http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html [rquoter]Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban June 06, 2007 6:00 PM Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report: NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain. "It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban." But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement. "This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling." Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community. "I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy." The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq." The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges. A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says. Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results. "These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones. The coalition diplomatic message says the demolition charges "contained the same fake U.S. markings found on explosives recovered from insurgents operating in the Baghdad area." "We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says. The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant. "It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."[/rquoter]
If Iran (government) is indeed supplying arms and weapons to the Taliban, then the U.S. should consider military action against Iran.
Indeed. Bush has demonstrated his gross incompetence. Let someone else handle Iran. In the meantime, I hope they find and destroy all such "convoys." (one or two vehicles a convoy? mmm, OK...) Iran is playing with fire. Let the next President put out the flames. What we need to be doing now is establishing a firebreak (golly, where's rimrocker??) to limit Iran's interference in Afghanistan, and to get out of Iraq, so we can dramatically increase our forces and aid to Afghanistan, Bush's one foreign policy success. One he has been busy screwing up because of his fixation with Iraq. D&D. Replicant Voter.
so basso does this act of iranian belligerince disprove your theory that Bush has successfully surrounded Iran with american intimidation ? You alternate between citing cassus belli due to iranian provocation for a pipe dream war on iran that would almost certainly fail to cooing with delight over how the Iranians have been successfully stifled on a regular basis due to the masterful handling of W. It's like watching you play foozeball by yourself, so you hit the ball then run around to the other side of the table and hit it from the other side.
Damn! And I thought he was playing air hockey with himself. I have a suggestion. Put a 4 foot double tube blacklight fixture over the table and paint the air hockey paddle things, the disc, and the rim of the table, along with the other appropriate markings. My cousin and I used to do that with his ping pong table. It was an absolute gas. The ping pong ball made trails through the air, and so did the paddles. D&D. Replicant Voter.
Iran's president knows he can stand tall and act all grand and mighty cause most American citizens don't want another war, but damn he's pushing his luck!
It sounds like speculation to me, it's very difficult to prove that the arms are coming from Iran, more like guesswork.
Screw Iran. Start bombing them and shelling them from off-shore (sure wish we didn't mothball all of our battleships).
Isn't this the from the same news network that was hyping up finding WMD's in Iraq prior to the war. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
Not buying it. Bush is picking a fight with Iran. A news story that Iran is supplying arms to the Taliban pops ups. Coincidence? This story may be true, but mix in the egregious disregard for the truth the W Admin has when the truth stands in the way of their politics then one can see how I need proof beyond a shadow of doubt. What is more believable is if the Taliban purchased weapons from Iranian arms merchants and then brought them back to Afghanistan.
"No one could have imagined that planes might be used ..." "No one could have imagined the levees would be breached..." More proof please. Who are these NATO officials and senior coalition official (who wish to remain anonymous)?
The Lady and the Veep Condoleezza Rice has steered the administration back toward diplomacy, but she's still being harried by hard-liners. By Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball Newsweek June 11, 2007 issue - Condoleezza Rice seems in control of everything—except events. As she paused for a few minutes in the cabin of her Boeing 757 last week, winging her way to her 63rd country in two and a half years (Spain this time), the secretary of State calmly swatted away questions about the apparent stalemates she faces on so many fronts: Israeli-Palestinian talks, out-of-control nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and an emerging cold-war-like confrontation with Russia. (That's without even bringing up the quagmire in Iraq.) Rice gets through controversy by snubbing it, smiling it out of existence. She's particularly dismissive when asked whether, at this late date, she is still fighting rear-guard actions against hard-liners in Washington—especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney's office who don't like her diplomatic approach to Iran. "There's always noise in any large system," Rice told NEWSWEEK in an interview. She's not being glib: administration officials universally acknowledge that her views are dominant in Washington. But the rumbling has been getting louder. A NEWSWEEK investigation shows that Cheney's national-security team has been actively challenging Rice's Iran strategy in recent months. "We hear a completely different story coming out of Cheney's office, even now, than what we hear from Rice on Iran," says a Western diplomat whose embassy has close dealings with the White House. Officials from the veep's office have been openly dismissive of the nuclear negotiations in think-tank meetings with Middle East analysts in Washington, according to a high-level administration official who asked for anonymity because of his position. Since Tehran has defied two U.N. resolutions calling for a suspension of its uranium-enrichment program, "there's a certain amount of schadenfreude among the hard-liners," says a European diplomat who's involved in the talks but would not comment for the record. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the veep's team seems eager to build a case that Iran is targeting Americans not just in Iraq but along the border of its other neighbor, Afghanistan. In the last few weeks, Cheney's staff have unexpectedly become more active participants in an interagency group that steers policy on Afghanistan, according to an official familiar with the internal deliberations. During weekly meetings of the committee, known as the Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group, Cheney staffers have been intensely interested in a single issue: recent intelligence reports alleging that Iran is supplying weapons to Afghanistan's resurgent Islamist militia, the Taliban, according to two administration officials who asked for anonymity when discussing internal meetings. Historically, Iran and the Taliban have been more often bitter enemies than allies; in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, cooperated with U.S. efforts to oust the Afghan regime that harbored Osama bin Laden. Tehran went so far as to round up Qaeda suspects transiting or residing in Iran for possible deportation to countries (like Saudi Arabia or Egypt) aligned more closely with Washington. In early April, however, British forces operating under NATO command in Afghanistan's wild-west Helmand province stopped a convoy carrying what appeared to be ordnance of Iranian origin intended for delivery to the Taliban. The explosives bore suspected Iranian markings similar to those found on weapons confiscated from Shiite militias in Iraq—and the Brits intercepted another shipment a month later. An official familiar with the interagency group's deliberations said that Cheney's aides kept asking what sounded like leading questions, demanding to know whether there was any Iranian entity other than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the state security force Washington accuses of arming Iraqi insurgents—that could be responsible for the arms shipments. Cheney's aides, the official added, appeared less interested in other more mundane items on the Afghanistan policy committee's agenda. British officials who asked for anonymity because of the nature of their work emphasize that they lack hard evidence linking the shipments to the Revolutionary Guards, and that the weapons could just as easily have been bought on the black market in Iran. But according to one official familiar with the intelligence on Iranian interference in Iraq, Cheney earlier this year began exhibiting particular interest in any evidence detailing Tehran's aid to anti-American insurgents there. Asked about the vice president's allegedly keen interest in Iran's activities in Afghanistan, Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn said, "We do not discuss intelligence matters or internal deliberations." Rice has more directly clashed with Cheney's office on issues like Mideast peace, where according to administration sources who declined to be named discussing internal deliberations, she's found herself stymied in efforts to push for more engagement with Syria and the Palestinian radical group Hamas. A senior White House official concedes that even on what should be the simplest-to-achieve deal—a new relationship with Syria that would help stabilize Iraq—Cheney's office is blocking Rice's efforts to bring Bush around. The secretary has also fought with the veep's office in seeking to soften detention policies at Guantánamo. In the interview, however, Rice insisted her relationship with Cheney himself is good. "The vice president has never been somebody who tries to [undermine others] on the sidelines, behind the scenes. He really doesn't," she said. "In fact we have a kind of friendly banter about it, in which I'll tease him about the image that he doesn't like diplomacy." Rice has reason to be confident. She maintains a tight relationship with Bush, with whom she talks twice a day. "We have been together a long time, the president and I, in any number of different incarnations, and when I'm speaking, I'm speaking on his behalf," she says. Even one of Rice's fiercest current critics, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton—a key Cheney ally who was her subordinate only a few months ago—says that her views are ascendant in the administration. "I think those who support [the policy of nuclear negotiations with Iran] ... are riding high," Bolton told NEWSWEEK, adding that he left the administration because he believed his hard-line views toward Iran and North Korea were being eclipsed by Rice's State Department (there was also the small matter of the Democrat-controlled Congress refusing to confirm him). Bolton admits that the hard-liners are not what they were in the first term, when Cheney's office was accused of cherry-picking intel to make the case for war against Iraq. One by one, the Cheneyites have been losing significant supporters in the top ranks of the administration—most recently White House deputy national-security adviser J. D. Crouch, a conservative former Pentagon official and academic who left last week. To thwart the hard-liners once and for all, though, Rice knows that she must start to deliver. Even as Tehran has made technical strides in its enrichment program, negotiations have been stalled: on Thursday the chief Iranian and European negotiators announced they would meet again in two weeks. In the end, the administration's few remaining hard-liners may be the least of Rice's problems. In her NEWSWEEK interview, she acknowledged how hard it would be to achieve the kind of "breakthrough" agreement that traditionally defines a successful secretary of State. "I wouldn't rule it out," she said. But, Rice added: "we're laying the foundations for someone else to succeed in the future, and I think that's fine." As long as she can keep things under control. © 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Afghanistan Interagency Operating Group sounds ominously like Cheney and Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans.
basso, how do you feel about our government now supporting and working with a group that was founded by 9/11 mastermind khalid sheikh mohammed. a group with ties to the taliban. this group is now covertly operating in iran carrying out terrorism. dont know who i am talking about? google "jundullah" and why all this concern over iran when saudi arabia has been proven to be providing weapons to insurgents in iraq and they are our allies?
why all this concern over Iran now when Pakistan has been doing the same in Afghanistan since the beginning? And what about its proven links to Al Queda, the taliban, and every other major terrorist attack in the world before and after 9/11? But rather than talk about any sanctions against Pakistan, we've given them more than $10 billion in aid, some of which has ended up in the hands of taliban and al queda affiliated groups heres a good summary of some of the things Pakistan has done: one of the things the summary leaves out is the links between scientists in the Pakistani nuclear establishment (including AQ Khan) and Al Queda affiliated groups operating out of Pakistan and funded by the Pakistani government
