Page 1 of 1

#1 Bush rejects talk of Iran strike

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:21 am
by frigidmagi
BBC

The US accuses Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq
President George Bush has sought to play down suggestions of a strike against Iran amid tension over Tehran's alleged involvement in Iraq's violence.
US officials have recently displayed what they say is proof Iran is giving weapons to Shia militias in Iraq.

Democrats say they see parallels with the run-up to the Iraq war, when the US made a case for action on the basis of weapons which were never found.

But Mr Bush dismissed such speculation of an attack as "noise" by his critics.

"I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, 'he wants to go to war', is first of all I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political," he told CSPAN television.

There is currently tension between Iran and the US on two issues - in addition to the allegations of its support to Iraqi insurgents, Washington accuses Tehran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

Tehran denies both charges, and argues that it is seeking nuclear power solely for peaceful, energy-related purposes.

'Excuse to stay'

On Monday, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview with US TV that he thought the possibility of an attack was "very low".

"We think there are wise people in the US who would stop such illegal actions," he said, stressing nonetheless that Iran's position was clear.


We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government

"Anyone who wants to attack our country will be severely punished."

He was also asked repeatedly about Iran supplying weapons to Shia militias.

He said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces and that they would need a "court to prove the case".

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before following a briefing in Baghdad in which the alleged weapons - capable of destroying a tank - were put on display.

"I don't doubt that Iran has been involved to some degree and clearly that's a problem that needs to be addressed, but I'm getting uneasy that they're trying to create a premise, set a premise, for some future, broader military action in Iran," said Mr Dodd.

But the US allegation found some support in London. A spokesman for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We keep finding the weaponry which we don't believe to be sourced from anywhere else."
For those of you wondering. Iran is unlikely to be providing small arms in the line of rifles, pistols, RPGs and other infantry weapons, Iraq as long been awash in such weapons and does not at this time require foreign supply. Motors, bomb denators (not explosives unless you count det cord) and more advanced anti-aircraft weapons (of which there has not yet been sufficent evidence there of) are not very plentiful on the ground. Possible easy sources of supply are Syria, Suadi Arabia and Iran. Of the 3 it should be noted only Iran has a large scale native weapon industry.

Is Iran supplying weapons? I honestly don't know. I can easily believe if of the state that supplies Hezbollah, HAMAS and Shitte organizations in Afhganistan and Pakistan however (there was for a time a Afhgani Hezbollah in west Afganistan, the Taliban slaughtered it). With reports of the insurgents, terrorists and militas achieving or being close to achieving self sufficienty in funds however it is very possible they are buying Iranian weapons via black market profiteers. Iran is... less then immune from corruption given their current economic situtation.

#2

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:35 am
by SirNitram
Recent events make it clear that weapons are moving from Iran into Iraq. But all this proves is that.. Surprise.. Some Iranians want to stir shit in Iraq(Everyone knows where Sadr's family lives, right?). Of course, this says nothing of whether Tehran is involved. After all, it's similarly known that members of Irish extremist groups went to Iraq to provide bomb-making expertise. Does this mean the Irish Government is behind it? No.

I don't particularly trust Bush, though. Something to do with pattern recignition.

#3

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:41 am
by frigidmagi
To be blunt, the man has never made it a secret when he was planning a war on someone. In the USMC we knew almost 2 years before 2003 that plans were afoot to attack Iraq and dispose Saddam. Jr was open in his plans to attack Afghanistan and the Taliban there after 911. There is no knowledge in the Marines that I am aware of now.

I humbly submit that in this case denying a war plan actually breaks pattern in this regard. He is prone to hedge and lie on domenstic matters not on who he plans to beat up next.