, since #1 would seem to be the most sensational). The Scotsman conflated both allegations, making it sound as if the official was claiming Iran had given explosives to the Sunnis.
Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rok_the-boat
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is anyone even the slightest bit surprised here?
Last edited by rok_the-boat on Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm definitely not surprised.
George Bush said that all of those "radical Islamic terrorist" countries were in it together, and I believe him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Juan Cole's overview of the matter:
| Quote: |
Then there is Iran. First the US Department of Defense floated an attempt to accuse Iran of supplying shaped charges to Sunni Arab guerrillas in northern Iraq. The idea of the ayatollahs helping radical Salafi Abu Musab Zarqawi to blow up fellow Shiites was so absurd that the US dropped the whole thing for a while. Now the Blair government has retooled the charges slightly more plausibly, claiming that the Iranians were sending shaped charges to radical Sadrist splinter groups in Basra for use against British troops. But Iran has long backed the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its Badr Corps paramilitary, which was trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Sadrists have clashed several times with SCIRI, most recently in Najaf. And, Sadrists are ghetto Arab Shiites who openly distrust Persian influence in their affairs. So why would the Iranian government arm the enemies of its proteges, and persons who, moreover, routinely badmouth Iran and work against its influence in Iraq. The whole thing makes no sense.
On Thursday Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, the elected head of the Iraqi executive who is the putative ally of Blair and Bush, strongly denied Blair's charges against the Iranians. He pointed out that the two countries were developing a very constructive relationship, in which Iran was proving most helpful. He said, according the the BBC Persian site [courtesy a kind reader:] ��some people want to harm the friendly relations beween Iran and Iraq, but not only will Iraq not allow them to do so, but it will continue to expand its relations with Iran.��
I'd say Blair has been cut off at the knees in this latest propaganda effort against Iran. My friends with military experience tell me that shaped charges are not so esoteric that Iraqis would have to get them from Lebanon's Hizbullah via Iran, and that, indeed, there were probably lots of shaped charges in Iraqi arms depots, which have been extensively looted.
|
http://www.juancole.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
