British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran

[Barrett808]

British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; A21

ON THE IRAQ-IRAN BORDER -- Since late August, British commandos in the deserts of far southeastern Iraq have been testing one of the most serious charges leveled by the United States against Iran: that Iran is secretly supplying weapons, parts, funding and training for attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

A few hundred British troops living out of nothing more than their cut-down Land Rovers and light armored vehicles have taken to the desert in the start of what British officers said would be months of patrols aimed at finding the illicit weapons trafficking from Iran, or any sign of it.

There's just one thing.

"I suspect there's nothing out there," the commander, Lt. Col. David Labouchere, said last month, speaking at an overnight camp near the border. "And I intend to prove it."

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577_pf.html

[habitual]

1. wooopsie daisy n/t

[razors edge]

2. what possible reason would iran have

to export arms to iraq? all they have to do is set back and wait for iraq to implode.(and hope they aren't nuked for being so smart)

[patrick t. cakes]

3. first

the downing street memos, now this. those lying british always trying to ruin all our fun.

[Eugene]

4. That's okay. Unnamed officials are talking up Iranian support for Afghan

insurgents.

Arrested in Afghanistan: Abdullah, 25, an Iranian jihadist 'rejected by the Taliban' - The Guardian

Afghan official rejects alleged Iran support for gov't opponents - IRNA

[patrick t. cakes]

5. god

whose got whose back? what a fucking mess. interesting

[sutz12]

6. Ah, the return of The Rat Patrol. Life is good. nt

[Theduckno2]

7. 16 words.

"British Intelligence has concluded that there are no meaningful transfers of arms from Iran to Iraq."

What are the chances that those words will find their way into Bush's next State of the Union?

I think I have a better chance of being stuck by a falling meteorite.

Then again according to Rummy: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." :grr:

[teryang]

8. The British are right and here's why

Iranian small armaments tactics are technologically advanced. They are designed to take on heavier forces and make a virtue out of necessity. Only the Sunni cadre are militarily advanced enough to train and use the new Iranian equipment and tactics. Clearly they are not being provided the more advanced anti tank and anti personnel weapons the Iranians have gotten from Russian and Chinese designs and now produce themselves. This is for two reasons, Iranians are not going to give Sunni Iraqis their trump cards. Secondly, the better organized and trained Sunni insurgents would make mincemeat out of Shia rivals. One example, there has been no evidence reported by US military of the use of Iranian vest penetrating armor piercing bullets. The provision of advanced anti tank weapons and armor piercing bullets would cause an immediate crisis for American forces, whose fatalities would go up immediately by a marked degree.

[wholetruth00]

9. Ummmm, our government is lying to us again? More coverage needed

on this by the media lest they become once again an enabler of US aggression.

[wakeme2008]

10. Ah that Liberal Washington Post... Page A21 is a nice place to bury this

:grr:

[mom cat]

11. There goes another excuse to demolish Iran.

[Tracer]

12. Two things struck me about this article ...

1. Is the fact that the Brits were run out of their base by constant bombardment and now have to find something to do out there in the desert,

and,

2. They seem to take at face value the Iraqi border guards claim that "nope, no guns are comin' across the border".

[happyslug]

13. Sounds about right, I suspect most weapons is coming from Saudi Arabia

Probably via Jordan. Which probably explains why King Abdullah wants to build a Fence along the Border, not so much to keep the Iraqi violence in Iraq, but to help the US by cutting back supplies to the Sunni Insurgents (Or the alternative theory, Abdullah is covering up the supply system by building this fence when he knows the Supplies are not going directly from Arabia but via Jordan).

The two alternative possibility depends on how the House of Saud looks upon the situation in Iraq. If the House of Saud is supporting the insurgency, then the fence along the border could be a good cover story to show Bush the House of Saud backs him (When they do not). On the other hand if the House of Saud is opposing the insurgency it is a way to contain the conflict.

A third possibility is also possible, the the House of Saud is split and thus the Fence is a compromise that serves both the supporter .(It does NOT block how they are suppling the insurgents) and the opponents of the insurgency (It put a fence between the Insurgents and Saudi Arabia).

[paparush]

14. Hmmm Are the Britts distancing themselves from the coming INSANITY?

Bush is putting all of the pieces in place to wage war on Iran, and conveniently make it appear to be Iran's fault.

Goddess help us all.