Iran’s War Against The United States

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Iran’s War Against The United States

by Jay Reding · June 7th, 2007

TigerHawk takes a detailed look at Iran’s proxy war against the United States. It’s become indisputable that Iranian agents are arming Iraqi insurgent groups — even NATO is confirming it. Now evidence is being uncovered which indicates that the Iranians are arming the Taliban in Afghanistan as well.

We can’t keep pretending that Iran and the United States are not in a de facto state of war. No amount of fruitless negotiation is going to change Tehran’s dream of establishing regional hegemony. We need to be taking a much harder line towards Tehran, which may mean the use of military force.

We cannot simply let the Ahmadinejad regime continue to develop nuclear weapons and provide arms to terrorist groups across the region. The nightmare scenario is that both come together and the Iranians give a working nuclear device to a terrorist group — if that happens, a major allied city will be attacked and the death toll will be catastrophic. To put one’s trust in a messianic madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and assume that the Iranian government would not do such a thing is not a safe bet.

We’re in the midst of a war that’s larger than Iraq and Afghanistan, and our enemies know that our cowardly political culture is constraining our actions. We have to recover the initiative, otherwise the results of our weakness will be a Middle East that is controlled by Iran and another Cold War — against an enemy for whom the traditional concepts of deterrence will not apply.

LINK

The current trouble in Gazza can also be attributed to Iran. Are we not in reality already at war?


From another site

16 trucks carrying weapons and large sums of money from Iran were discovered over the past few days en route to Iraq, according to an Iraqi Defence Ministry source.

Speaking to the Iraqi daily Al-Mashreq, the source said that the weapons included rifles, mortar rounds, and explosives. He said that those arrested admitted to being agents of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and said that lodging had been provided for them in Samara, Balad, Najaf, and Latifiyeh.

The individuals revealed that they work working on behalf of the MOIS in conjunction with Iran’s Fajr Forces. During interrogation the Iranian agents also revealed the names of a number of Fajr commanders and MOIS agents whom they worked for.

Yet I hear those of you in Europe think its all over blown. It looks like Europe in the 30s to me.

[Lord Winter]

Right now we really have to left them off with nothing more then a warning a few sanctions. The U.S. dosn't have the strength to fight a third war without completly mobilizing our population. Something which should already be done for Iraq if we want to stand a chance at winning. Secondly an invasion of Iran could esaily turn into another Iraq. The terrian in fact is perfect for a gurrilla war. Plenty of mountains and stuff to hide in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The U.S. dosn't have the strength to fight a third war without completly mobilizing our population. Something which should already be done for Iraq if we want to stand a chance at winning.

So is it time to or get off the pot? Remember also that the Iranians are not arabs and their is much dislike for them in the region. These guys are fine with taking their money and guns but I dont think they want them telling them what to do. What is the alternative? Talk to them like Chamberlain did with Hitler? Even the anti semitsim reeks of nazi Germany. Will the world wake up before they have nukes? Just imagine suicide bombers on a greater scale.

[Navaros]

It’s become indisputable that Iranian agents are arming Iraqi insurgent groups

I wouldn't say this is indisputable as there seems to be scant if any hard evidence of this.

However, even if it is happening, so what. The USA itself is arming Insurgents, and then telling them to go kill Al-Qaida. Therefore if the article is to be believed, then the USA must be in a proxy war with itself also.

[Fragony]

Yet I hear those of you in Europe think its all over blown. It looks like Europe in the 30s to me.

Our dhimmi's are way too busy with domestic apleasement. Anyway, the day they can build a bomb Israel will destroy their facilities, or let america do it. Probably the latter. I am not that worried about Iran, whatever they are shooting at us probably makes a 360 before landing on their own heads, and if it actually reaches europe we can just shoot it down with patriots.

[KrooK]

Gawain could you finish with that propaganda plz :) You can say "we are able to win with Iran" but at the moment USA is far to weak to do it.
Into Afghanistan and Iraq you had strong support from people of these countries (they hate you now but its different issue). You can't expect it into Iran.
There are same people into Iran like those who stopped Alexander on 4 years. People there are united into hate of America. Furthermore they are pround from themselves and they are better democracy than any muslim country exept Turkey. So THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DEFEND which is half of succes.
Of course it will be easy to attack them from air and make big damage. But if you want win there, you have to use air forces. And this will be never performed without great loses. I don't think any other country support you there (even mine) which means that you will have to sacrifice your American boys.
Another issue is weapon. Iraq had practically no new weapon and no one supported it (even if your info is real - I don't believe American agencies because of CIA propaganda). Iran is able to buy as much Russian/Chineese modern gun, as they want.
We can't forget that Iran is not Germany into 30ties. Iranians don't claim that half of Asia should belong to them. They are simply strongest country into that Region (I count Israel and Turkey as Euro Region) and they deserved on hegemony. And there is something else. I don't remember Iran terrorists but I remember war criminals or terrorists from countries that America love support (Saudi Arabia, Israel).

So all in all - you (Americans) can attack Iran, but on your own. Don't scream for help when you will be loosing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain could you finish with that propaganda plz :) You can say "we are able to win with Iran" but at the moment USA is far to weak to do it.

Thats a quite convoluted statement.

Into Afghanistan and Iraq you had strong support from people of these countries (they hate you now but its different issue). You can't expect it into Iran.

Then its all lies that most young Iranians dont like their government.

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs. Their attacking us as we speak. There is already a war going on is my point.

wouldn't say this is indisputable as there seems to be scant if any hard evidence of this.

Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say

Iranian Flow Of Weapons Increasing, Officials Say
Arms Shipments Tracked To Iraqi, Afghan Groups

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page A14

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

In Iraq, Iranian 240mm rockets, which have a range of up to 30 miles and could significantly change the battlefield, have been used recently by Shiite extremists against U.S. and British targets in Basra and Baghdad, the officials said. Three of the rockets have targeted U.S. facilities in Baghdad's Green Zone, and one came very close to hitting the U.S. Embassy in the Iraqi capital, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias

U.S. Says Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq Militias

Listen to this story... by Jamie Tarabay

Iraqi soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded
Enlarge
Ahmad al-Rubaye

An Iraqi army soldier secures the site where a car bomb exploded at Baghdad's al-Mansur neighborhood, Feb. 11, 2007. At least one person was killed and three others were wounded in the blast. AFP/Getty Images



All Things Considered, February 11, 2007 · U.S. officials say they have evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi extremist groups. They also say they have proof showing that orders to these militant groups come from the highest levels in Iran's government.

The American officials spoke on condition of anonymity. No recording devices were allowed at the briefing, but those speaking said they were comfortable with their claims.

There was a slideshow depicting three main routes from Iran into Iraq which, the officials maintain, are used to smuggle in weapons and weapons parts. Some weapons parts were also on display in the briefing room including the mortar round parts that an explosives expert says was manufactured in Iran. The expert also presented a particular brand of rocket-propelled grenade that he said was manufactured only in Iran.

But the U.S. officials focused mainly on a deadlier version of the improvised explosive device: the explosively formed penetrator. It's a tin-can-shaped explosive covered with a lid of copper that turns into molten rock and pierces through armored vehicles. The officials said the use of this weapon has nearly doubled since it was first introduced in May 2004. More than 170 coalition forces have been killed by it, they said, and more than 620 have been wounded.

Iran was operating in Iraq through extremist groups, the officials claim. They said that among those groups were radical elements of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

The officials again noted the detention of five Iranian men in a raid last month. They said one was a senior operations chief for the Quds Force, an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which answers to Iran's religious leaders.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

[Odin]

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

Well Don we disagree, for the simple reason Gawain in his brilliance hasnt proposed anything by way of military action in this thread. He has given absolutely no specific at all as to what he thinks should be done.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

To a large degree this assumes invasion, invasion is unlikely for the reasons you cite, but air strikes are more plausable.

If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

Big "if", and the ending "we will lose" I disagree if infact what you state would happen came to fruition, a WWII total war effort.

Again I might have missed Gawain commenting on an invasion, if I did I appologize, but its clear to me that the force structure for air strikes against nuclear facilities exsist right now, and most likely thats the course of action (if any) that would occur.


Right after I clicked post Gawain posted:

What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.

So that pretty much negates most of my post.

[Odin]

Im not a war monger but dont you people see the writing on the wall. Again this is Nazi Germany all over again. The longer the world waits to take action the harder it will be to stop these maniacs.

I see it very clearly.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, there's a world of difference between being dissatisfied with your government and welcoming in foreign conquerers. If that wasn't the case, the USA would have been flying the flag of foreign conquerers for much of its history.

No kidding

I don't think you're fully grasping the size of the task you're proposing. You seem to think you're going to have a 1 week cakewalk, the Iranians will fold with no resistance, and within the matter of a month, they'll be welcoming us as heroes.

I'm sorry Gawain, it's simply not going to happen that way. The Iranians will fight for every inch. Yes, IF we send enough troops (and nothing in the White House makes me think they're wise enough to hold off until they have enough troops), and I'm talking 7 or 8 divisions, minimum, we could probably wear them down eventually. But what do you think is going to happen in the meantime? We have thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in virtually unfortified positions. You don't think Iranian artillery is going to find them?

Do you really think we're going to take them out with 1 punch? I don't. You're more right about the WWII analogy then you realize. When we started, it was far from certain that we would be victorious, and we acted that way. If we invade Iran, it will be a long, ugly, messy affair, and if we don't go total war, ala WWII style with drafts and sequestering our economy and women running the military industrial machine with every able bodied man in training or in the field, we will lose.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

I thought you were an isolationist?

And I am an isloationist. But they are attacking us and killing our soldiers. If thats not war what is?

Are you done with your rant?

What Im suggesting is world war three. Im not talking about any cake walk far from it. This is not just a US Iranian problem.

And what about Pakistan, at that point? What about Indonesia? Syria? Are we just going to keep invading every country that pisses us off?

Syria maybe. Is Pakistan or Indonesia supplying men and arms that are killing our soldiers?

I see it very clearly.

Im glad Im not alone. Its like the old oil change commercial. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. The problem is later costs a lot more.

[Slyspy]

Sorry Gawain, but you are a war mongerer. Of the worst kind because you don't seem to be aware of the consequences. You are most certainly not an isloationist, nor a libertarian, if you believe that foreign military ventures and total war are necessary and desirable.