The Hand Of Iran
The New York Times is reporting today that they have seen evidence and heard officials from various intelligence agencies confirm that Iran is the source of lethal devices known as Explosively Formed (or Forged) Projectiles (or Penetrators). The terminology differs a bit depending on who is writing the story. Apparently, the Times is convinced enough that it is willing to publish this story.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.
The assertion of an Iranian role in supplying the device to Shiite militias reflects broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.
In interviews, civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies provided specific details to support what until now has been a more generally worded claim, in a new National Intelligence Estimate, that Iran is providing “lethal support” to Shiite militants in Iraq.
The focus of American concern is known as an “explosively formed penetrator,” a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb being used by Shiite groups in attacks on American troops in Iraq. Attacks using the device have doubled in the past year, and have prompted increasing concern among military officers. In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.
Because the weapon can be fired from roadsides and is favored by Shiite militias, it has become a serious threat in Baghdad. Only a small fraction of the roadside bombs used in Iraq are explosively formed penetrators. But the device produces more casualties per attack than other types of roadside bombs.
Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile. The officials said they were willing to discuss the issue to respond to what they described as an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.
The assessment was described in interviews over the past several weeks with American officials, including some whose agencies have previously been skeptical about the significance of Iran’s role in Iraq. Administration officials said they recognized that intelligence failures related to prewar American claims about Iraq’s weapons arsenal could make critics skeptical about the American claims.
Given the continued attacks on the administration, including the Washington Post's outright false report about pre-war intelligence, the administration appears to be trying very hard to make sure this information is correct. It appears to be if the Times - no friend at all to the administration – is running this report. This information is no secret to the troops, as I have mentioned before. They know exactly when a shipment of these things come in. And no US media outlet and no US politician should be advancing the notion that it is a good idea to talk to a government that providing the weapons that are killing our troops.
Iran is at war with the US and has been since the Carter Administration. The media really needs to figure out which side they are on. And they are supposed to be on a side, they are not neutrals in this. Because if the wrong side wins, they lose, just like the rest of their countrymen.
Other Links to this Post
-
Flopping Aces — February 10, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
By Howie, February 10, 2007 @ 7:46 am
I think I have one of these in a jihadi film. Can you download a big file? email me if you’re interested
By Kathy, February 10, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
The New York Times did not “see” any evidence, Gaius. The Times reporter, Michael Gordon, repeated administration claims that they have evidence.
You’re right that the media is supposed to be on a side — the side of truth. Journalists seek and write about the truth, wherever that takes them, whether it supports one government’s side or another government’s side. Journalists are not supposed to side with any entity except the truth, as they find it and understand, to the best of their ability.
And it’s not that surprising that Michael Gordon reports the administration claims so unquestioningly. He is the reporter who, with Judith Miller, reported that Iraq was trying to enrich uranium with aluminum tubing for centrifuges. He is very pro-Bush administration.
I get the sense from what you write that you are actually looking forward to war with Iran, that you can’t wait for it. I am terrified of what could happen if the U.S. attacks Iran. Iran is twice the size of Iraq and has a fully operational, very powerful military. I mean, does your side even *think,* for one nanosecond, about the consequences of bombing Iran, with Iraq in civil war and 3 million Iraqi refugees both internally and externally displaced?
By Chris, February 11, 2007 @ 8:33 am
Hint: the American media consists of Americans. Americans who work in the media. If you cannot be a supporter of American values and endeavors while you work, then I would suggest that your workplace has a flawed value system.
How does the truth of Iranian-manufactured weapons used against American soldiers depend on who is doing the reporting? Is Judy Miller to be demonized for her past “sins” of reporting the consensus that was held by nearly all of the intelligence communities in the West? Is Michael Gordon less of a journalist because he reports what the Administration says, without injecting skepticism? I thought the job of a reporter was to, you know, report things? Analysts analyze. They are not performing the same function. It would be nice if more journalists could figure that out.
By omelas, February 12, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
A few Iranian munitions have been found in Iraq since.. June of 2004. Nothing new. The military admits that the EFP account for only approximately 170 deaths during the almost three years since. And yet, 70% of all Coalition deaths are from road-side IED attacks. Where are these nonIranian weapons coming from? Non-Iranian, non-Shia sources… Sunni “private individuals and charities” and the majority of it is funneled across the Saudi Arabia/Iraq border. $25 million in one hand-off alone, to buy Russian weapons through the black market. If we are going to choose a country to invade to lower the deaths of American soldiers… the right candidate isn’t Iran.
By Gaius, February 12, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
We won’t invade Iran.