The So-called Iran Dossier

The first question to ask yourself when it comes to what may be in a Pentagon dossier about Iran's supposed activities in Iraq is: why is such a dossier even being compiled? Everything else stems from the answer to that question.

On Friday, defence secretary Gates had this to say about possible Iranian weapons being found in Iraq:

Speaking with reporters in Seville, Spain, on Friday before traveling to Munich, Gates told reporters that markings on explosives provide "pretty good" evidence that Iranians are supplying either weapons or technology for Iraqi extremists.

"I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found" that point to Iran, he said.

Gates' remarks left unclear how the U.S. knows the serial numbers are traceable to Iran and whether such weapons would have been sent to Iraq by the Iranian government or by private arms dealers.

Yet, the AP headline of that article is: "Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists".

Similarly on Saturday, a front page New York Times article has this headline: "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says".

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.

It was also widely reported in January that the Iranians and Chinese, along with other countries, have been able to purchase surplus military supplies - including missile parts - from the Pentagon with astonishing ease - not to mention the fact that EFPs are often used in the oil patch and might not be all that difficult for Iraqi insurgents to get their hands on considering the poor security in the oil fields.

The NYT story, relying on the opinions of anonymous "officials" then goes on to make the case against Iran, bringing back shades of Judith Miller's reports about Iraq's supposed WMD prior to the Iraq war and the public is right to be more than skeptical this time around as well - especially considering the author's history.

Consider this:

According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb [EFPs], and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq.

Yet, reporter Patrick Cockburn offers a very different perspective:

Iran is now being promoted as the new demon. It is supposedly behind the provision of roadside bombs that have killed so many US and British troops - though the technology involved in these simple but deadly devices could generally be found in a garden shed.

The key to all of this can be found in these words:

In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq.

If the US government thinks it can prove that the Iranian government is providing support to "terrorists" in Iraq, it can claim that it has the right to invade - just as it did when it chose to attack Afghanistan after 9/11 because the Taliban were supporting al Qaeda.

While the administration has claimed that it doesn't have plans to attack Iran (which only the staunchest of kool aid drinkers actually believe), others present a much different picture:

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
[...]
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."

But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.
[...]
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.

"All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation."

While the administration is beating the war drums against Iran for possibly backing Shi'ites in Iraq by supplying weapons and expertise (which has yet to be proven to be an official Iranian government effort), the White House takes a very different and protectionist stance over claims being reported that the Saudis are funneling money to Sunnis in Iraq - happily denying those stories and defending the Saudi monarchy. And when the Saudis announced they wanted to develop nuclear technology for "peaceful purposes", just as Iran had stated, Bushco hardly batted an eye.

Meanwhile, the Saudis are putting pressure on the US government to get more involved in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process which also involves the Iranians. To this point, of course, Bush's people have all but given up on any kind of diplomacy and have resorted instead to just funneling money to Abbas while still refusing to talk to the Iranians about anything and that is a sure recipe for disaster - as if things could possibly get worse in the Middle East.

If the Bush administration goes ahead with an invasion of Iran or targeted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, they will unleash a Middle East war of epic proportions. They seem to forget that Iraq's Shi'a led government has been talking to the Iranians and that emboldening Iran by attacking it could create a Shi'ite bloc in the region that the Saudis (and al Qaeda) will be compelled to respond to. Then again, they never did consider what might happen in Iraq once they invaded there either, so why should anyone think that they would actually listen to reason when it comes to dealing with Iran? They'll just cloak it in "freedom is on the march" and walk away, leaving it to the next US government and the people of the Middle East to sort out while the neocons pat each other on the back for a job well done.

Oh yes, then there's Turkey.

Related: Putin has a few words for Bush

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin said U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are eroding global security and that plans to build a missile shield in eastern Europe will spur a new arms race.

``The U.S. has overstepped its political limits in almost all spheres,'' Putin told a meeting of policy makers including U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Munich today. ``We are witnessing an almost unrestrained hyper-use of force in international relations.''

Putin, addressing the annual Munich conference of 250 security and defense experts from 40 nations, said the U.S. approach to world affairs ``is extremely dangerous'' and has led to ``no one feeling secure anymore.'' Russia doesn't need lessons in democracy from ``people who didn't practice it themselves.''
[...]
Putin, turning to Gates, said ``you have made a mistake'' when judging that missiles launched from Iran could threaten eastern Europe. The Islamic Republic's missiles can reach no more than between 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) and 2,000 kilometers, the Russian president said.

No doubt Putin will soon be characterized as Russia's Hugo Chavez by the right-wing after that blistering attack.

Also related: John Dean explores whether a war against Iran can be stopped constitutionally.

On Iran: Would you buy used intel from these guys?