Four must-reads on Iran
posted at 3:33 pm on February 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Sorry to half-ass it like this but it is, after all, the day of rest.
Seriously, though, read ‘em. None of them are boring, I promise.
1. U.S. intel finally went public this morning with evidence of Iranian IEDs being used in Iraq. ToL has the best account. According to a senior intelligence officer (or officers, if you believe the Beeb), they’re being funnelled by “multiple surrogates” to “rogue elements” of the Mahdi army. Capable of destroying an Abrams tank, the IEDs have supposedly killed 170 American soldiers since 2004. As for those six Iranian “diplomats” in U.S. custody:
During the briefing, the officer said that one of the six Iranians detained in January in the northern city of Irbil was the operational commander of the Quds Brigade, a unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that trains and equips Shia militants abroad. He was identified as Mohsin Chizari, who was apprehended after slipping back into Iraq after a ten-month absence, the officer said.
The Iranians were caught trying to flush documents down a lavatory, the American officer said. They had also tried to change their appearance because bags of their hair were found during the raid, he added.
The left naturally dismisses all this as preposterous, a redux of BUSH’S LIES about weapons of mass destruction. None other than Greg Mitchell wrote a piece for E&P yesterday mocking the militantly pro-war New York Times for publishing an article about the IEDs by Michael Gordon, the same reporter responsible for some of the paper’s WMD reporting in 2003. “And it begins,” declare DUers about this morning’s briefing, lamenting the fact that they must now in good conscience trust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s word more than their own government’s.
2. Counterterrorism Blog contributor Olivier Guitta makes a compelling case in the Weekly Standard that not only could strong sanctions derail Iran’s nuke program, they might conceivably bring down the regime. The Iranians themselves seem to be worried about it — assuming, that is, that the report comissioned by the Iranian parliament from which Guitta quotes is the real deal and not propaganda deliberately leaked to the west to make sanctions look more effective than they’d be. Money quote: “In the event of sanctions, the bulk of Iranian industry would be paralyzed after just three to four months.” They’ll never happen, though, as Guitta explains, thanks to Putin, Hu, and of course Jacques Chirac.
3. Is Iran using Al Qaeda prisoners for leverage against the U.S.? There have been rumors for years that the mullahs are holding top AQ leaders, including Saif al-Adel and Osama’s son, Saad, under house arrest after they crossed over into the country from Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion. (Remember this too-bad-to-be-true bombshell from November about Iranian Shiites allegedly training the next generation of AQ’s Sunni leadership?) WaPo reported on page one yesterday that the CIA claims Iran has captured two new AQ operatives traveling inside the country on their way to Iraq and is threatening to start releasing people if the U.S. makes a strong push for new sanctions. The most interesting part:
Since al-Qaeda fighters began streaming into Iran from Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, Tehran had turned over hundreds of people to U.S. allies and provided U.S. intelligence with the names, photographs and fingerprints of those it held in custody, according to senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials. In early 2003, it offered to hand over the remaining high-value targets directly to the United States if Washington would turn over a group of exiled Iranian militants hiding in Iraq.
Some of Bush’s top advisers pushed for the trade, arguing that taking custody of bin Laden’s son and the others would produce new leads on al-Qaeda. They were also willing to trade away the exiles — members of a group on the State Department’s terrorist list — who had aligned with Saddam Hussein in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government.
Officials have said Bush ultimately rejected the exchange on the advice of Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who argued that any engagement would legitimize Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism. Bush’s National Security Council agreed to accept information from Iran on al-Qaeda but offer nothing in return, officials said.
4. Finally, do not miss Seixon’s dismantling of the Guardian’s recent scare piece about a looming attack on Iran. Newsweek is reporting today that a second Navy carrier group is on its way to the Persian Gulf and that a third is soon to follow, but it doesn’t say how it knows. As Seixon explains, when it comes to Iran stories, sourcing is everything.









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
We, collectively seem to be looking through a glass, darkly.
Perhaps it will be more interesting to see how this plays out. Either it could be disinformation or partial truth, which is sort of the same thing – or it could be actual news, although I suspect that it’s a blend of the two.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Either a snooze-fest or World War III. Time will tell
Emmett J. on February 11, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I just read the Seixon’s post about a ‘doable’ strike as claimed by the press and how long the preparations have been going on and I have to say: the press is spreading BS! The option of a military bombing strike has been ‘doable’ since I was in the Army back in the 80′s. Remember the bombing of targets in Libya? It’s not that difficult to launch a missile strike or drop a bomb on any target in Iran.
Just how much preparation does it take to drop a modern GPS guided munition anyways? Or a launch of a cruse missle? That can be ‘doable’ in under an hour. The press needs to stop making claims that are absurd.
RedinBlueCounty on February 11, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Let me ask a simple question: If you support our troops, as both Dems and Reps claim to do, how can you rule out any, any, attack on Iran when they are providing the means to kill American soldiers.
Honestly, where are our “leaders” on this? Much like our pre-9/11 attitude, we are at war with Iran but we just don’t recognize it.
Yet.
billy on February 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Not just four stories, but 11 links. Now you can rest.
My favorite gut-buster this morning was Larijani saying Iran is no threat to Israel. Where would we get that crazy idea?
JammieWearingFool on February 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM
LoveWar is in the airIn the whisper of the
treesnewsLoveWar is in the airIn the thunder of the seas
Entelechy on February 11, 2007 at 4:28 PM
That’s a direct quote for the article. You see, it’s our inability to ‘forgive’ the Iranians that is the problem and not the fact that they are trying to make weapons of mass destruction, have been and currently are still aiding just about every anti-American group in the world with money and materials, and call for the complete eradication of Israel and the west. If only Bush and the neocons could forgive them then all would be well, according to the wise heads at the Guardian anyways
Man, these people are insane!
RedinBlueCounty on February 11, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Great post for your time off Allah, thanksI belive no matter what Bush does he is dammed but I support him and Cheney over any of the writers in the MSM. They all have BDS and bad. Bush couldn’t get a fair shake, even in the men’s room. Sad !!
bones47 on February 11, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Let me get this straight, this DUmmie shows that it has been positively identified through forensic analysis that the weapons were made in Iran, yet he dismisses that evidence as flimsy? Maybe he should watch a few more episodes of CSI and learn a few things about forensic analysis.
RedinBlueCounty on February 11, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I hate the media. They’re always looking for the next 9/11, the next Vietnam, the next Nixon, the next Lewinsky, the next Jean Benet Ramsey. It is not about a public service to the truth, its a great hunt for ratings, sales and fame.
Savage on February 11, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Never let the facts get in the way of a good Bush Bashing.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I knew there was something I especially disliked about muslims, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the hair. It’s all that hair.
Kralizec on February 11, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Exactly why do you feel the need to share this thought with all and sundry of the internets?
billy on February 11, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Ah-loony-boonyjab threatens to nuke Israel off the map and there is this complete moronic traitor moonbat over at DU saying he trusts the Iranians over Bush.
Somebody call the guys in the white suits to throw a net over that screwball!
csdeven on February 11, 2007 at 8:15 PM
What, did they grind off the “made in Russia” label.
Buzzy on February 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I know you’re an atheist, Allah, but you could at least get it right. The day of rest is Saturday. The easy way to remember this is the Spanish name of the day, ‘Sábado’, derived from ‘Sabbath’. Sunday is ‘Domingo’, The Lord’s Day.
And no, I’m not SDA.
The Monster on February 11, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Oh, sure…
Jaibones on February 11, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Is this why the Dems keep telling Bush not to attack Iran? Yes, take the Jimmuh Cahtah approach. After all, it worked so well for him.
thedecider on February 12, 2007 at 12:19 AM
As I said on the other thread, the sooner we strike Iran, the better.
georgej on February 12, 2007 at 2:10 PM
The source of the reporting that Seixon identifies indicates that there is a cadre of leftists who are trying to “spoil” any planning for a strike on Iran by trying to rouse up opposition in advance in a preemptorary fashion.
Or perhaps they are trying to warn their allies in Tehran that the blow is coming by telling the world (and Tehran) what our “order of battle” is.
Or perhaps both.
Well, these leftists are correct….
The strike is coming. 107 dead Americans, plus the dead at Khobar and the Marine barracks are the responsibility of Iran. And this doesn’t include payback for taking our embassy in 1979 and holding our people hostage in primitive captivity for 444 days.
georgej on February 12, 2007 at 2:25 PM