Iran Military Ties With Iraq Fiasco

[Guest American for Progress]

Media outlets expressed only limited skepticism about Sunday's briefing, with most deciding to put the story on the front pages. Editor and Publisher notes, "An article by Joshua Partlow from Baghdad -- currently atop the [Washington Post's] Web site -- carried the declarative headline, 'Iran Sending Explosives to Extremist Groups in Iraq,' without even 'U.S. officials say.'"

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7021100479.html

 

Former CNN reporter Eason Jordan, who now runs the site IraqSlogger, reported that the Voices of Iraq news service identified one of the anonymous Defense Department officials who presented reporters with the Iran presentation was "Major General William Caldwell, whose portfolio includes public affairs and who holds frequent news conferences and grants one-on-one interviews." "So, if the VOI report identifying Caldwell is correct, why did every other news organization apparently agree to grant anonymity to the general who's the official spokesman of the US-led Multi-National Force in Iraq?" questioned Jordan.

 

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman similarly asks today, "Why wasn't any official willing to take personal responsibility for the reliability of alleged evidence of Iranian mischief, as opposed to being an anonymous source? If the evidence is solid enough to bear close scrutiny, why were all cameras and recording devices, including cellphones, banned from yesterday's Baghdad briefing?"

 

A Saturday New York Times article by Michael Gordon previewed yesterday's Baghdad briefing and recited administration claims about Iran's involvement in Iraq "without the slightest questioning, investigation, or presentation of ample counter-evidence." Editor and Publisher's Greg Mitchell points out that it was Gordon "who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion."

[Guest Jamail]

The massacre in Najaf last month indicates that Iran could be working through the Iraqi government, local leaders in Najaf say. The killing of 263 people in Najaf by Iraqi and US forces on January 29 provoked outrage and vows of revenge among residents in and around the sacred Shi'ite city in the south.

 

The people killed in Najaf were mostly Shi'ites from the Hawatim tribe that opposes the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq as well as the Da'wa Party. These two pro-Iranian groups control the local government in Najaf and the central government in Baghdad.

[Guest Ali al-Fadhily]

Abid Ali who witnessed the Najaf fighting told IPS that a procession of roughly 200 pilgrims from the Hawatim tribe had arrived in the Zarqa area near Najaf to celebrate the Ashura festival. Following a confrontation over the procession, Iraqi army soldiers at a checkpoint shot dead Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, chief of the tribe, as he and his wife sat in their car.

 

Members of the tribe then attacked the checkpoint to avenge the death of their chief.

[Guest Stratfor]

An Iraqi Shiite messianic group the government has labeled a cult, and which Baghdad says fought with U.S. and Iraqi troops over the weekend near An Najaf, issued a statement saying it was not engaged in the battle that resulted in the deaths of 250 militants and the cult's leader. Cult spokesman Abdul Imam Jaabar said the cult is peaceful, denying that it has ties to the "Soldiers of Heaven," which the Iraqi government said plotted to kill senior Shiite clerics. Jabbar said cult leader Imam Ahmed al-Hassan al-Yamani is a civil engineer who founded the group in 1999 after proclaiming he had met the messiah-like figure Mahdi, who declared him his grandson; Jabbar says al-Hassan quickly gained a following in southern Iraq of around 5,000 people.

 

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/r...lected=Analyses

[Guest pitts_*]

Soldiers of Heaven include Sunnis as well as Shiites, and is dedicated to the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah figure who is supposed to return just before Judgment Day, after more than 11 centuries in hiding, to set up a righteous and peaceful Islamic society.

[Guest LAW]

In Islamic eschatology the Mahdi (مهدي translit: Mahdī, also Mehdi; "Guided One") is the prophesied redeemer of Islam. The advent of Mahdi is a universally accepted concept in Islam, though there are basic differences among different sects of Muslims about the timing and nature of his advent and guidance. Muslims believe that the Mahdi will change the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside the Prophet Jesus before Yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection" or "Day of the Standing").

[Guest Soldier of God_*]

The Shi'ites say that the important element needs to be stressed up here is that Jesus will then pray behind the Mahdi as a direct statement regarding Jesus’ inferiority of rank to the Mahdi.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Secretary of Defense has said it, the President has said it: We're not invading Iran.

[Guest LAW]

I guess you have not seen this. Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Peter Pace has come out saying he has seen no evidence of any links between the explosives killing Americans and "top Iranian officials." He told reporters, "What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this." Despite Pace's statement, the administration continued to defend the "circumstantial" case, but declined to offer any hard evidence to suggest that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in the attacks. Instead, White House press secretary Tony Snow suggested questions be directed to the Pentagon. The Pentagon, in turn, referred questions to the Washington office of the Multi-National Force-Iraq. That office declined to respond, aside from emailing a "copy of Sunday's briefing slides." The claims made in this anonymous briefing are not only at odds with Pace's assessment, but also with that of the CIA which, as reported by the New York Sun, is also "questioning" the involvement of the Iranian government in attacks on US soldiers.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/mi...dcmessageboards

 

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7021201537.html

[Luke_Wilbur]

Here are some answers that you should read from the Press Conference given by the President.

 

Q Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

 

Q And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

 

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

 

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know? But the point I made in my initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know they're there and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops -- I mean, to the people who are commanders, that we'll protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will continue doing so.

 

Now, let me step back on Iran, itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq [sic]. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq [sic]. One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns out there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations that included EU3, as well as Russia and China. That's a positive development.

 

The message to the Iranian people is that your leaders are making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is an unbelievably vital nation. It's got a great history, it's got wonderful traditions, it's got very capable, smart people. There is -- I believe there's also a desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I hope their government hears that message.

 

Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now you're trying to get to me to -- Gregory. Excuse me, David. David.

 

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

 

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

 

David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. As you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.

 

But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objective with other nations in the world in a peaceful way.

 

Sheryl.

 

Q -- using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?

 

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

 

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives -- that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.

 

THE PRESIDENT: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

 

Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President --

 

THE PRESIDENT: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.

 

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

 

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

 

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

[Guest American for Progress]

Ahmadinejad's visit underscores how Iran has emerged as the chief beneficiary of the 2003 U.S. invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein, against whom Iran fought a massively destructive war between 1980-88. Tehran maintains ties to most of Iraq's Shia political parties.

 

The dominant Shia party -- the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC, formerly the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI) -- was founded in Iran by Iraqi exiles in the early 1980s, with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. SIIC continues to enjoy a close relationship with Iran; the party's leader, Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim received a personal visit from Ahmadinejad.

 

At a news conference, flanked by Hakim and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Ahmadinejad responded to U.S. accusations of Iranian intervention in Iraq by saying, "Iran has no need to intervene in Iraq. ... Isn't it ridiculous that those who have deployed 160,000 troops in Iraq accuse us of intervening there?" Ahmadinejad also directed criticisms at Bush: "You can tell Mr. Bush that accusing others will only complicate America's problems in the region. They must come to terms with the realities: the Iraqi people do not like Americans." Commenting on Iraq-Iran relations, Maliki said, "I think that the level of trust is very high. ... And I say frankly that the position Iran has taken recently was very helpful in bringing back security and stability."