Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists

[GaryC 7]

MUNICH, Germany - Serial numbers and other markings on bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday in some of the administration's first public assertions on evidence the military has collected.

While the Bush administration and military officials have repeatedly said Iranians have been tied to terrorist bombings in Iraq, they have said little about evidence to bolster such claims, including any documents and other items collected in recent raids in Iraq.

National security officials in Washington and Iraq have been working for weeks on a presentation intended to provide evidence for Bush administration claims of what they say are Iran's meddlesome and deadly activities.

The materials — which in their classified form include slides and some two inches of documents — provide evidence of Iran's role in supplying Iraqi militants with highly sophisticated and lethal improvised explosive devices and other weaponry. Among the weapons is a roadside bomb known as an "explosively formed penetrator," which can pierce the armor of Abrams tanks with nearly molten-hot charges. One intelligence official said the U.S. is "fairly comfortable" it knows where the explosives came from.

The Iran dossier also lays out alleged Iranian efforts to train Iraqis in military techniques.

Yet, government officials say there is some disagreement about how much to make public to support the administration's case. Intelligence officials worry the sources of their information could dry up.

Among the evidence the administration will present are weapons that were seized in U.S.-led raids on caches around Iraq, one military official in Washington said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Other evidence includes documents captured when U.S.-led forces raided an Iranian office Jan. 11 in Irbil in northern Iraq, the official said. Tehran said it was a government liaison office, but the U.S. military said five Iranians detained in the raid were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq.

The assertions have been met with skepticism by some lawmakers still fuming over intelligence reports used by the administration to propel the country to war with Iraq in 2003. Gates' comments came as a new Pentagon inspector general's report criticized prewar Defense Department assertions of al-Qaida connections to Iraq.

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

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

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

Explosives have been a leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq, where more than 3,000 U.S. troops have died in the nearly four-year-old war.

In Iraq on Friday, the military reported three more American soldiers killed in combat, pushing the U.S. death toll to 33 in the first eight days of the month.

Separately, U.S. helicopters targeting insurgents mistakenly killed at least five allied Kurdish militiamen in the northern city of Mosul early Friday.

Last week, Gates said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad had been planning to brief reporters on what was known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior officials had delayed the briefing to assure the information was accurate.

On Friday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said such information would come from U.S. officials in Iraq, though she did not say when.

"There has been discussion about how to detail out some of that evidence," she told reporters. "Decisions on that are being made out of Baghdad."

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday that officials hoping to publicly release the information face another problem as well.

He said, "Under the circumstances and given the attention that this has gotten, we want to make sure that we provide you the best information possible but do so in a way that doesn't compromise sources and methods, that doesn't make it harder for us to deal with the situation that's there."

Gates also told reporters that he was surprised that raids last month by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.

"I don't think there was surprise that the Iranians were actually involved, I think there was surprise we actually picked up some," he said.

He and other U.S. officials have said for some time that Iranians, and possibly the government of Iran, have been providing weapons technology and perhaps some explosives to Iraqi fighters.

Gates, who attended his first NATO defense ministers meeting in Seville this week before flying to Munich for a security conference, said Iran is "very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles."

He acknowledged the Iranian weapons are not a large percentage of the roadside bombs used in Iraq, but he said, "They're extremely lethal."

Gates said the recent raids combined with the movement of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf have created a stir, but he said the Bush administration had no intention of attacking Iran.

Asked about the Defense Department inspector general's report criticizing the Pentagon's use of prewar intelligence, Gates said he hadn't yet read it.

But, he added, "based on my whole career, I believe that all intelligence activities need to be carried on through established institutions, and where there is appropriate oversight. And if the intelligence isn't adequate, then changes need to be made in these institutions to improve the intelligence."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

Edited February 10, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From the same people who gave us "inappropriate, but not illegal".

From the same people were supposed to be an improvement over "no controlling legal authority".

Can we fast forward to January 2009 already?

[GaryC 7]

From the same people who gave us "inappropriate, but not illegal".

From the same people were supposed to be an improvement over "no controlling legal authority".

Can we fast forward to January 2009 already?

So your saying you think its false information? You don't think Iran is keeping things stirred up in Iraq?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You don't think Iran is keeping things stirred up in Iraq?

I am in the unique (not) position of having to pretty much take our leaders at their word because I have no personal knowledge of the situation in Iraq. Furthermore, I find myself in the unique (haha yeah right) position of not knowing what to believe since our leaders have lied to us before (the lies were inappopriate, not illegal. I guess there was no controlling legal authority and that makes it ok).

[Robor007 0]

From the same people who gave us "inappropriate, but not illegal".

From the same people were supposed to be an improvement over "no controlling legal authority".

Can we fast forward to January 2009 already?

So your saying you think its false information? You don't think Iran is keeping things stirred up in Iraq?

I saw this on Yahoo and was going to post but see it's already here.

Anyway, let's say they are. What are we going to do? We've already got our hands full in Iraq. Are we going to get into it with Iran as well?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What nutcase really wants to go to war with Iran?

[GaryC 7]

You don't think Iran is keeping things stirred up in Iraq?

I am in the unique (not) position of having to pretty much take our leaders at their word because I have no personal knowledge of the situation in Iraq. Furthermore, I find myself in the unique (haha yeah right) position of not knowing what to believe since our leaders have lied to us before (the lies were inappopriate, not illegal. I guess there was no controlling legal authority and that makes it ok).

It looks like the administration is starting to make a case for airstrikes in Iran. Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it. I think they would find that the terror attacks would subside rather quickly.

[Robor007 0]

What nutcase really wants to go to war with Iran period?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

[Lurker 0]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

Agreed, we have a problem sealing our own border.

[GaryC 7]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

It's an open desert. I think a it could be patrolled by air and have tanks and ground troops to back them up. They could at least put a dent in the flow of bombs and people.

I would find that preferable to bombing Iran and really getting things hot over there. At least they would be attacking on our side of the border and Iran wouldn't have a justification to b!tch if he got caught.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

No doubt. The other point of course is that stopping Iranian agents coming over the border, ignores the fact that much of the violence and hatred is comes from Iraqi factions who are already in the country. No shortage of bombs and bullets already there...

[Robor007 0]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

Agreed, we have a problem sealing our own border.

Touche'

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

It's an open desert.

No, it's not. Part of it may be but parts are marshland and parts of it are mountainous.

Controlling the traffic of fighters and weapons, as well as smuggled goods, is difficult due to the rugged terrain along the eastern border with Iran, and the presence of close-knit tribes that straddle the western border with Syria, US and Iraqi officials say. "On the Iranian border, you're talking about miles and miles of mountainous terrain. There's no way you can seal off that kind of a border," Secretary Wolfowitz said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0706/p01s02-woiq.html

Edited February 10, 2007 by Gupt

[GaryC 7]

Personally I would send 1/2 the troops that are in Iraq now to the border and seal it.

I expect 'sealing' a border is tougher than it sounds.

Agreed, we have a problem sealing our own border.

On our border we have to go after them with the intent of arresting them. Over there if we see an Iran convoy that is in Iraq we could just bomb the hell out of them. It's a lot easier if your not worrying about hurting someone.