Kerbala attack: Iranian fingerprints?

posted at 1:39 am on January 27, 2007 by Bryan

If Iranian agents are behind the murder of US soldiers in Kerbala, some things ought to explode on the Iranian side of the border. Bill Roggio has been checking with intel sources:

The American Forces Information Service provides the details of the attack in Karbala. Based on the sophisticated nature of the raid, as well as the response, or cryptic non-responses, from multiple military and intelligence sources, this raid appears to have been directed and executed by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps. My sources agreed this is far too sophisticated an operation for the Mahdi Army or Badr Corps, while al-Qaeda in Iraq would have a difficult time mounting such an operation in the Shia south. “The Karbala Government Center raid the other day was a little too professional for JAM [Jaish al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army],” according to a military source.

This raid required specific intelligence, in depth training for the agents to pass as American troops, resources to provide for weapons, vehicles, uniforms, identification, radios and other items needed to successfully carry out the mission. Hezbollah’s Imad Mugniyah executed a similar attack against Israeli forces on the Lebanese border, which initiated the Hezbollah-Israeli war during the summer of 2006.

Hezbollah=Iran. Iran has been sheltering Mugniyah for a long time.

Read Bill’s entire post. The US announced in the past day or so that Iranians working with the insurgents in Iraq are now fair game. This should have been the policy for at least a year, but the Kerbala atrocity may have been the final straw that forced a shift now. The war in Iraq has long been with Iranian agents (among a whole host of others), and it may be about to heat up.

Too bad more US troops had to die before Washington made this long overdue move, though.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

‘If’ is for CSI. The hell with that. One loose daisy cutter in downtown Qum ought to send the message. After that JDAM and Hellfire everything with a beard.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Game on.

Editor on January 27, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Probably the biggest single problem in Iraq is the intervention of foreign powers attempting to widen the conflict, inflict casualties, destabalize the government of Iraq, and setting the stage for possible conquest of portions of Iraq. One guess who the biggest player is in this intervention.

Iran is a paper tiger that is capable of less than many give it credit for – at the moment. I sincerely hope that the United States and Iraq protect their own interests and smash the Iranians whever they find them, without pause, and to complete obliteration. Nothing short of complete anahiliation will do when it comes to Iranian interference in Iraq.

omegaram on January 27, 2007 at 2:07 AM

Problem with that Paper Tiger theory is that they have the backing of Russia and China.

Editor on January 27, 2007 at 2:10 AM

Is this from ABC News about more info about Iranian arms smuggled into Iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2827421&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Potential New Evidence of Iran Providing Weapons to Iraqi Insurgents

Out of all the enemies the United States faces in Iraq, the most troubling ones come from Iran, and according to U.S. officials, the Pentagon will soon present evidence that Iran is providing deadly weapons to insurgents.

ABC News has learned the weapons include efps, explosively formed pentrators that can cut through the strongest armor.

William Amos on January 27, 2007 at 2:12 AM

Not a chance in the world Editor. They will huff and puff and pass U.N. resolutions then it’s business as usual.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Uh, Limerick, I don’t know if you misunderstood me or if I’m misunderstanding you, but Iran definitely has the backing of those 2 countries.

Editor on January 27, 2007 at 2:18 AM

I understood. You actually think Russia and China would commit their military?

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 2:19 AM

Not right now – but I sincerely believe they are supplying moral and material support.

Editor on January 27, 2007 at 2:20 AM

I’m going to go pessimistic on you editor….two Air Force fighter wings and one carrier battle group….the Iranian Air Force lives 6 hours. Without air superiority Iran will be unable to receive the material support. Moral support doesn’t stop B2s.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 2:32 AM

We should have drones watching the borders 24×7, laying waste to anything that moves across. Game is on, no doubt. Let’s get serious.

prototype on January 27, 2007 at 2:34 AM

If Iranian agents are behind the murder of US soldiers in Kerbala, some things ought to explode on the Iranian side of the border.

Assuming Iran is behind this attack. It would not be the first time they are accused of it. In fact the perps behind Khobar Towers showed a similar MO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

From the wiki article…

With Khobar terrorists tried to drive a water truck on base and park it to do more damage.

They were turned away and as a result they went to plan-B and parked it just outside the complex.

F15Mech on January 27, 2007 at 2:34 AM

If your troops (our brave children) are struggling in a foreign conflict, it makes a lot of sense to send in reinforcements.

To let them struggle and die for anti war politics when we could be saving their lives by strengthening troop levels is well past irresponsible.

Double or triple the numbers, if that’s what’s needed to provide a functioning environment and get that environment stabilized. No matter what it takes, it’s American’s lives at stake here.

Then we can afford to bicker but not before our troops have the strength of numbers needed to support themselves while in harms way.
Any less is equivalent to a politician pointing a finger at a GI and saying, your next.

There’s nothing lower than allowing even one soldiers death by politic.

There is always a price to pay, for winning.
The price to pay for losing is always greater.

Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 2:37 AM

the politicians that tied the hands of our soldiers need to be exposed and hung…

retired on January 27, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Probably nothing will happen.

I have little confidence at this point in our leaders, including Bush, to get serious with Iran over things like this. I would love to be proven wrong, but this is the same president that let Moqtada al-Sadr get to where he is today by not taking him out a few years ago, and this isn’t the first time we’ve apprehended Iranians soldiers or learned that they were providing aid to those killing our soldiers (in the form of Iranian-manufactured shaped charges, for example).

What have we done about the Iranians at this point?

Nothing.

tommy1 on January 27, 2007 at 3:27 AM

this may seem politically incorrect in this “modern age”, but IMHO we have owed Iran a major PAYBACK since 1979. Perhaps now, we can have the excuse we need to obliterate Tehran.

You mess with the USA, you die. If that message gets out there, terrorism will quietly go away.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 27, 2007 at 4:11 AM

BTW, Please give me a “K”. My name is supposed to be JayHawk.

Thanks.

:D

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 27, 2007 at 4:11 AM

Karbala, like Roggio spells it.

bdfaith on January 27, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Or maybe not. Was that one of the places you went? Just realized whose post I was commenting on.

bdfaith on January 27, 2007 at 4:48 AM

Yet Sen. Joe Biden (who’s been running for 2008 since..oh..about November of 1942) wants us to turn the other cheek with Iran, tying the hands of our military, hence belittle Bush in the eyes of Americans and terrorists.

oakpack on January 27, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Step 1. Start dipping all of our bullets in pig blood.
Step 2. Every non-Iraqi we find, march them to the border, shoot them with porcine tainted bullets and bury them with pigs.

This is an asymmetric war. We usually refer to asymmetry when talking about strategy, tactics and equipment. This is asymmetric not just because of these differences. More importantly, it is asymmetric because we don’t understand the enemy and we assign Western values to their motives (like we did in Viet Nam).

Jihadis love and welcome death as martyrs. If you ensure them that you’re not just killing them but also sending them straight to hell, let’s see how many line up. Unfortunately, we are too worried that we are going to offend them while they are worried that they aren’t killing us fast enough.

cmay on January 27, 2007 at 8:04 AM

We should have drones watching the borders 24×7, laying waste to anything that moves across. Game is on, no doubt. Let’s get serious.

prototype on January 27, 2007 at 2:34 AM

Aviation Week and Space Technology, Jan. 22, 2007 article “A Need To Succeed” has a photo of the “new, improved-sensor Global Hawk…” with the mission of monitoring Iraq’s cross border traffic with Iran and Syria.

Zorro on January 27, 2007 at 8:45 AM

As for China’s relationship with Iran, the same article continues…

Last week, Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh, a member of the Iranian parliament, was quoted by a China’s Xin-hua news agency as saying Iranian troops shot down an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft… AWST Jan.22.2007 p.29

I believe Russia and China consider it is in their best interest to keep us occupied in Iraq as long as possible. If using the Iranians to help do that, well, there you have it.

Zorro on January 27, 2007 at 9:04 AM

Yep Zorro…..China wants us screaming and yelling at each other as long as possible. It can’t take care of Taiwan until it finishes it’s 600 ship navy and if we loose in Iraq the odds of us interfering with them pretty small.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Whats wrong with you people? Don’t you know that if we’d just leave the ME all of our problems would go away?

csdeven on January 27, 2007 at 9:26 AM

I suspect that there will be more mysterious large explosions in Iran as a result of this raid.

Bob Owens on January 27, 2007 at 9:54 AM

I’m reading Guests of the Ayatollah just to fire back up my 79′ emotions about Iran. It’s not hard to do. I’m with Limerick and Jayhawk, payback time. Much is said of how patient AQ is regarding a strike. Say hello to American patience. It’s time. Another commenter had a great plan where Iran’s refineries are hit combined with Naval blockade until the people revolt. A similar plan it turns out was considered in 79.(Bottom of page 138.) I say wing attack plan R.
Then send Delta force to HA’s server to rescue Jayhawk’s hostage K in a daring night-vision chopper raid. Free Jayhawk. Give me K or give me death.

Buck Turgidson on January 27, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I imaging it might not be that hard to declare war on Iran if their government sponsored operatives/fighters get into very many pitched battles with our troops in Iraq.

Once tensions get high enough a U.S. Navel vessel strays a little too close and Iran fires an Exocet missile I’m thinking the war is on.

Iran remember is a whole other ball game from Iraq.
Their military, though not of course comparable to ours, is however up to date with the new Russia’s finest armaments and Russia of course secured the service and training contracts to go with the sales.
So if we do take on Iran, Russian pilots and command and control will be tested against our military.
Iran also has a huge network sleepers in our own country.

This all might sound glorious but not necessarily exercising the brain option to effect regime change in Iran.

Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM

From WaPo story linked in Bill Roggio’s piece:

A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.

“This has little to do with Iraq. It’s all about pushing Iran’s buttons. It is purely political,” the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States’ increasing inability to stanch the violence there.

Appeasers like this need to be flushed out and fired post- haste. This person would allow Iran to train the Mahdi Army, foment chaos in Iraq which destabilizes the whole region and imperils the U.S., and kill our soldiers with impunity.

Clearly, this person’s alliance is to the Democrat Party and not to our Republic.

Buy Danish on January 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

No worry….with Hanoi Jane marching in DC today all our problems are solved. I can live in peace now. Will sign pledge to not spank my children and never never never shake a soldier’s hand.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

with Hanoi Jane marching in DC today

Speeding tickets are payed in ninety days but treason is forever.

Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Russia and China are not allies of Iran, they are cooperating with Iran for the term that is in their best economic and poltical interest.

Military equipment, including sophisticated air defense systems, nuclear technology, economic transactions, and limited political support is what Iran is getting now, and will get in the future from China and Russia. China and Russia will continue this arrangement because it is in their best interest, at the moment.

China and Russia also support Iran because Iran can be used as a proxy against the United States. China and Russia are not enemies of the United States, they are compeititors and opponents. They are not interested in a World War, they are intersted in limiting American power, influence, and their own economic gain.

It will give some satisfaction to see China and Russia in the same place the United States was in when they desire UN cooperation and are blocked by the US. The UN is a political body with it’s own agenda, definitely anti-US, but powerless to gain concensus because of US veto power and allied support.

Perhaps the best way to think of China and Russia is as one would think of a “Ferengi”. Totally profit motivated, lacking moral and ethical standards that we relate to, will cooperate only when it is clearly in their best interest, and will actively support anyone who is providing resistance to a competitor.

omegaram on January 27, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Russia and China are not allies of Iran, they are cooperating with Iran for the term that is in their best economic and poltical interest.

Military equipment, including sophisticated air defense systems, nuclear technology, economic transactions, and limited political support is what Iran is getting now, and will get in the future from China and Russia. China and Russia will continue this arrangement because it is in their best interest, at the moment.

Now expand your field a bit – all the major players nations are engaged in this sort of thing an have been for many years.

China and Russia also support Iran because Iran can be used as a proxy against the United States. China and Russia are not enemies of the United States, they are compeititors and opponents. They are not interested in a World War, they are intersted in limiting American power, influence, and their own economic gain

Not quite true – Russia has considered us an enemy since around 1919 in one form or another. China for at least as long and possibly before as we were considered a part of that class of foreigners who had exploited them.

We are politically, although possibly not culturally enemies and that is bad enough because of the potential for the political to spill over through the skillful use of media to the mass.

They definitely want ecomomic gain – and if they get that gain, guess who loses?

That’s right – we do – at least initially.

It will give some satisfaction to see China and Russia in the same place the United States was in when they desire UN cooperation and are blocked by the US. The UN is a political body with it’s own agenda, definitely anti-US, but powerless to gain concensus because of US veto power and allied support.

Nice thought, but this will not happen – why?

Because it would be bad for our busines interests. If you don’t believe that, look at many of the (what used to be predominately US) major companies that we are familiar with (not just oil, although that is instructive).

They will openly state that they consider themselves to be multinational or global, not merely American.

Just think, if they feel that way about the business end of it, what would make you think that they are that “patriotic” about the societal end of the equation?

Perhaps the best way to think of China and Russia is as one would think of a “Ferengi”. Totally profit motivated, lacking moral and ethical standards that we relate to, will cooperate only when it is clearly in their best interest, and will actively support anyone who is providing resistance to a competitor.

This comes closest, however, keep in mind that business works well with business – no matter where it is.

War, suffering, etc.. is merely the price one must endure of making sure that business is good and that the bottom line reflects positively upon their interests.

Unfortunately, those interests are not often those shared by tha majority.

Further keep in mind that there are not true competitors except in the business sense – and regional trouble spots that impede the flow of trade.

Situational Ethics will dictate how it is both presented to “us” and how “we” must respond, when in reality it is conflict between business interests, some of whom actually beleive that governments control business when in the real world it is the other way around.

Look around you – it does not matter whether you look at the US, UK, Europe, South America, Middle East, etc..

Politicians are bought and sold with dizzying frequency. They purport to serve “our” interests, but in reality serve their corporate masters better – any benefit we get is purely incidental from these elitists.

And they are from both parties – again, it gives the illusion of chioce, although I do beleive that that facade is crumbling a bit and at least some of the people are starting to see clearer.

Make no mistake – China and Russia are our enemies. They will support Iran, it is true, due to the potential to destabilize us in any trouble spot world-wide, just as they support Chavez, Castro, etc..

The goal is to destroy the US. Their actions kill our warfighters.

I only wish it were possible for the money boys and uniformed pampered princes in DC to do the right thing for a change and look out for our soldiers instead of their business portfolios.

That would mean unleashing our warfighters to do what must be done and do it right with decisive force so that our enemies cannot stand against us for at least as long as it takes for them to rebuild their countries back to the industrial age from the stone age we should leave them in.

We as individuals fight for survival of self and of culture – not the bottom line for a congressman, senator, or generals portfolio.

Emmett J. on January 27, 2007 at 3:21 PM

If Iranian agents are behind the murder of US soldiers in Kerbala, some things ought to explode on the Iranian side of the border.

Oh, how I wished that we could have taken out these worthless folks since 1979. I only hope against hope that we could take them out for good. We’d miss nothing from this region of the world – aside from possibly oil, they giove nothing of value to the planet either culturally, spritually, or otherwise.

Oil, I would note, we can get anywhere pretty much.

Emmett J. on January 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Once all the people are dead, just plant a spigot in the smoking ground and let the oil flow.

Maybe the radiation will give the gas an extra octane or two.

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Limerick,

I hope you didn’t take my questioning of the “paper tiger” theory as hesitation to attack Iran or target Iranian agents. That is 180-degrees opposite my stance. In fact, I’ve consistantly said and still believe Iraq has always been about Iran – the main reason I supported and continue to support a presense in Iraq. It can’t happen fast enough for me.

My only contention is that if we’re ready to take on Iran we better understand we’re taking them on as a proxy, just like Iraq is. Agreed they would be defeated quite readily, which is one of the reasons I’m ready.

Editor on January 27, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Gee, it’s taken how many years to prove what has been known by most for years ??? … PC war is a waste of treasure and American lives. General Sherman knew it … Churchhill knew it … Vietnam proved it in the modern era …I suspected we were doomed in our efforts when the war first started and the MSM question was always split between how long will it last and how much will it cost … President Bush was too soft about it being a long struggle … the right answer would have been it will be over when we have achieved victory, and it will cost what it takes to reach that end.

America no longer has the stomach to shoulder the burdens it’s highground beliefs require. I’m glad I’m old and have no children … I have little confidence that the future holds a positive outcome … but hey, I read Mark Steyn to cheer me up .

Paul

pbary on January 27, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Wow just had a mental image of Sherman doing a march through Iran ending up in Tehran.

Made me smile.

The only way to fight a war is total war. Everything else is just ****ing around.

JayHawk (with a “K”)

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 27, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Ya’all do remember that it was this type of attack that provoked Israel into pounding south Lebanon into rubble?

Ya’all do remember that Nasrallah was quoted as saying he was surprised by that response?

Would Iran then hope for a similiar response from the US? Or do the leaders in Iran believe that we will react as we did in Mogadishu when the two Blackhawks were shot down?

Ya’all do know that it was three years later that General Mohamed Farrah Aidid died of gunshot wounds?

rockhauler on January 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Hmmm… just a thought but it appears that Iraq has national borders like ours here in the USA… Just about anything can get through.

ricer1 on January 28, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Emmett J:

Your post above was well taken, we agree on many points, but the point of contention is that you believe China and Russia are enemies of the United States at this time and I believe that they are competitors and opponents, at this time.

That could be an entire set of threads on this topic alone, starting with the definition of an “enemy” and what foundation you have for your conclusion that Russia and China are enemies of the United States since 1918 or so.

I believe that, at present, both Russia and China are not enemies that wish complete destruction on the US., they wish to limit U.S. power to great degree and continue to exploit our system to their economic advantage. China in particular is benefiting greatly from their exports to the United States and has great interest to see that relationlship continue.

Russia has it’s own reasons for a degree of cooperation but destruction of the United States is not in their best interest either.

This post and thread are about to disappear into archives on Hot Air, but the point is made. If you wish to respond perhaps you would reveal your defintion of “enemy” and your rationale for concluding that Russia and China are enemies, and not competitiors and opponents

omegaram on January 29, 2007 at 12:32 AM