Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Cites Proof Of Iran's Growing Role
Star-Telegram ^ | Saturday, April 26, 2008 | By Lolita C. Baldor

Posted on 04/26/2008 9:37:46 AM PDT by Fennie

WASHINGTON - Iran is ratcheting up its support for militias in Iraq, providing them with newly manufactured weapons and bringing them across the border to receive training from members of Tehran's elite Republican Guard, U.S. military officials said Friday.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military is preparing to roll out evidence, such as date stamps on newly found weapons caches, that shows that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.

Mullen would not detail the evidence, which is expected to be unveiled by military leaders in Iraq as early as next week. But another senior military official said it will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives - known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - that troops have discovered in caches in recent months.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not been made public, said some of the weapons had dates that came well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.

In addition, the evidence will include information gleaned from detainees who were reportedly trained by members of Iran's elite Quds Force, as well as insurgents who received instruction on how to do the actual training...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cache; iran; iraq; israel; pentagon; qudsforce; republicanguard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2008 9:37:46 AM PDT by Fennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn’t the military closed Iraq’s borders?


2 posted on 04/26/2008 9:43:00 AM PDT by counterpunch (Kick McCain upstairs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: JackRyanCIA

I do believe, and have believe since before the war began, that Iraq was always about setting the stage for Iran.
We have Afghanistan as a staging area, but so long as Saddam was in power next to Iran, we could not do anything, because Saddam would invade Iran too, and we would have an unmanageable 3-way war.

I think we will probably be at war with Iran within 6 months, most likely triggered by an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bush an Israel are not going to risk leaving the Iran problem possibly to the likes of Obama. The case is slowly being made for it now. If McCain is so far ahead that it is not even a race then perhaps they will wait. Otherwise, they won’t, and a war with Iran would guarantee McCain’s election (unless he’s running against Hillary, who has promised to “obliterate” Iran, which I do believe trumps John McCain’s “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.”)


5 posted on 04/26/2008 10:01:09 AM PDT by counterpunch (Kick McCain upstairs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: counterpunch

We can’t even control the borders of the US. We could take all the 130.000 or so troops we have in Iraq and put them on the border and that still wouldn’t be enough, and then who would fight al Quaida and the other terrorists in Iraq, the Iraqi army?


7 posted on 04/26/2008 10:08:36 AM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I noticed that Imanutjawb has been very quiet lately.


8 posted on 04/26/2008 10:09:55 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (The world WILL be cleaner, safer and more productive without Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

I agree the US will hit Iran some time this year. It will be air strikes to take out nuclear sites and bases supplying Iraqi terrorists. It will probably take place in October, to have the maximum favorable impact on the election of McCain in November. I believe it will happen whether Israel decides to strike or not. In fact, if America is determined to take out Iran, Israel can save their resources and let the US do it.


9 posted on 04/26/2008 10:13:21 AM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FFranco

I think Israel will do it because Bush would not want it looking like it was an October Surprise or a Clintonian wag the dog. So he needs someone else to initiate it. However, we will quickly become involved as soon as Iran retaliates.


10 posted on 04/26/2008 10:18:15 AM PDT by counterpunch (Kick McCain upstairs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

It’s a big border.
Here’s a question back at ya,
Why haven’t we taken out some high valued targets in Iran just to show these turds there IS a price to pay?
I think it is because our vaunted military industrial complex needs a boogie man and Iran fits the bill nicely.


11 posted on 04/26/2008 10:22:48 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

There is no shortage of boogeymen, both real and imagined.
The reason why we have not yet struck Iran is because we are not yet prepared for all out war against them.

You do not attack another country unless you are prepared to go to war with them. We’ve had our hands full with Iraq up until now. It looks like we are pretty much done with the heavy lifting now.

A strike against Iran is all about timing.
It will take place sometime after Iraqi elections taking set for October 1st, and before the US election November 4th.


12 posted on 04/26/2008 10:41:59 AM PDT by counterpunch (Kick McCain upstairs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
I think we will probably be at war with Iran within 6 months, most likely triggered by an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bush an Israel are not going to risk leaving the Iran problem possibly to the likes of Obama. The case is slowly being made for it now.

I agree. It's interesting to note that General Patreaus just got a promotion.

Tic... toc... tic... toc...

Photobucket

13 posted on 04/26/2008 10:46:47 AM PDT by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
I think Israel will do it because Bush would not want it looking like it was an October Surprise or a Clintonian wag the dog. So he needs someone else to initiate it. However, we will quickly become involved as soon as Iran retaliates.

Definitely. That's the way it should play out.

14 posted on 04/26/2008 10:49:16 AM PDT by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
I agree. It's interesting to note that General Patreaus just got a promotion.
Bingo.
Petraeus is being moved out of the his role overseeing Iraq only, and into a role overseeing the entire middle east theatre.
He will have command over the operation against Iran there.
 
15 posted on 04/26/2008 10:55:40 AM PDT by counterpunch (Kick McCain upstairs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA
If we do not take out Iran then the war in Iraq was a complete waste of time. But we already knew that...even before we went to war.

The plan was to create a democracy in Iraq. Once the other middle east countries see freedom and democracy up close and personal, the remaining theocracies, dictatorships and kingdoms will be overthrown without our having to invade.

16 posted on 04/26/2008 11:21:47 AM PDT by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
Because the border is long, and the modern maneuverist US military tries to do everything with less by razzling and dazzling around more. The force in Iraq is half the size older minded generals through the bare minimum for the job, at the outset, and more like a fourth the size they thought sufficient for rapid and complete victory. The current solution, such as it is, is to try to ramp up the size of the Iraqi army until it makes up the other 3/4 needed. Their effectiveness per man isn't so easily ramped up.
17 posted on 04/26/2008 11:27:05 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

“through” = thought. Sorry for the typo.


18 posted on 04/26/2008 11:27:53 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: counterpunch

“Maybe this is a dumb question, but why hasn’t the military closed Iraq’s borders?”

Ask Bush.

While you’re at it, ask him why he hasn’t closed our OWN borders.


20 posted on 04/26/2008 12:42:25 PM PDT by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson