US Falsifies Evidence Against Iran To Justify War
Joel Skousen http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/
February 17, 2007
This is an ongoing process that hasn't yet fully materialized into a justification for an attack, but it's coming. The process is just as inevitable as was the Iraq war that we all foresaw in November of 2002. Only this time I believe the US will use Israel to start the war so as to "force" the US into joining in order to "protect our troops" in Iraq from the inevitable barrage of missiles that Iran will rain down in retaliation. The US will claim it is only launching a "limited" attack on Iran. However, it will be wide-ranging assault and will concentrate on hitting Iran's civilian and industrial infrastructure as well as the full range of military targets in order to bring Iran to its knees. I repeat, it will NOT be a surgical strike upon only Iranian nuclear targets, though it will be billed as such.
As Craig Unger said in his Vanity Fair article entitled: From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq. "Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington--this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom."
As Taylor Mash in Global Research points out, the US claims that Iran is "aiding" the insurgency while arming and training Shiite militias, which incite the insurgency. Naturally, the neither the US government or the US media give any specifics on Iran's "aid"--at least nothing verifiable--so that the American public can't put two and two together. Journalists are once again forced to repeat the official claims as their only story.
"United States officials in Baghdad were reported to be in possession of Iranian made weapons. In a brazen display of 'intelligence', the Americans proudly showed off their Iranian-made weapons to reporters. [But predictably, the US banned all cameras and recording devices so that no one could take away any evidence of the phony display the US was making.]
"Examples of the allegedly smuggled weapons were put on display, including EFPs, [81mm] mortar shells [used as roadside bombs] and rocket propelled grenades which the US claims can be traced to Iran. The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran. ... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons, an official said."
But as Kurt Nimmo pointed out, Iran has no plants capable of manufacturing 81mm mortar shells: "Many were made as recently as last year--ruling out the possibility that they could have been left over from the many arms caches scattered across Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime. Of course, as this is a sloppy neocon ruse, as per usual, there is a problem here. Can you guess what it is?
"If you guessed the date, you win a Cupie doll. For some reason, the geniuses at the Pentagon have failed to explain why the Iranians used a date from the Christian Gregorian calendar and not one from the Islamic Persian calendar. According to the Muslim calendar, the date stenciled on this mortar shell should read 1427, not 2006. And why did Iran, a country speaking and writing in Persian, a language written in a version of the Arabic script, decide to label their shells in English? Maybe they thought it would fool the infidels?"
I might add that various government connected "sources" are countering Nimmo's assertions by claiming an Iranian "Arms merchant" made the shells on behalf of Iran. Nimmo isn't being so easily put off, however. It appears this new cover story has the neocon's finger prints all over it: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=766.
What about the Steyr .50 caliber sniper rifles the US has found in some insurgent weapons caches? First, there is the issue of "what brand of insurgents." There are Shia insurgents and Sunni insurgents and the US-controlled al Qaeda. It makes a difference which group possessed this cache of weapons. The US doesn't say. If they were Sunni (which constitute the vast majority of insurgents) they are enemies of Iran as well and hardly recipients of Iran's largesse. If Shia, the US has long been a provider of weapons to this group (openly and covertly) as well.
Juan Cole writes how the figures concerning US deaths attributed (by implication of location in Baghdad) to Shia is false: "This NYT article depends on unnamed US government sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from EFP bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias. This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops. .... Overall, only a fourth of US troops had been killed in Baghdad through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else--Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites."
Over 800 of these armor piercing rifles were exported from Austria to Iran in 2005. The US claims that over 100 have made their way into insurgent hands and can be traced to Iran. But that is far from proof, and we must be skeptical of claims from our own government that has been known to manufacture evidence (and weapons) with fake markings on them to cast blame on Iran. I have also recounted the stories of innocent Iraqis arrested by coalition forces, sent to the green zone for interrogation, and then told to get into a car and drive to another location in Baghdad. The car just happens to be loaded with explosives and is set off by remote control, unbeknownst to the driver. These suicides bombings are therefore not really suicides but planned provocations.
As for the rifles, we would have to know where else these rifles were exported and if the US or Britain covertly brought them into Iraq to blame Iran. Even if the US provided serial numbers from the Austrian company (which they haven't done), there would be no way to prove that the US covert operations didn't order a special set of rifles to match what was sent to Iran. Such arrangements are more common than you think in covert operations--when a Western country wants to do a false flag operation. A government which kills off its own people in falsified terrorist attacks such as OKC bombing and 9/11 is capable of anything.
Taylor Mash continues with the analysis of US hypocrisy over its claims that Iran is aiding insurgent groups:
"The defense analyst said Iran was working through 'multiple surrogates'-- mainly 'rogue elements' of the Shiite Mahdi Army--to smuggle the EFPs [Explosive Formed Projectile] into Iraq. He said most of the components are entering the country at crossing points near Amarah, the Iranian border city of Meran, and the Basra area of southern Iraq. ... The 'evidence' against Iran and the Mahdi Army continues to pile up. But there is something fishy here.
"The Bush administration claims that Iranians caught in recent raids buttress clams of Iranian involvement. The targets of American ire appear to be Iran and the Mahdi Army. However, the Iranians were captured in Kurdish held Erbil and in Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in Baghdad. In both instances, the Iranians were working with American allies in Iraq--the Kurds and the SCIRI.
"The Bush administration has indeed made a fine bed with terrorists in Iraq. There is very little doubt that Iran is supporting the Shia factions and the Kurds in Iraq. However, the factions Iran is supporting are the same factions that the Bush administration is supporting. The Shia faction that gets the least support from Iran, and that is ideologically the least aligned with Iran, is the Mahdi Army. Yet, the Administration's plan, as laid out in the Hadley memo, appears to isolate the Mahdi Army and empower the very factions, Dawa and SCIRI, that Iran has been helping.
"The Bush administration is spinning a story about Iran that is full of contradictions. The Bush administration cannot claim to target Iran for arming the same groups that the United States itself is arming, without addressing its own behavior and alliances in Iraq. It has been clear from the start that the United States has put in power terrorists and thugs (Dawa and SCIRI) in Iraq. To support its drumbeat to war against Iran, it cannot now cry foul without addressing its own hypocrisy in Iraq. To the extent that they have both sponsored the same actors in Iraq, the Bush administration and Iran have been allies.
"So, when the Bush administration claims that some Iranian arms have been found in the hands of Shia militia in Iraq, I am unimpressed. The United States has, over the last four years, armed the Shia militias to the teeth by equipping the SCIRI- and Badr Brigade-controlled Iraqi Interior Ministry. In the contest of arms shipments to Iraqi Shia militias, the United States wins the arms race hands down. Having armed, equipped, and trained a party to a civil war, the Bush administration has been the driving force of instability in Iraq. When the Bush administration accuses Iran of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq, it ignores the elephant in the room, that is, the United States."
Gabriel Ronay writes that President Bush "is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia. 'American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April,' the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said. ... President Ahmadinejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defense system."
Congress does have the power to stop this attack on Iran: Claudia Nelson states that "[o]n the question as to who has ultimate say so, Section 5(c) of the War Power Resolution makes this crystal clear, stating, 'Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.' In other words, Congress can mandate the removal of troops at anytime, if there has not been a formal declaration of war." However, it has to be a binding resolution--not the pathetic "non-binding" variety the Democrats are playing with.
PDF Version: http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/pdf/World Affairs Brief February 16, 2007/
World Affairs Brief February 16, 2007
World Affairs Brief February 16, 2007. Copyright Joel Skousen.
Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
