Iran: Who funds the Revolutionary Guards?

I'm glad to see someone in the media reacting with skepticism to this story. Micheal Ware on CNN has certainly taken up beating the war drums this morning. It is clear that the Bush administration is once again laying the seeds for war. Let's just hope the TV news people don't haul out the "Countdown to War" banners and start ginning people up again with out asking some damn good questions first.

Say, Joe IS there ANYTHING that you might, someday, deem reason enough to commit American armed forces to battle?

Apparently, Iranian exports of mass murder IS not on that list.

Call it the Dodd Doctrine: "If they can't sit, the troops won't fit."

Great post, and I fear you're right about the administration beating the war drums. Biden or Kerry or Levin or somebody needs to start pushing back loud and publicly, or maybe a certain presidential candidate looking to make amends for her vote on the Iraq AUMF.

How much of the same--we don't know what's really going on the government, money being funnelled to violent "charities", supporting different violent factions in Iraq--can be said of Saudi Arabia?

Interesting point Joe, and one I hadn't yet seen elsewhere in reports on the briefing. If you haven't seen it yet, don't miss Josh Marshall today on the Iran question.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012393.php

Hey QH- Ever hear of this "Osama" feller? He's not in Iraq or Iran, my halfwitted little friend.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. ...without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... " “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." SENATOR JOHN F KERRY (D, MA), in 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."SENATOR TED KENNEDY (D, MA), in 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – NANCY PELOSI, in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." – AL GORE, in 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), in 2002

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, in 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, in 1999

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." – BILL CLINTON, in 1998

Joe - Good post. I applaud your skepticism in this, the run up to the Iran War.

"Hey QH- Ever hear of this "Osama" feller? He's not in ...Iran..."

You sure about that, Sphincter Bliss?

PS: This war will not end with a free Iraq, or a dead Bin Laden, or an American withdrawal. It will end when the islamist states that harbor and pay the murdering scum clean up their own back yards - with a little help from Uncle Sam.

" You sure about that,"

Yes.

Moron.

Joe,
Welcome back to reality. Glad you are acting like a journalist this time. Your points are well founded, keep it up.

"The troops returning home are worried. 'We've lost the peace,' men tell you. 'We can't make it stick.' ... Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. ... Never has American prestige in Europe been lower.... Instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.... A great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease. The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met."
-- Life Magazine, January 7, 1946

"Mutterings of a quagmire from his own party today following severe American losses in initial forays with hardened German units have led some to speculate that charges of impeachment may soon be brought against President Roosevelt.

'Hitler did not bomb us, Japan bombed us, so why are we at war with Germany?' shouted Senator Hart Shanks (D, NY). 'Bring the boys home, now!'

Meanwhile, college campuses in the Midwest and feeling their first taste of live radio feeds to both of the left coasts demanded FDR re-instate Marxist social reforms, as the troops slogged through North Africa. 'We are wasting billions on this illegal war, caused by a duped Congress and a 3-term dictator hell bent on getting all social services removed for the sake of world freedom. Ludicrous!' exclaimed Ben DeNova of Students For A Detonated Society.

Congress seemed inclined to fence-sit, awaiting the outcome of the next major battle results before deciding which side to join in this escalating political street fight. 'I'd like to think the President knew what he was getting us into after Pearl, but we've been at war for almost 2 years and we still haven't reached Europe or Japan to any degree. I'm beginning to think Mr. Roosevelt has been mislead by his advisers, or mislead us deliberately, simply to get public minds off his Depression numbers.'

Asked to comment, White House spokeschick Fawn Doo stated that the 'President has heard these same complaints since before the war was initiated by Japan and Germany, never mind Churchill's missed dire warnings from a full decade earlier, and we think that once the Japanese interment camps in California hit full capacity the tide will begin to swing our way, at least in the Congressional districts where our paid voters have been apt to accept anything as a unionized favor in the past. In the mean time he's off to Canada's beautiful Campobello Island once again to do whatever he do do.'

More on this same network, after this word from Tokyo Rose..."

QH,

Where's that WMD again, bitch?

Oh, and

Aldrich Ames
Robert Hanssen
Dick Cheney

Good post, Joe.

Josh Marshall linked to a Juan Cole post, where he pointed out that the vast bulk of US casualties are coming in Sunni areas.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-for-bogus-iran-weapons.html

Even if Iran is doing bad things-- and it wouldn't be a shocking reaction, given that we put them in the axis of evil, refused to talk to them when they were willing to put everything on the table a few years back, and the architects of the Iraq invasion have also long been of a mind to invade Iran-- they are not a substantial cause of our problems there.

You go, Joe. Stick to the 'chain of evidence'. I did hear one former WH security adviser, Hillary Mann, on American Morning this AM say that she thought the WH was pushing to promote a 'provocative accidental incident'.

I took this to mean that all the incidents in Iraq (weapons, arrests, a confidential source, etc.) are definitely a planned series of trying to 'call out the Khomeini/Big A'. Playground tactics of little boy minds armed with big bombs.

Guess I listened when Mann spoke, because this was my take on all the 'news' that we have been getting feed. The administration wants to go, but is at least aware that the nation and the international 'neighborhood' just won't support the open aggression of Shock and Awe. Following Gates' statements is a real head spinner.

Joe,
It looks like Peter Pace(better known at the chairmen of the JCS) is as skeptical as you.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-12-voa20.cfm

Glad to see you're at least more incredulous this time.
Just remember...most of us know how to Google and know about your explicit support of the war (which occurred after you 'said' you were against it), so don't attempt a repeat.

Hey...ah, Hill..ary...if that' your DNA.

How's the coffee over there at AEI? Or is it the Heritage Foundation?

Bring me a cup. You're good enough at carrying water for the Administration.

shorter Klein: "I'm not falling for that one again!"

congratulations... I think.

The US complaining about foreign interference in Iraq brakes the needle on the hypocrisy scale. The evidence thus far does not support the conclusions they have drawn. Its like me producing a pair of panties to prove I had just banged the ghost of Anna Nichole Smith. Frankly I don't believe a damn thing that this administration claims.

Good on you, Joe.

This administration ploy reeks of warmongering.

And the joke line issues a punchline that actually makes sense

just curious... when all those Soviet helicopters were being shot down by American-made Stingers, did the Soviets start beating the war drums for a direct confrontation with the US?

... in Afghanistan. The mujahideen using American-made Stingers to shoot down Russkie choppers in Afghanistan. That's what I meant to say.

*sigh* back to remedial commenting for me.

Good Joe. You know, it is obvious that every black market weapons dealer in the world is going to want a piece of the action in Iraq, and doubtless that includes many Iranians who would get a hold of Iranian weaponry. The fact that most of our problems are in Suni areas tells me this less a Iranian Government problem, who would be supporting Shia factions, then a arms dealer problem, who ostensibly would sell to whoever has money to pay them.

"Ok. i don't care that U.S. intelligence officers didn't want to reveal their identities when discussing the Iranian munitions that have been used against our troops."

The reason I find it potentially newsworthy is that it may be illegal:

****Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that he'd review whether Feith may have violated the 1947 National Security Act.

The act "requires the heads of all departments and agencies of the U.S. government involved in intelligence activities `to keep the congressional oversight committees informed,' " Rockefeller said. "The IG has concluded that (Feith's) office was engaged in intelligence activities. The Senate Intelligence Committee was never informed of these activities. Whether these actions were authorized or not, it appears that they were not in compliance with the law." *****

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16656258.htm

The reason why they wanted to remain anonymous may be because they don't consult with congress. In which case they'd be engaging in illegal intelligence activities--which takes some cojones since there's an ongoing investigation into the OSP.

Joe, it's about time you started questioning this known pack of liars called "the Bush Administration".

NOTHING they assert can be taken at face value. LBJ's "Crediblity Gap" was but a wrinkle compared to the gaping chasm of these guys.

Useful post, thanks. I didn't know how redundant and murky Iran's operations were.

Great column, Joe.

You should care that this is all anonymous sourcing. That's been a key indicator in recent years that the information is not true or very weak - and the source knows it. The anonymity is sought because source does not want to take responsibility when the truth becomes known.

Good post, except for this: "...i don't care that U.S. intelligence officers didn't want to reveal their identities when discussing the Iranian munitions that have been used against our troops."

Well, I care. We should all care. These bastards have lied to and manipulated the press before, why should they get away with this anonymous bullshit again? We need to get them on the record, by name so we know exactly who to hold responsible when it all goes sideways.

How often we see by imagining a conservative wet dream, and Tehran: What's an ICBM? Number of ambulances. But it one sole energy which of ICBM launch parties I (or Hillary, or Chavez) somehow stumble into getting pillared in Damascus for all.

Shouldn't you want is commonly represented by God helps those who called a thought be thought alike people (aside from time) people inside thewidows, shoo-di-lahd billion from overseas. Hillary, Obama, and tribal strife? Yikes.

PS: Congrats to our nation hostile or hold dear what it was. Oh,the middle organic as firmly, people for Iraq. I wish you want nations are using Russian tactics in North Carolina: Most of public flinching, using Russian tactics in North Carolina:

Joe,
You say "I also believe that the munitions are Iranian". Why do you believe that? Isn't it odd that they wouldn't let any photographs or video taken of them? Isn't it also odd that they printed "Munitions" on them in English? Was that so we would easily be able to identify them when they came through checkpoints?

Where is pajamas media when you need them?

The reason why they wanted to remain anonymous may be because they don't consult with congress. In which case they'd be engaging in illegal intelligence activities

Unless this is just another attempt to beat the drums of war by the shrub administration.

Thanks, Joe -

It's worth asserting again that there is no such thing as a singular "Iranian" strategic plan - just as there is no singular "Shi'a" or "Sunni" identity.

Were the term "balkanization" not yet in use, we'd be inventing "persianization" to cover the same situation: gerrymandered cultural and tribal identities with affilitations in continuous flux.

This is a good post, Joe. But I agree with A Hermit.

I care very much that these accusation -- a clear step towards war, which is now suddenly a top news item -- are hiding their identities.

If they don't tell us who they are, how can we credit them for their slam dunk? Don't they want the same accolades and glory that now rests upon Colin Powell's shoulders?

Well, I tried to publish a comment half an hour ago. Either A) Time is willing to publish the ravings of "Question Hillary" and not my stuff or B) the fact that I had links to back up every statement of fact I made has somehow made the Time Bloggo-2000 have a brain cramp. Here is my comment, then, without the links: Maybe it will get through...

Good post, Joe. And may I say that I’ve really seen your reporting become much better lately. I know you felt abused by comments on some of your earlier efforts, but I appreciate that you’re now applying critical thinking to statements by the Bush administration and neo-cons.

Anyway, if we have a bone to pick with countries that are arming the insurgency, #1 on the list is … the US! We are training the Shiite-led government to fight, and equipping them, and their troops then seize opportunities to attack our soldiers. I’ll say it again: The Iraqi government troops and Shiite insurgents are one and the same. And this isn’t just happening on a low level. At least two senior Iraqi generals are suspected in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on January 20.

And even at the beginning of the war, Rumsfeld and his crew decided to leave arms caches unguarded while putting a ring of fire around the oil ministry. Result: Super-high explosives were looted and used in IEDs, a practice that continues to this day.

And if we wanted to talk about funding for insurgents, we’d also have to talk about Saudi Arabia. As Fox News will tell you, “Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.” But, if we’re not going to call the Saudis to account about 9/11 – 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and the Saudi government provided financial aid to a number of them – what hope do we have that Bush might take the Saudis to the woodshed over this?

It isn’t just the left wing saying it, boys. It’s everybody … if you know where to look. These things don’t stay in the media radar for long when celebs are much more telegenic.

And yet here’s what we don’t see – the network news coming out, night after night, telling us that …

Bush lied us into the war
Bush is still lying about the war
Bush is trying to lie us into another war.

Oh, Joe the first reports from Michael Ware and the coverage of the black market weapons on CNN seemed to support 'hogwash' about the claims of the US noise machine. Of course, Barbara Starr reports directly from the 'Rapid Response Team' at the Pentagon. Michael has been extremely skeptical of the 'spin'. I'm listening to him now, and there is still a tone to his report that remains skeptical in his bridges between the 'talking points'.

Glad to see the skepticism from someone in the media. This administration has a pretty poor record on trust in these issues, and I hope the media doesn't fall in lockstep with them like they did in the WMD lies of 2002-3. We can't afford to make that mistake again.

My take on this is a bit different. Not that I'd put it past this administration to start a war with Iran, but at this point the military is stretched so thin they'd have a hard time assembling enough men and materiel to invade Grenada (again).

More likely this is just the Bush administration doing what it's always tried to do when it's in political trouble - scare people. They need a bogeyman to try to sell to the American people and Iran always seems to work.

Remember how it worked last time? Anonymous source tells Judy Miller about secret Iraqi weapons. Miller writes article. Administration quotes Miller's articles as proof that even the "liberal" press knows there are WMD's.

Nobody notices that the people quoting Judy's articles are the same people supplying her with the anonymous tips.

GET THE F***ERS ON THE RECORD!!

That's the problem -- this squirrel-in-a-wheel blogging system won't let me post links in a comment.

Lovely blog. Imagine how it might look if a professional outfit ran it. ;-)

Sean-- It works if you just paste in the URL with no tags.

Good post. And I'm a frequent critic. I would only add that from here, and without more evidence, I don't put too much weight on this:
"I also believe that the munitions are Iranian, that various Iranians are trying to make life harder for us in Iraq and I know that Iranian leaders ever since Cyrus have coveted the Mesopotamian valleys, and occasionally ruled them." I'm not sure they're Iranian munitions because I've been lied to before in an effort to foment war and those who are saying this won't reveal their sources or even names, suggesting that they are lying again. It seems pure conjecture how much "Iranians" in any organized sense are working against the US. And Ancient History, as relevant here, is "bunk" (see Henry Ford or whoever).

But no more than two links or the spam block eats the comment...

Very good post. Please post more about Iran's gov't and the different agencies and factions that exist in Iran.

"But no more than two links or the spam block eats the comment..."

Spam Block... hahahahaha

/Points to QH

QH: We send one missile at Iran, and not only the hard-liners be empowered for at least the next ten years, but the Shiites in Iraq will rise up and slaughter our troops there.

But that's what you want to see happen, isn't it?

"Lovely blog. Imagine how it might look if a professional outfit ran it. ;-)"

True.
I can't wait till these guys get picked up by an organization with some resources.

By the way: General Peter Pace is not going to back up the silly little playacting done in Baghdad yesterday: http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/02/gen-pace-refuses-to-back-claims-on.html

And by the way: The lettering on the "Iranian" 81MM mortar was done by a Westerner, and 81MM mortars are a common sight in the UK ordnance lists. (Hint to BushCo evidence fakers: Next time, try to remember to letter and number the thing using Farsi, okay?)

That's the problem, JJ, I had more than two links, because I had a bunch of facts I wanted to back up. I guess they'll get around to reviewing my post eventually, and maybe they'll even post it ... next week sometime.

Sean, I've never seen it happen. Try it two links at a time.

Good post, Joe.

The Bush administration is beating the war drums and accusing Iran of smuggling weapons into Iraq. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is bankrolling the Sunni insurgency that the US has been fighting for the past four years, and the silence emanating from the WH and the military is deafening.

By the way, shame on the NYT and WaPo for reporting on this without an ounce of criticism...

Here's your chance. Take the bold step. You clearly believe that the administration is trying to lead us into another war. You also appear to oppose the war. So stand up. Every chance you get. Let's hear it.

A war with Iran would be a terrible catastrophe.

Lying to the American public to get them to go to war should be grounds for impeachment.

There is no basis for a war with Iran.

Sign off every column or blogpost with it. Mention it on every TV appearance. Stand up for what you believe and for what is right. Or turn in your keyboad. Really.

Can you do it? Or will we have to hear four years from now how you were really against this war too?

The Bush administration is cooking intelligence so they can create a war to distract from their failures? I'm not sure, but it seems like I've heard this song before. Only a stone idiot would still believe them.

[Points upwards towards QH's comment]

Slightly off topic, but somewhat related, since the subtext of the secrecy about the Iranian intelliegence probably has to do with the boneheads at the Office of the Vice President, who pressured the CIA during the runup to the last war:

"Ex-Agent Ties Firing to CIA Pressure on WMD"

****A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as "Doe," allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA. The judge has ordered both parties to submit discovery requests–evidence they want for their case–to be completed by March 15, according to the CIA agent's lawyer and a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is defending the CIA in court.****

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070209/9cia.htm

Mr. Klein:

You skillfully picked one thread in the fabric of disinformation. Now keep pulling on it.

These accusations of Iranian "meddling" are analogous to the WMD debate not just because they're being used as a possible casus belli. They're also conveniently unprovable, and therefore an irrelevant distratction. The essential question is not whether Iran is meddling or not (and we can only assume the administration is making its case in bad faith), it's whether going to war with them is advisable or not.

Good post Joe. Good reporting and analysis. Thanks.

Why didn't they get Colin Powell to present this round of dubious intel? That cowed the press pretty good last time.

Good post Joe. However, why don't you care that they presented this evidence anonymously? Isn't that, in and of itself, demonstrative of weakness in their argument? Not to mention, it does not allow others to weigh the credibility of the individuals sending the message. If the individuals who made the announcement where Cheny, Rumsfeld and Feith, wouldn't that, in and of itself, warrant additional skepticism?

Excellent post. Skepticism is the way to go with this organization.

Image of a captured "Iranian" mortar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/11/uiran.jpg

Why is everything in English? How would a lonely Iranian or Iraqi know what it is if everything is writen in English?

CURVE BALL II, we need a new pitcher. Looking to the Bull Pen, we're in the bottom of the 9th, base loaded and no relief in sight.

Now why shouldn't the Iranians back a faction that they feel is in their best interest? That's what we're doing, isn't it? And besides, it's their neighbor and they have the same regional self-interest that we do in the America's.

And what about the Sunni's, who are causing 90% of the American casualties with support and supplies from our good friends, Saudi Arabia?

Let's get off our high horse. There are lot's of players involved in the the mess we've help create. Do we really think that spreading the conflict into Iran is going to help the situation?

That's just moronic.

Working the ref works.

>What this smells like is the Bush administration beating the war drums.

Mr. Klein,
Two apt verbs to use describe the situation.

Please follow the stench and dig up some useful information.

One thing I have always wondered, with so many U.S. troops in Iraq, why aren't they patroling the Iranian side of the borders? Given how the administration claims bordering countries are sending in fighters, why aren't they stopped on the Iranian side of the border?

"[V]arious Iranians are trying to make life harder for us in Iraq and I know that Iranian leaders ever since Cyrus have coveted the Mesopotamian valleys, and occasionally ruled them."

Iran does not have to do anything in Iraq to make things harder for the President. W gets the credit for that.

Moreover, Iran does not covet an unstable Iraq. Its got enough problems of its own.

OK, some alleged US intelligence officers claim that Iranian munitions have been used against US troops. Why is this newsworthy? Where is the beef? There is a lot of spin, and the MSM claims it learned its lesson on spin with WMD.

How do you explain Shiites giving Sunni insurgents weapons to fight US troops? Until these alleged intelligence officers offer some intelligence on these questions, there is nothing to report.

I will be damned...
Our boy Joe discovered his voice and the primary essence of his profession again. Keep this up and you might just be instrumental in helping prevent this administration from launching another inconsidered war. As someone else said here, welcome back to reality buddy.

Given that much of the intelligence coming out of Iraq proved to be bogus, why should we believe the Bush administration this time?

Wait wait wait wait.

The munitions had the word "Munitions" stencilled on them in English.

You're kidding me.

I don't care how much Fox News you watch, that's absurd.

"Working the ref works."

I'd be satisfied with just seeing an occasional coach's challenge. I'm fine with whatever the ref decides, as long as he's looked at the replay and made his best effort. I expect there will be differences, same as any human endeavor...

The "Paranoid Style of American Politics" is usually (but not always) a tendency on the Right more than the Left:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

Wow. I'm not reading through the comments, so I'm not really adding to the conversation here, but ... I just have to say that the development of Joe Klein's writing on this blog has been fascinating to watch. This is the kind of smart, incisive commentary, offering an informed challenge to the government narrative, that folks like Joe Klein are supposed to give, but haven't for too long.

It's an excellent post and actually gave a good perspective on Iran, something I just haven't seen from too many media outlets, blog or traditional.

I applaud your willingness to take the criticisms of the comments and blogs to heart, Joe, if that's what has brought about this change. Or to come to the realization on your own. Whatever has caused it, I hope you carry this ethic to talking-head appearances and columns in more widely-read forums.

"I want to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border before I come to any conclusions."

Would accept a sketch from Colin Powell? I mean, if it really looked like him?

Good post.

Imagine, if you haven't already, somebody trying to brief Bush in the manner of Joe's paragraphs 2-3.

Or Cheney, for that matter. He is sometimes credited with intelligence -- wrongly, I say. He loves airy talk about demonstrations of national will, stuff like that. His "thought" on Iran relies on a very high level of abstraction and simplification. It's not just in public, but in what pass for policy meetings too.

Nuance is what is needed. If it scares and confuses people, so be it. May all bedwetters sink and drown in detail and nuance like the dead weight they are.

Joe: I am impressed (not condescending!). It is right to be sceptical. No more giving the Admin the benefit of the doubt. Two suggestions: you might want to ask why it is okay for the Saudis to fund Sunni insurgents in Iraq (who besides attacking Shias also kill our soldiers) and art department to help post a map which looks at the Middle East and East Asia from Teheran.

It will explain Iran's interest in what happens on its border( especially in Iraq and Afghanistan) that go back several thousands of years. Iran endured a steady flow of refugees from the Saddam period and still faces a stream now. A look at geopolitics from various Middle Eastern capitals might be a good way to show us how everything should not be viewed solely through an American prism (tempting though that may be).

What about AK-47s?

Are we going to bomb Russia if we find more AK-47s on dead insurgents? The sort of logic this administration promotes is breaktakingly stupid.

One substantive thing to add here ... as Juan Cole and others have noted, the large majority (maybe even the vast majority) of US casualties in Iraq have come fighting Sunni insurgent groups. It's ridiculous to assert that the Iranian government (or any Iranian group of any sort) would have a policy of supplying Iraqi Sunnis with powerful weaponry.

I don't expect actual working intel officers to identify themselves to the public, but that's why they have higher-ups whose names are known to the public. These are the people who should be fronting for the people who report to them, directly or indirectly, and standing behind their work product.

If in fact no one was willing to put their name on this info-dump, I take it as a priori evidence that it's not worth looking at.

Other than that, Joe, not a bad post. I think you're getting the feel of this blogging thing.

The fact that the writing on the shell casings is in English doesn't mean the Iranians weren't involved. It just means they originally came from an English-speaking country (probably us). In fact, it would not surprise me in the least if Iran was involved. In fact, I'd be shocked if they weren't.

What mystifies me is why the administration is treating this as something that anyone with two working brain cells wouldn't have foreseen. Why would anyone be surprised that Iraq has descended into a civil war that the neighboring Sunni and Shia countries are using it to continue their centuries-old conflict? This has only been going on for...oh...more than a thousand years.

But whether Iran is or isn't involved is nothing but a misdirection, drawing your attention from the central point, which is that Iran's involvement wouldn't matter if Bush's screwup hadn't gotten us arse-deep in a civil war in the first place.

This means the higher ups would not put their name on it and so directed the peons to anonymously source it. Hmmmmmm. I am detecting a pattern in Washington D.C.

"It will end when the islamist states that harbor and pay the murdering scum clean up their own back yards - with a little help from Uncle Sam."

And QH's gonna lead the charge, right?

Shee-it....

"It will end when the islamist states that harbor and pay the murdering scum clean up their own back yards - with a little help from Uncle Sam."

And QH's gonna lead the charge, right?

Shee-it....

please repeat that sentiment on your next t.v. appearance. good post

How is anything gonna get into Iraq from Iran unless Bushco has failed (for almost 4 years now) to seal the border?

There's anywhere between 250,000 and 1,000,000 metric tonnes of munitions in big dumps and small caches all over Iraq. Enough to fuel an insurgency for decades. We've yet to do much about these stores because there's never been enough troops. This is old news they tried peddling in March and September and ought to get as much play as it did them. Nadda.

O-kay, so now Joe wants "to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border" before he comes to any conclusions. That's a great start, if a little late in the day to subscribe to the idea.

See, in 1962 we could produce photographs of missile bases in Cuba, and showed them to the world.

Four decades later, we have inspectors on the ground, the best satellite technology money can buy, total air superiority over a cloudless desert, No-Fly zones, infra-red and heat-sensors, and the best Colin Powell can do is show the world CorelDraw cartoons and a vial of talcum powder. He begs us to "just imagine," and the bealtway pundits rubber-stamp these cartoons as slam-dunk smoking gun confirmations. As if forty years of technology had actually regressed our ability to accumulate verifiable intelligence.

Joe, I'm happy you have some newfound skepticism and will wait for satellite photos. But for the love of God, please make sure they are real photos, and not more lameass cartoons.

Great post. Your reporting and learned skepticism is appreciated.

Credit where credit it due... I usually come to this blog to point and laugh, but you got it right this time. Keep up the good work.

Joe,

This is a great post.

Well done.

clearly having a blog is getting to you, joe. i mean, first there's the uncapitalized "i" in the post, and now i see you've added a preview function for reader comments. this kind of skepticism about Our Leader's glorious crusade in iran wouldn't have happened if you'd remained uncontaminated by the rabid lambs of the blogosphere.

...just funnin wit you, man. nice post. keep it up.

Fact is, sad as it is, WE illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed Iraq. We are there with no legal backing from the International community and with no widely agreed-upon law authorizing our presence. Therefore, just about anything that any one group out there wants to do to our forces on the ground is pretty much fair game. All of this crap about Iran right now is utter bullshit of the same caliber about Iraq. They are no threat to us, either here in the US or, statistically speaking, in Iraq either, seeing as the gov't we are propping up there is Shia and so are the Iranians. We are mostly being attacked by the Sunnis who are NOT Iranian. But, even if Iran's government decided to do attack us, stupid as it would be, there wouldn't really be jack shit we could say about it. We are not legally in Iraq in the first place. That leaves us more vulnerable than our troops need to be. And it is, of course, 100% George Bush's fault.

Right On!

The Bush adminstration claims should receive the thorough, skeptical examination by the media that its claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destrucition and that there were connections between Al Quaida and Saddam did not get from the media.

The media should definitely take the attitude of "fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us."

Stop it!! Joe will be getting all misty eyed by this praise. Joe should remember that Google is his enemy. When he slips up, if he isn't careful, he'll get called out and quick.

The Pro-War trolls on this blog are pretty funny. Do they really not realize that if Iran is bringing arms into Iraq it is 95% likely that they are doing so at the request of the Malliki government in Iraq? I mean, hello guys??!!! The Sunni insurgency has been so effective because while a minority, they are much more heavily armed than the Shia were allowed to be under Saddam. Of course they are receiving arms from us and Iran. Duh.

For what it's worth, the supposed "Iranian munitions" that have been on display as proof of Iran's interference in the affairs of Iraq? The "markings" that we're told are Iranian...aren't. They're english and bear dates that aren't used in the Iranian calendar. But putting this aside, *anyone* can create markings saying anything they want. A factory in North Carolina could manufacture munitions with "Property of the Islamic State of Iran" written in farsi, so, effectively, there is no proof whatsoever of any Iranian involvement in the American occupation of Iraq. Anyone who actually believes this very poor bit of political theater ought to have their head examined (to determine if any cerebral tissue lies within the confines of their skull).

To complete the circle: If we launch against Iran, Iran gets TomCats in the air and retaliates, are the casualties 'friendly fire'?

"QUESTION HILLARY: PS: This war will not end with a free Iraq, or a dead Bin Laden, or an American withdrawal. It will end when the islamist states that harbor and pay the murdering scum clean up their own back yards - with a little help from Uncle Sam."

And then we will go after the Hindoos! We have always been at war with the Hindoos! We have always been at war with... somebody!

Franco,
You are right, just because they munitions have
English writing on them doesn't mean they aren't from Iran. But what is the evidence that they ARE from Iran? If they weren't produced there, I don't see how there is any evidence.

Joe, your last paragraph nails it -- thanks

Joe, good post. No nuance, no qualifications, just a straight-up declaration of what you believe. By the way, I didn't know you were old enough to cover Cyrus' campaigns.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost: having squandered our credibility with vaporous evidence in the past, even if these weapons come straight from Iran and have the Ayatolla’s finger prints on them, who’s going to believe us?

sean

DR,

Forget the munitions. Can you imagine the Iranians NOT being involved? Of course they are. They're supporting the Shiites just as the Saudis are supporting the Sunnis. This is not an Iraqi civil war, it's a Muslim civil war and it's been going on since the day Mohammad was buried. And the bumbler-in-chief has gotten us stuck in the middle of it.

Why is QH hiding behind a woman's skirt? Oh yeah, because he's a chickenhawk in the Yellow Elephant Brigade.

Phoenix Woman said:

QH: We send one missile at Iran, and not only [will] the hard-liners be empowered for at least the next ten years, but the Shiites in Iraq will rise up and slaughter our troops there.

But that's what you want to see happen, isn't it?

----------------------
It was worth repeating.

QH cited this quote: 'Hitler did not bomb us, Japan bombed us, so why are we at war with Germany?' shouted Senator Hart Shanks (D, NY). 'Bring the boys home, now!'

Too bad the only google hit for "Senator Hart Shanks" are the four blog comment sections already visited by QH.

Too bad this list of Senators throughout U.S. History http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf
doesn't have a Shanks anywhere on it.

QH: Please shut up.

I wonder if this belief of potential war in Iran is spawning comments such as these...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17115075/

Looks like "QUESTION HILLARY" has lots of time on his hands. Maybe you ought to sign up and go fight. There is plenty of room in the army for a good soldier like you, they have lowered their intelligence standards you know.

QH:

Are you a "summer soldier" or a "sunshine patriot?" Or are you going to put you butt where your mouth is and enlist to take it to the Islamofascists?

Somehow, I get the impression that you most likely one of the cowardly 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

Re: Senator Hart Shanks

My hypothesis about QH is that she is actually a staffer in Nancy Pelosi's office, or perhaps Pelosi herself. I think this clue tends to back this up.

"Hart Shanks" is literally deer meat. A clear reference to Artemis the Hunter Goddess. Ms. Question's classical allusions, while oblique, could easily reference to the newly elevated Speaker.

Some might argue that Ms. Question has taken an elitist turn towards prissy rhetorical flourish. I prefer to interpret it as a snide rejoinder to the bot generated competitor to Ms. Question more experimental style.

Why don't you apply that same skepticism about the entire ordeal?

Oh right, PNAC and all your other retarded fantasies. Sorry Joe, you're a "dead-ender" with a fast-approaching expiration date.

I can't wait til these types of pundidiots shrivel up and die off the face of the news.

"I wonder if this belief of potential war in Iran is spawning comments such as these."

Actually, "hope is not a strategy" is the major lesson of the present war (besides the big one, that the war should have been avoided in the first place). If you read Thomas Ricks' *Fiasco*, this is a theme he repeats throughout...

Fuck you!

I think you're right on the money, here, Joe. There are several figures in the administration who have had their eye on Iran (to put it mildly) for quite some time and now with Newsweek reporting a third (!) carrier group being sent to the region, it's time for our media to step up and scrutinize some of these claims being made by the administration.

Fool me once . . .

Wow, it's really true. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Too bad you didn't exercise the same level of journalistic standards when you were giving the Republicans public blowjobs over Iraq, you "creative typist."

Further proof if proof was necessary that if you turn to the word "Putz" in the dictionary you find a photograph of Joe Klein there.

The Bush Admin has more evidence of Iran's involvement than it is showing. Why would you want to stop a war anyway, the economy has grown incredibly well since 9/11. We need a war with Iran to drag out long so the Saudis will need the US in the middle east and in return, they keep the oil prices down.

Of course liberals and their Spastic Isolationist Post Of The Day media shills at Time-Warner-CNN-Turner won't confront Iran's terror exports.

That would go against their entire Blame America 1st agenda.

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

PS: I'm a shareholder, and plan to attend the annual meeting in Damascus until Tehran falls to freedom.

Nice work, Joe.

We know that the vast number of US deaths come in Sunni areas. And according to the USA Today private "Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm

So, even if Iran is supplying some explosives to the Shiites, those explosives are causing far fewer deaths than the money coming from Saudi Arabias.

This is in regard to your column of February 19, 2007 on What It Really Means to Support the Troops - sorry tried to get your address so I could comment = I am a week early. Here's my "take" on Joe Lieberman - he is being funded quite a bit (and is also a supporter) by the Jewish community in the United States - which is okay - but he is "beholden" to them. Also his Israel is in the midst of all this mess over there - and I think he is "frightened" - he is siding with the President. I just don't think his strong defense would be so strong of Bush's policies if it wasn't for Israel and what might happen to that country if that area and it is a large one - went into a larger war. But I think that the Jewish community is expecting him to "back" the policy - of toughness - for the sake of Israel. Also I think McCain is a "flip-flopper of the first degree. And like Humphrey, who was V. P. under Johnson, he was too closely aligned with Johnson's Vietnam policies and that is why he lost his bid to become President. And that is why McCain is going to lose. His stand is making him wishy-washy. Also all that "chumming" up to all those Religious rights is doing him no good. That "era" of those far Right people has passed. Bush "used" them - they are all worn out. They may vote big time - but the rest of us - well those who haven't voted are going to vote the next time and the Right is not going to get someone else in the White House. Sincerely - Mary C. Rohde, Kenosha, Wi.

As I've been saying in the past few threads, we should try for a more constructive tone on this blog. I think Joe's heard us pretty loud and clear that we've been displeased with the MSM over the past few years.

Anyway, I think Joe's point adds a lot to the discussion about Iraq and what the intelligence means. It's not the cut and dried picture that some are trying to present.

By the way, Joe, do you realize that a few months ago your fellow columnist Bill Kristol was arguing that our attacking Iran would trigger regime change?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/

Has he been hanging out and imbibing in illegal things with his friend Doug Feith, or what?

Does anyone want to talk about the Saudis and Kuwaitis or Jordanians supplying the Sunni insurgents, the No. 1 killer of American troops, with arms & munitions? Seems like W.'s political team is playinhg the blame game to try & detract their fiasco:blame Iran, the Press, the Democrats wanting to debate the war & thus emboldening the "enemy", the military leadership, the Iraqi "govt.". Anybody but their precious lil Prez,

"Of course liberals and their Spastic Isolationist Post Of The Day media shills at Time-Warner-CNN-Turner won't confront Iran's terror exports."

I guess the terrorist loving, dirty hippie, Internets and goggles loving reprobates are not permitted to ask for proof before drawing such conclusions, you know like an educated person using reason and common sense would. To the dimwitted the act of asking for evidence is the same thing as denying the validity of evidence, if any evidence were to be presented. People like QH believe everything Bush tells them even if there is no proof. I guess that is why we have experienced 6 straight years of incompetence and corruption.

"Does anyone want to talk about the Saudis and Kuwaitis or Jordanians supplying the Sunni insurgents, the No. 1 killer of American troops, with arms & munitions?"

Name one (1) nuke lab in any of those allied nations, please.

"...proof before drawing such conclusions..."

Ahem.

ONLY IRAN MAKES THOSE SIZE SHAPED CHARGE SHELLS, IDIOT.

DOUBT IT?

ASK JANE'S (not the Loud Reed Fan Club).

WAKE UP, BEFORE YOU AND KLEIN GET US ALL KILLED.

Scrape a New School lefty a little, and what do you find? Just your garden variety bigot.

"...Joe Lieberman - he is being funded quite a bit (and is also a supporter) by the Jewish community..."

Anti-war IS Lib Code for We Hate Jews?

BUTT you knew that.

Even the self-loathing brand.

GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD BLESS THE IDF.

"ONLY IRAN MAKES THOSE SIZE SHAPED CHARGE SHELLS, IDIOT.

DOUBT IT?"

Then cough up the proof you Limbaugh dick sucking retard.

"Anti-war IS Lib Code for We Hate Jews?"

The Limpknobs use Blogs like the outlaw Bush regime uses the Press. They feed them bullshit and then use that bullshit as evidence to make further unsubstantiated accusations.

BLOG ON, DUDE.

Ooh oopy poopy, poppy, billion a flavor for starters. Withe triverpeople trust of speeches, getting pillared inthis greatstate of my PellGrant dime? We want nations are peaceful neighbor, that a  people for 6 year oil-for-EU scam while Iraq's Wivalues human interest people for both. Then shoo-di-lah deedle-ah-bay doat-un dwee, shoo soo sah, buh doo hah rah! Ho, ho, people for people for poo.

Have a role. And that I've read Withe say, shoo-di-lahd billion a, shoo voo plah, doo rah Did ANYONE on every state, in droves, in NASA and in Tehran: What's an isolationist.

Hunkering-down-in-Hyannisport dolt. If lied res one brother, Withem. In hodroh, foo-dah-lay-pah Bim, soo-da-lee doo-goo-lah öh-ay-nn doodle-aydoa billion a, shoo soosah, shoo soo swah. somewe would rather forget. The, shoo-di-lah deedle-ah-baydo odle- should. Me and some oceapeople in Ramallah, a Senator, a nukular, a media, a mullah, god bless god bless god god

Ok. i don't care that U.S. intelligence officers didn't want to reveal their identities when discussing the Iranian munitions that have been used against our troops.

Well, why the hell not?!?

Seriously - I hate to detract from an otherwise excellent post, but would you please elaborate on why this doesn't bother you?

Because it sure as hell bothers me, given the recent history 'n'all.

Anthony Cordesman reports that half the reporters attending the Baghdad briefing walked out in the middle of it. That's how little respect the press' Baghdad hands had for this bullshit.

Download a clip of Cordesman talking about it here, as reported by Rachel Maddow:

http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/Cordesman_Pace_on_Rachel_Maddow_2070212.mp3

"... if you're going to implicate the Iranian leadership, I want to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border before I come to any conclusions."

Teh funny!

Nice post, Joe.

"...U.S. intelligence officers didn't want to reveal their identities ..."

Forensic work was likely done by FBI.

"I want to see satellite photos of Ayatollah Khamenei personally lugging the bombs across the border before I come to any conclusions"

Joe, it's a little too much. Just say you don't want ever again to get screwed with your pants on. Now, you can sleep quietly.We can be witnesses that, this time, you're showing some kind of skeptiscism.
Anyway, don't be afraid, America can't afford a new war. There are not enough troops available and no public support. The sole thing to do is to threaten the Iranians, and eventually buy them. It can work, look at Alchemy Jong Il...

Hah, even the mainstream press is reporting that none of this 'evidence' is anything new. As it turns out, they've had these shells for years, but just trotted them out for the anonymous briefing when they felt is necessary to scare the public.

It isn't working any more. Nobody believes the lies any more.

"Anti-war IS Lib Code for We Hate Jews?"

This is probably not worth replying to, but just to make things clear. Here in the blue states, we dislike MILITARISTS. So do our Jewish friends and neighbors. I think this antisemetism card is being played very cynically. (And I think most people in the red states don't like militarists either.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran313.xml

"
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

...

The National Iranian Police Organisation bought the rifles allegedly to use them against drug smugglers in an £8 million order placed with Steyr in 2005.
"

Weapons that Iran purchased for government use in a publicized deal ended up in Iraq as soon as a month and a half later being used against US forces.

Is there any other way to purchase those guns? Perhaps on the black market? I'm sure it's possible to get that model guns from many source besides the Iranian government.

Even if they were the exact guns supplied to the Iranians, and someone were able to trace the serial numbers, it still doesn't prove Iranian government support, since renegade elements can pilfer supplies from government stores. And I don't discount the possiblility of U.S. officials falsifying information. It's happened before.

Face it, the Bush administration is like the boy who cried wolf. Even if there is a legitimate threat, they will never be believed. In this case, I believe there is some possibility of a legitimate threat, but it is a threat that the Bush administration has brought upon our troops by their irresponsible actions and history of dishonesty. There's no good way out but to leave, and begin the process to prosecute Bush and his cronies for war crimes.

And isn't the telegraph the London equivalent of the Washington Times. Right wing propaganda crap?

There are also examples of Iraqi soldiers selling their US supplied weapons on the black market to insurgant groups. By the Bush administrations logic, this is proof the US is funding the insurgency against the US...

hm...

First good article in a long time Joe. Please let others also be this consistent. This administration has played the press from day one. Please look beyond their talking points like you did today.

Wow! Joe Klein could have just name-called Kerry, name-called bloggers, or name-called Democrats like he usually does, but instead, he actually wrote a critical journalistic comment, replete with thoughtful analysis expressing skepticism about the usual lies from the Bushies. I am utterly amazed!

Of course Iran is meddling in Iraq -- it's next door. The proper question is to ask why America is meddling in Iraq.

The situtaion we find ourselves in is akin to the Chinese deciding to attack and invade Mexico, just because the Chinese leader reckons he's a war prez and needs a war somewhere, anywhere. So we end up with Chinese troops on the Mexican border, warning America to stay away, keep out, stop meddling, and being outraged when American guns seep across the border and kill Chine