Worrying About An Iran Conflict Part II

Part I had a few juicy tidbits of information pointing in the direction of an Iran strike, but don't fret (perhaps that's the wrong word), I have a few more as promised.

The article that had the most impact today was written by the always-superb investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for the New Yorker. This article is expansive and I advise reading it whole because it is such an important article full of great revelations and information. One of the main points of this article is that:

"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

In other words: The US's mistake to invade Iran has increased the real and perceived power of Iran in the region, worrying both the administration and the Sunni Arab states. In response to an empowered Iran -- due to US action -- now the US and the Arab nations are funding Sunni fundamentalist groups (many with Al Qaeda ties!) acting against US and Sunni interests in Lebanon.

Do you get that!! We are so afraid of an Iran we ourselves empowered with our Iraq invasion that we are giving aid to Sunni groups who hate Shia Iran -- but here is the kicker...those Sunnis also hate Americans. They have Al-Qaeda ties after all!!

Does nobody remember that it was this "enemy of our enemies is our friend" mentality during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- with all the aid and training we provided to the mujahadeen then -- that helped lead to the rise and success of the al-Qaeda group. Those former mujahadeen we trained and armed to fight the USSR later took that knowledge and attacked the United States. And yes, Osama bin Laden was one of those former mujahadeen "allies" we helped back then. Talk about shortsighted.

And it seems we may be repeating that same mistake one more time.

And as the following quote makes clear, it seems that the administration has deemed the Shia's, and Iran specifically to be much more of a danger than Sunni radicals.

In my opinion they have that ass backwards...The threat from Iran is way overblown.

Remember it is the Sunni insurgency killing US soldiers in Iraq. It is the Sunni group Al-Qaeda that bombed us on 9/11, that bombed London and Madrid that poses threats to many countries.

Sunnis make up the majority of Islam, and Sunni radicals are a way bigger danger than Iran could pose. What the hell are they thinking?!

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

And this from the same article:

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Provocation? You have to be careful you may just get what you want.

But the article also makes mention of:

Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change.

(snip)

The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”

The BBC further verifies that this contingency planning is occurring. And the relevance of the last bolded part is that there is much unease and dissent among the top Generals. These generals do not think it is a good idea to strike Iran and it seems many are counting on the White House "not being foolish enough" to strike in such a weakened state.

If it was any other President than I might trust that the President wouldn't be that stupid...But this president has surprised me time and time again. I couldn't put it past him that he could be that foolish.

In fact the dissent among top US generals may be so high that it is reported -- in the Times Online -- that many Generals may resign their positions if given the order to strike Iran. That's how seriously bad some generals think this idea is:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defense and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Fortunately, in this case (and unlike Rumsfeld), Defence Secretary Roberts seems to be on the same page as his senior commanders.

Prior to the Iraq War, the senior commanders where more cautious about any way but Secretary Rumsfeld was a big proponent.

What's more, the evidence of an imminent Iranian threat gets weaker and weaker:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

All in all -- there is just so much that is wrong right now as it regards to Iran and our administration.

Later today I'll post and comment on a new article that includes information that completely undercuts the Administration claim that Iran has been supplying the Insurgency deadly new explosives...

This time for sure because its only 1 article...Really. lol

Worrying About An Iran Conflict Part I

Where do I even begin? With the issue of Iran, the news seems to follow a pattern. It gushes forth in large spurts for a few days, goes away for another few then returns with a vengeance.

Well we seem to be on one of those occasions when its staggering what is out there...And none of the news articles leave me very optimistic about how our Iran policy is going to end up.

Fueling speculation recently (yesterday) about possible strikes in Iran is the story from the (conservative) London Telegraph that Israel was in the process of asking permission to fly over US-controlled skies in Iraq in the event of striking targets in Iran.

"Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over
Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph
can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli
war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military
authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon."

This shouldn't necessarily be taken to mean that an Israeli strike on Iran is definite, just that the possibility and eventuality of such an action is deemed plausible enough to warrant asking permission from the US ahead of time. I'd hate to think how Iran would retaliate against the US, inside and outside Iraq in the event of a Israeli strike. I'd also hate to think how the Iraqi Shias are going to respond to the US "giving a greenlight" for Israeli strikes on Shia Iran.

Perhaps it could trigger a wave of Shia violence aimed at the US. Up until now, the Sunni insurgents have been the main cause of US casualties. Who knows, maybe after such a greenlight, some Shia groups may also begin to make war on US troops.

If you think there's problems in Iraq for the US now, imagine if the large Sunni militias got involved...

Of course, the Israeli government vigorously denies seeking such permission from the United States.

"Israel on Saturday has denied a report in a British daily that it is
seeking permission from the United States to fly its bombers over Iraq to attack
Iran's nuclear facilities.

"There has never been such a request, it is obvious," Deputy defense
Minister Ephraim Sneh told public radio."

Is it possible that the story is not in fact true? Well a government denial doesn't exactly mean anything to me but it certaintly is possible that the story is at the very least a exaggeration of some kind.

Given this alone I would have concluded that I really can't make any conclusions about the charge but...this is not where the story ends.

The claim that Israel may be asking for US "go-ahead" for flyover of Iraq is bolstered by the accounts found in today's Haaretz (Israeli newspaper).

Haaretz reports that Israel has asked and been granted permission from three Arab Gulf states to fly over their countries in case of strikes against Iran.

Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel
Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on
its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on
Sunday.

According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting
Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab
Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using
their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Al-Siyasa further reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its
airspace for an Attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders
in case of a ground attack.

The article makes explicit the lobbying for Turkey to open its airspace, leaving the lobbying of the three Gulf States implicit. But, it seems clear to me that there was some lobbying from Israeli and US officials for over-flights. I don't think UAE or Qatarian (?) officials come to Washington to give such news out of nowhere. Its clear there were talks on this previous to this agreement.

Given this, its not farfetched to believe that the Israel is also lobbying the US for such permission. In fact, it is farfetched to believe that Israel lobbied those 3 Gulf states and didn't lobby the US, its closest ally in the region.

So why the denial? I could only speculate. What seems likely to me is that the denial is political in nature. Israel does not want to further stoke speculations about the US's Iran policy. Though I couldn't tell you in any definite fashion.

In any case the situation seems day by day slipping ever so closer to a physical confrontation with Iran.

First the fiery rhetoric against Iran, then the dubious charges against from the Administration claiming that Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq, the stationing of 2 (with a 3rd on the way) aircraft carrier group in the region.

Now we have word that the perception is that that American armada is aiming for Iran -- that from the commander of that armada itself.

The quiet-spoken Capt Cloyd embraced the suggestion that the dual
deployment is at the forefront of efforts to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb,
pointing out that his maritime assets have been tasked to quash any challenge to
global security.

"Our presence here is an affirmation of our resolve in this area to
engage with the nations of the region either where we share common goals or
where we face challenges."

I understand that it is possible that this could all just be an elaborate "saber rattling," but the Bush administration doesn't have that kind of finesse to pull it off. It looks like the pre-Iraq war invasion, and that certaintly was not simple saber rattling as we all know.

Like I said, there is a "chorro" of news out regarding Iran. So much that I decided to split it up in two parts. But tune in though because the information I've left for part two is pretty surprising and important. That's for later today (for sure this time).

Right now I'm going to go eat breakfast with my brother and play with my nephew.

Iraq "Surge" Will Last For Years

You might be wondering what I mean exactly by the title of this post. Its not a prediction that we will stay in Iraq for many years to come for the simple reason that presidents will change and a new president or perhaps even a bold Congressional move right now can interrupt the new "surge" plan being implemented by Gen. Petreaus.

What I mean is that as it stands with the current plan being implemented, many years (past President Bush's term) will be required. All which makes me wonder what Petreus thinks. He must know that he doesn't have all those years. Someone is going to stop this war -- either Congress or a newly elected President (please please let it be a Democrat).

And it’s not just me making these assertions up wholesale (I'm just not that clever and informed in counterterror and counterinsurgency to the level of the experts).

There are others:

As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.”

It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe.

Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace.

And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

In essence this plan is taking us down a road of increasing reliance -- without even the facade of trying to use Iraqi forces -- to "fix" Iraq. A proposition that will take years.

The interesting thing about this approach is:

Moving away from "superbases" towards the establishment of "mini-forts" is very proper and effective counterinsurgent tactics.

Counterinsurgencies must be run from among the population of the occupied nation; the soldiers must live operate and closely associate and understand the neighborhoods and the people. In that sense the "mini-fort" approach that Gen. Petraues is trying to implement fits right in with proper counterinsurgency tactics. And there really should be no surprise as this guy literally wrote the book on Counterinsurgencies for the Army.

From page 2 of article

“This is the right strategy: small mini-packets of U.S. troops all over, small ‘oil spots’ [of stability] spreading out. It’s classic counterinsurgency,” says one of the Army’s top experts in irregular warfare, who helped draft the counterinsurgency manual that Petraeus produced while commander at Fort Leavenworth last year—the principles of which the general is applying to Iraq. “But it’s high risk and it’s going to take a long time.”

These "inkblot" tactics are something I've talked about before in describing Gen. Petreaus' likely approach. If you want a good refresher on Counterinsurgency tactics and theory -- including the "inkblot" theory and the "mini-fort" tactic, take a quick read of another of my past posts here.

And I'll disagree with the wisdom of this surge for the same reason that I did in the first of my blog post I just referenced.

At this late state though, the civil war is here, the sides are polarized, the situation to far gone and deadly for us to try and start at square one with a good commander. The time frame in which Petraeus's tactics could have done some good have long since passed. The US was too busy in those days doing all it could to turn the Iraqi people away from them and into the arms of their Sunni or Shia brethren. Using heavy-handed tactics, humiliating Iraqi males in front of their families.

The insurgency is too well established, to well supported to effectively deal with in a manner other than political in nature (or with hundreds of thousands of combat troops we wont send). The various sectarian militias and groups are likewise. I salute Gen. Petraeus for valiantly accepting such a hard and I would argue impossible assignment. I just hope that he doesn't get ultimately blamed and his military record besmirched by what will likely be a lack of success. He was given an utterly difficult problem to deal with due to a mismanaged EVERYTHING before his term.

It’s really a change in tactics that has come too late to actually succeed. In any case it would take years of commitment that the US people are not willing to tolerate, doesn't have no where near the amount of combat troops required to make it have a chance to work (in fact we do not have enough combat troops period in the Army right now to make it succeed), and the likely outcome is failure in any case because it is just too late in the game to "fix" a situation that has spiraled beyond our ability to stabilize.

Brilliant commander that General Petreaus may be, he is not a miracle worker. We should not be engaging in actions that only serve to further deepen our involvement in Iraqi stability. We have to be working in the opposite direction: We need to start reducing our presence and our role with the eventual goal of leaving Iraq within 1 and a half year, give or take a few months.

This strategy is literally starting at square one, but this is not square one, this is four years of bombing, deaths, attacks, and fuck ups past square one. We do not have another 10 to 15 years -- required of most counterinsurgencies -- to fix this problem. We need to leave Iraq soon, and this surge only promises to involve us ever deeper.

Terror Camp Funders Donate to the GOP!

Whoa...

And not surprisingly, this fact is not getting much airtime on the TV news:

First the "regular" stuff:

Terrorism charges brought Friday against the administrator of a loan investment program claimed that he secretly tried to send $152,000 to the Middle East to buy equipment such as night vision goggles for a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, 53, of Ardsley, N.Y., pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to an indictment accusing him of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and other charges. The charges carried a potential penalty of 95 years in prison.

Now the whammy:

CBS News has confirmed that Alishtari is a donor to the Republican Party, as he claims on his curriculum vitae. Alishtari gave $15,500 to the National Republican Campaign Committee between 2002 and 2004, according to Federal Election Commission records. That amount includes $13,000 in 2003, a year when he claims to have been named NRCC New York State Businessman of the Year. Alishtari also claims to be a lifetime member of the National Republican Senate Committee's Inner Circle, which the NRCC describes as "an impressive cross-section of American society – community leaders, business executives, entrepreneurs, retirees, and sports and entertainment celebrities – all of whom hold a deep interest in our nation's prosperity and security."

Daaaaaaamn....wow...I'm, well...shocked I guess.

And this isn't the extent of the intrigue here. This NY businessman has ties to government and military contracts for "web filtering" technology being considered by the Dept of Defense.

From The Cunning Realist:

Update: Ah, what a tangled web. A reader notes in the comments section that "GlobalProtector.Net", one of the companies listed on this CV, claimed to have "provided a product demonstration for the United States SouthCom in Miami, Florida." Here's the news release. A few months later, according to another news release here, "Chief Executive Officer Mr. AT Alishtari authorized a new Boca Raton, Florida Office sales team of under a new Federal Sales EVP with web technical support from GlobalProtector.Net’s Chief Technical Group Director, Mr. Romel Roberts, to meet with the US Department of Defense covering web filter technology for various uses internally and those meetings were met favorably in general for the agenda set forth by the Department of Defense for those items."

Both of those news releases are from 2003 -- the same year this person says he was appointed to the "White House Business Advisory Committee" and became a "US National Republican Senate Inner Circle Member for Life."Oh, and be sure to check out this news release, noting particularly the references to "anthrax patents" and "Homeland Security."

White House press corps, over to you....

Daaaaamn...I really have nothing better to say but that. I'm flabbergasted at the grave security breach that the Republican Party is providing for the United States.

If he indeed is funding terrorist groups, than the software and products he is supplying to the DoD...He could provide insider knowledge about such systems and countermeasures to those systems, or key ways to hack those systems in event of cyber attack.

And this company's involvement with anthrax patents and US Homeland Security could possibly mean that he could have passed sensitive information about our domestic defensive capabilities and weakness, and passing sensitive biological weapons secrets to groups more than willing to use them on us. Why is this aspect of the story not mentioned widely on TV. WTH!!

However it appears that this is not the only incident where a person charged or indicted of funding terrorist organizations have been donating heavily in the Republican Party.

TPMuckracker has the scoop:

Oops! Building on my last post on the NRCC's bogus Business Advisory Council and "Businessman of the Year" program, it turns out that Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari isn't the first member of the council to be indicted on charges of supporting terrorism.

Yasith Chhun, the head of the Cambodian Freedom Fighters, a group designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization, was indicted in May of 2005 for charges of plotting to overthrow the Cambodian government. He was also, The Los Angeles Times reported, a member of the NRCC's Business Advisory Council:

Before his federal indictment this week [Chuun] had raised $6,550 for the National Republican Congressional Committee and was invited to sit on the group's Business Advisory Council, which has tens of thousands of members nationwide, said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the committee....
Chhun attended the annual meeting of the National Republican Congressional Committee's business advisory council in Washington, D.C., last year. [NRCC Spokesman Carl] Forti said the committee did not know Chhun's group had been designated a terrorist organization, saying it was impossible to do background checks on all its members.

"At this point, the gentleman hasn't been convicted of anything," Forti said. If he is a terrorist, "it's something we need to look at. Clearly, we wouldn't want any leader of a terrorist organization being members of our business advisory council."

Again, why is this not being reported on widely? This raised issues about infiltration of our political parties, infiltration of our defense bureaucracy, and infiltration of the means our Homeland Security by those seeking to breach that security.

Call your Congressman, email local reporters, tell your friends and family...whatever. This story needs to be told and it needs much more stringent investigation.

Iran Roundup -- A lot of Juicy Information

Usually I try and incorporate articles into my blog posts, but today has had so many juicy news articles relating to Iran and neoconservatives that I decided that I would do this in a roundup format: List the link, give a general description of what the article is about, plus some personal commentary where necessary.

I'm human dammit (and I had 1 beer just cause it was in the fridge and I'm feeling none to creative. Damn, since when did I become such a lightweight? Honestly.)

First lets start with Iraq, as there is only one in this category

Iraq

Neoconservative suggests hangings for war and escalation dissenters in Congress:

Honestly, how is it that these people can get away with suggesting the death of fellow Americans (in Congress no less) because of their questioning views on the Iraq war and on the current escalation? As Attaturk mentions in his own blog, how is it that John Edwards bloggers came under such scrutiny and pressure due to insensitive and vulgar remarks regarding Catholicism and birth-control, yet a noted neoconservative figure can go around suggesting that Congresspeople opposing the surge are guilty of treason and should be hanged? And this guy is guilty of attributing a quote to Lincoln that Lincoln never said.... What a double standard.

Here, I'll give you a snippet:

First, make-believe quoting Abraham Lincoln (he never said that):

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.

Which leads to this...

It is, of course, unimaginable that the penalties proposed by one of our most admired presidents for the crime of dividing America in the face of the enemy would be contemplated -- let alone applied -- today.

Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to "damage morale and undermine the military" while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war. . . .

The Journal has properly warned that Senator Ahab's [the Wall St. Journal's name for Sen. Rockefeller Levin] misbehavior is likely to have implications far beyond the immediate disservice it does to Mr. Feith and those who labored so ably under him. It will likely also have a severely chilling effect on the willingness of policymakers rigorously to challenge, and thereby to improve, the quality of the intelligence they are getting about tomorrow's threats.

If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001.

Where is the outrage? Where is the media beating up this guy for suggesting something so horrible? And why do 2 bloggers on Edwards campaign get days upon days of attention for the remarks on their blog prior to their employment with Edwards?

Iran - The meat

Four former CIA officials conclude Iran conflict will occur:

I'll add that this is merely the opinions of 4 former CIA agents, and shouldn't be construed as some definite fact. Their opinions matter but understand that it is just informed opinion.

Powell tried to push Iran talks in 2003 following Iranian offers:

If you are confused about what offer I speak of, I mean this offer (pdf), in which the Iranians in 2003 agree to open up talks with the US to help it stabilize Iraq (wouldn't that have been great), to increase the transparency of its nuclear programs, to stop its funding for radical groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and to recognize the right of Israel to exist.

Condoleeza Rice has been on the record claiming that she never saw such a fax, and that the White House never saw it, but this account puts the lie to that claim. It is clear that Colin Powell tried to sell talks based on this at the White House, and failed. Which means that then NS Advisor Condi Rice, President Bush and Dick Cheney were aware of the offer through then SecofState Colin Powell.... and refused it.

Essentially, Condoleeza Rice lied to Congress when she recently denied ever hearing about this particular offer.

In fact a former aide of Condoleeza Rice has gone on the record and said that Rice 'mislead' Congress on Iran.

--------

The Fishy Iran Explosive Links to US soldier’s deaths

The past two posts have been devoted to this subject. As I mentioned before, it just does not add up. The numbers don't add up, and the logic doesn't add up.

The claims of Iranian direct involvement at the highest levels is very dubious. It simply defies logic that Iran would arm Sunni insurgents -- who are the group’s actually attacking US soldiers. It also defies logic to claim the bombings are from the Shia militias given that they are not at odds militarily at the moment, and in fact some of those Shia groups and militias have had ties and relations with the US and with the Iraqi government which is Shia dominated.

Others and I have put forward other likely explanations given these two improbable ones:

It is well known and not that surprising that Iran supplies Shia groups in Iraq, Sunni insurgents are undoubtably getting their weapons from Sunni Arab states (more likely not from the states themselves but wealthy individuals and rogue officials). That much is no surprise.

Those weapons are entering Iraq, but here is where the logic of the administration gets messed up. Depending on the accounts they believe that Sunni insurgents are being armed directly from Iran (that's so stupid) because they had those weapons. Or they believe that Shia groups are bombing them (not likely) because they also have been found to be in possession of such weapons and some of those groups have ties to Iran.

The alternate explanation deals with the implausibility in each story, and says:

Iraq is awash in weapons and has a thriving and flourishing black market arms market. Sunni insurgent groups and Shia militia groups both get tons of aid from their own benefactors, and often these groups sell some of their surplus or (perhaps need a quick buck) to arms dealers (middle men).

These arms conceivably can then wind up sold to Sunni insurgents who use them to kill Americans. From this, Bush is claiming direct aid from Iran to attackers when it is not likely that.

It doesn't help when Bush tried to muddle the issue and keep it purposely vague:

Josh Marshall:

The Iran innuendo continues. In his press conference today, President Bush said that the U.S. knows "with certainty" that the EFPs coming in from Iran for attacks on U.S. forces originate with the Qods Forces -- a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That's nothing new: Sunday's briefing made the same allegation. What came next is:
Bush declares himself deliberately agnostic as to why these Iranian munitions are in Iraq and who the Iranians may be giving them to. This is, however, the central issue at hand: not whether the al Quds force is operating with or without the approval of the Iranian government, but whether the al Quds force itself is actually responsible for arming fighters using the weapons against American soldiers and marines.

At stake is whether or not the Iranian government is pursuing what amounts to an act of war against U.S. troops.

If you saw Bush's press conference, essentially you are led with the impression that it does not matter if the Iranian state is directly involved or not, it should just be enough that there are Iranian weapons in Iraq.

Well, first off the fact that Iran has been sending arms to Shia militias has been well known among us and has been claimed many times before by the administration (nothing new), why is the Bush administration making such a big huff about something that has already been well-known? Well, I think its because they are trying to do something new here. Trying their hand at creating "innuendo" (as Josh calls it) -- based on the evidence or not -- that Iran is involved with the deaths of US soldiers. They are trying to plant that idea in the brains of the American public and the media, and their use of weasel words is more indication that this is the case and that their evidence of Iranian involvement is not really good, even in their eyes. They just want that idea out there floating in the heads of Americans so that they will have the wrong idea about Iranian involvement.

Think about the discredited 9/11-Iraq links: For years after this claim was discredited, majorities of the people continued to believe such a link existed because of subtle attempts to refer to Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath as if related.

So does it matter if Iran is merely arming Shia groups, or if it is arming Sunni insurgents as Bush says?

Yes. One is meddling in Iraq (like just about everyone in the Middle East); the latter implies that Iran has undertaken direct acts of war against the United States by directly causing the deaths of its soldiers. It certainly does matter. One is MUCH more serious.

I'll leave with one more article doubting the credibility of the charges coming from the White House and from (some) in the Pentagon.

Doubts raised on linking of Iran to US deaths

Peace folks, and please...don't drink and blog. Lol

[A Public Service Announcement from the Council For Tightwad Buzzkills]