Why Bush won't attack Iran
Despite saber-rattling, and the Washington buzz that a strike is coming, the president doesn't intend to bomb Iran. Cheney may have other ideas.
By Steven Clemons (www.salon.com)
Sep. 19, 2007 | During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.
Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush's team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.
The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto,
(wonder what she was doing there? getting instruction on how to rule Pakistan for the Zionists?)
then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski's or Scowcroft's position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski's fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.
In the national debate about America's next moves in the Middle East, an irrepressible and perhaps irresponsible certainty that America will attack Iran now dominates commentary across the political spectrum. Nerves are further frayed by stories like this one, about the Pentagon making a list of 2,000 military targets inside Iran.
The left -- and much of the old-school, realist right -- fears that Bush means to bomb Iran sometime between now and next spring. Both would like to rally public opinion against the strike before it happens. The neoconservative right, meanwhile, is asserting that we will bomb Iran but that we need to get to it posthaste.
But both sides are advancing scenarios that are politically useful to them, and both sides are wrong. Despite holding out a military option, ratcheting up tensions with Iran about meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploying carrier strike-force groups in the Persian Gulf, the president is not planning to bomb Iran. But there are several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen, if the neocon wing of the party, led by Vice President Cheney, succeeds in reasserting itself, or if there is some kind of "accidental," perhaps contrived, confrontation.
One of the reasons so many believe action is near is the well-known neoconservative preference that it be so. There is still a strong neoconservative faction within the Bush team, and their movement allies outside the administration, such as Michael Ledeen, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz, have openly advocated striking Iran before it can develop nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives believe that in the end, Bush's team will indeed launch a military strike against Iran, or will nudge Israel to do so.
There is also evidence that the administration has given serious thought to the bombing option. In June 2006, I helped organize a round table on Iran for the New America Foundation, where I work, that attracted some heavy hitters in the national security world, including some of the names associated with the Aspen Strategy Group co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and former National Intelligence Council chairman and Harvard Kennedy School dean Joseph Nye. As at the Aspen Strategy Group, comments made in my session were on a "not for attribution" basis. Several current and former Bush administration officials were in attendance.
I moderated the session. The task of those participating was to think and talk through the "unthinkables." On the one hand, was an Iran with nukes so hard to live with that the potentially disastrous consequences of an attack, even if it negated Iran's nuclear gains, would be worth it? Would an Iran with nukes be less paranoid about its security and thus less prone to meddling in other countries, or would it use the nukes as a shield to protect itself while continuing to finance terrorism?
Alternatively, if we bombed Iran would we be prepared to cede American primacy over the world's fossil fuel regime and see Iran, China and Russia develop what Flynt Leverett calls a "new axis of oil"? Would we be prepared for a post-bombing terrorist superhighway to erupt from Iran and race through Iraq, Syria and Jordan to the edge of Israel? America might not just see its global geo-energy position undermined, but could see a set of falling dominoes among Sunni Arab states that could dramatically remake the map of the Middle East -- and not in America's favor.
In other words, the task was to ponder what each of these bleak binary choices meant for America. They are often framed as "bombing" vs. "appeasement." The emerging polite term for the appeasement option is "strategic readjustment."
After the session, two Bush administration senior officials who were not present sent me letters, one to say the binary "to bomb or not to bomb" scenario was premature, the other to say it was not premature.
But a former administration official who was present at the session vigorously and emphatically embraced the either/or formula. He also had this to share about the inner workings of the Bush White House on Iran and the inevitability of military action:
The President is going to receive a memo -- some time in the next 6 to 12 months -- that presents a "bleak binary choice". Either he takes action to preempt Iran from reaching a nuclear threshold and calls for a military strike or he stands down and accepts a future with Iran with nuclear weapons.
Condi's job is to develop a "third option". She will dance round and round, waltzing with that third option. She will dance faster and faster with it, spinning and spinning, all around she'll go -- but when she's done she'll see that she's dancing with a corpse.
This President is the kind of president who believes it is his moral responsibility to address serious problems now and not to leave these tough actions to a successor.
Those are the cold, harsh realities that we face -- and to me, as I look ahead, I don't see how we come out of this without military action. Unless Iran abandons its nuclear weapons intentions, which I don't see happening, there will be a war.
So 15 months later, the president has now, presumably, received that memo, and those who hold the deterministic view that bombing Iran is around the corner could argue that they are in good company.
To try to discern what the president himself thinks, however, is very difficult. It's particularly hard when Bush is trying to convince Iran that the military option is real, and that if Iran doesn't work out a mutually acceptable deal with the U.S., he will launch a strike.
To date, however, nothing suggests Bush is really going to do it. If he were, he wouldn't be playing good cop/bad cop with Iran and proposing engagement. If the bombs were at the ready, Bush would be doing a lot more to prepare the nation and the military for a war far more consequential than the invasion of Iraq. There is also circumstantial evidence that he has decided bombing may be too costly a choice.
First, journalist Joe Klein documents a December 2006 meeting in which Bush met in "the Tank" with his senior national security counselors and the military's command staff and walked out with the impression that either the costs of military action against Iran were simply too high, or that the prospects for success for the mission too low.
Klein writes:
Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were -- once again -- unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.
Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B -- a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News.
After this meeting, Bush immediately tilted away from the Cheney-dominant view that military action was the most preferable course and empowered and released other parts of his administration to animate a third option.
Secondly, we know via material first reported on my blog, the Washington Note, and subsequently confirmed by the New York Times, Time and Newsweek, that Cheney and his team have been deeply frustrated by the "engage Iran team" that the president empowered and felt that they were losing ground to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and the president's new chief of staff, Joshua Bolten.
One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was "losing the policy argument on Iran" inside the administration -- and that they might need to "end run" the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus "hopefully" prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, "The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff."
We know Bush rebuffed Cheney's view and is seeking other alternatives. That is the most clear evidence that Bush is not committed to bombing Iran. Even if Bush wanted to make the Iranians believe that he could go either way -- diplomacy or military strike -- Bush would not so clearly knock back one side in favor of the other to the point where the "bad cops" in a good cop/bad cop strategy would tell anyone on the outside that they did not enjoy the favor and support of the president.
Bush is aware that America's intelligence on Iran is weak. Even without admitting America's blind spots on Iraq, the intelligence failures on Iraq's WMD program create a formidable credibility hurdle.
Bush knows that the American military is stretched and that bombing Iran would not be a casual exercise. Reprisals in the Gulf toward U.S. forces and Iran's ability to cut off supply lines to the 160,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq could seriously endanger the entire American military.
Bush can also see China and Russia waiting in the wings, not to promote conflict but to take advantage of self-destructive missteps that the United States takes that would give them more leverage over and control of global energy flows. Iran has the third-largest undeveloped oil reserves in the world and the second-largest undeveloped natural gas reserves.
Bush also knows that Iran controls "the temperature" of the terror networks it runs. Bombing Iran would blow the control gauge off, and Iran's terror networks could mobilize throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan and even the United States.
In sum, Bush does not plan to escalate toward a direct military conflict with Iran, at least not now -- and probably not later. The costs are too high, and there are still many options to be tried before the worst of all options is put back on the table. As it stands today, he wants that "third option," even if Cheney doesn't. Bush's war-prone team failed him on Iraq, and this time he'll be more reserved, more cautious. That is why a classic buildup to war with Iran, one in which the decision to bomb has already been made, is not something we should be worried about today.
What we should worry about, however, is the continued effort by the neocons to shore up their sagging influence. They now fear that events and arguments could intervene to keep what once seemed like a "nearly inevitable" attack from happening. They know that they must keep up the pressure on Bush and maintain a drumbeat calling for war.
They are doing exactly this during September and October in a series of meetings organized by the American Enterprise Institute on Iran and Iraq designed to reemphasize the case for hawkish, interventionist deployments in Iraq and a military, regime-change-oriented strike against Iran. And through Op-Eds and the serious political media, the "bomb Iran now" crowd believes they must undermine those in and out of government proposing alternatives to bombing and keep the president and his people saturated with pro-war mantras.
We should also worry about the kind of scenario David Wurmser floated, meaning an engineered provocation. An "accidental war" would escalate quickly and "end run," as Wurmser put it, the president's diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus. It would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
That kind of war is much more probable and very much worth worrying about.
-- By Steven Clemons
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/19/iran/
..i don't see how anyone in Iran could benefit from nuclear fallout buddy, the best move america could make right now would be a quick retreat and redeployment..
..britain's already got the idea, retreat to airport!
..something tells me that dush wasn't the thinking part of the team that pulled off 9/11, senior is central(ia).. cheney wants to kill lots of people, it's written on his forehead.
I appreciate this article, but I disagree with it.
I know that Clemons doesn’t like John Bolton, but here he sounds like a moron.
He takes it for granted that Iran “finances terrorism.”
He calls “strategic readjustment” a “polite term for appeasement.”
He says, “Unless Iran abandons its nuclear weapons intentions, which I don't see happening, there will be a war.”
So if Iran suddenly abandoned ALL its nuclear work, there would be no attack? The zionists and warmongers would not find some other excuse?
Riiiiight.
I don’t think Clemens favors an attack, but I do think he’s way out of his depth here.
He needs to confine himself to the confused snobs at Arianna Huffington’s blog.
Well...that comment from you started so nicely, but ended with me being a "moron." That kind of ad homenimism accomplishes little.
First, I appreciate your disagreement with my piece. Many have. I respect their views -- and hope that I am not wrong that Bush has already predetermined an attack on Iran.
Second, yes, I helped organize and launch the opposition to John Bolton's confirmation as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Liking him or not had nothing to do with my principled opposition to his appointment and his stance on the terms of America's international engagement.
But no worries in general on the Bolton comment -- but your leap calling me a moron is unnecessary.
Third, yes, I believe Iran finances terrorism. It admitted as much in its 2003 proposal to the US to put items we cared about on the table. Iran asked us to stop financing and supporting the MEK, which I believe we are still doing -- despite government claims we are not.
4th, you confuse my noting that some call "appeasment" "strategic readjustment" with me saying that that is what it should be called. I am reporting a trend -- not saying that I agree with it.
5th -- go back and re-read my article. You write:
[He says, “Unless Iran abandons its nuclear weapons intentions, which I don't see happening, there will be a war.”]
I did not say that myself. I quoted someone else as saying that....please distinguish between the two.
And lastly, you write:
[So if Iran suddenly abandoned ALL its nuclear work, there would be no attack? The zionists and warmongers would not find some other excuse?]
I make no such argument. Re-read my last paragraph, I worry a great deal about the regime change directed efforts of the Vice President's office and the efforts of that staff to undermine the 'third option' track on Iran.
You write:
[I don’t think Clemens favors an attack, but I do think he’s way out of his depth here]
With all due respect, I think I have written one of the most discussed articles on the subject of bombing Iran -- and you misread my article.
I'm not intending to be defensive or to dismiss your disagreements. I think that some disagreement with my piece is quite fair and reasonable. I could be completely wrong -- but then, we are all in massive trouble.
But seriously, your comments would be so much more weighty and serious without mixing personal slurs.
Best regards -- and hope we can start out on a better foot next time,
Steve Clemons
www.TheWashingtonNote.com
its interesting to see in this quite analytical article and elsewhere how terrorism actions perpetrated by western goons like CIA and Mossad are termed in some sophisticated terminology as "clandestine" or "psyop" operations while similar activity from Muslim counterparts is always termed as terrorism. If you are at war with a country and it strikes back at your strategic targets how is that terrorism. Is armed resistance as in case of Hamas and Hesbollah who are fighting against Zionist invasion sufficient reason to list them as terrorist organizations. Not really meant as a critic of the article but perhaps a hint of how we see and judge with double standards while trying to be honest, objective and antizionist.
"Let there be Light!"
Dear Mr. Clemons
First, thank you for your comments.
Second, I would never have called you a moron (or any other name) if you were a regular visitor to this web site. If I disagree with someone here, I give reasons why. In your case I resorted to name-calling because it was easy and flippant. Indeed it was a joke, because readers here know I avoid name-calling.
My apologies.
However, I do disagree with much of your commentary.
For example, if I interpret you correctly, you seem to think Iran could ease all enmity against it by abandoning all its nuclear ambitions, peaceful or otherwise. I disagree. I believe that Iran’s nuclear technology is a variant on the WMD canard. I believe that israel and the USA use nuclear technology as an excuse to maintain tensions with Iran. I believe that if Iran dumped all nuclear technology, the pro-war crowd would find some other reason to threaten Iran. They would accuse Iran of threatening the global banking system, or conspiring with China to economically destroy the west, or plotting to invade israel, or scheming to disrupt the world oil flow -- whatever. You apparently think that warmongers, zionists, and israeli leaders want peace, but can't have peace because of Iran. I disagree. That's like saying that israel wants peace with Palestinians.
Third, I appreciate that an article for Salon must please a broad spectrum of readers, including zionists and warmongers, but I see no use in accusing Iran or any other country of sponsoring terrorism. The charge makes no logical sense. “Terrorism” has become a relative and subjective term, and is a mainstay of propaganda on all sides. Everyone calls everyone else a terrorist. Couldn’t you make a case that does not offend zionists, but is also sound? I realize that extra effort is required to do that, but it seems to me you took the easy way out.
Fourth, you seem to feel there will be no attack on Iran because rational self-interest will always prevail in geopolitics. I do not agree. I believe that geopolitics is not entirely rational. The israel lobby controls much of the USA, and it wants the USA to attack Iran, as do the “Christian evangelicals.” These factions exert much pressure, and are too powerful to discount. What if someone perpetrates another 9-11 in the USA? Will the US government find the real culprit? Or will the pro-war factions use the false flag attack as an excuse to go to full-scale war?
Fifth, I think you completely underestimate the role of economic factors. The USA is now is such bad economic shape that, like many Empires, it may be forced to go to war whether it wants to or not, merely to buy itself more time. Iran will likely be the first target.
You write,
To try to discern what the president himself thinks, however, is very difficult. To date, however, nothing suggests Bush is really going to do it. If he were, he wouldn't be playing good cop/bad cop with Iran and proposing engagement. If the bombs were at the ready, Bush would be doing a lot more to prepare the nation and the military for a war far more consequential than the invasion of Iraq. There is also circumstantial evidence that he has decided bombing may be too costly a choice.
Agreed, but I do not think this eliminates the possibility of an Iran attack. The way I see it, Bush is in the middle of opposing forces. On one side are Cheney, the oil companies, and so on. For them, an attack on Iran makes no sense, since it would disrupt the oil industry. On the other side is the israel lobby and the “Christian” evangelicals, who want war. Bush must play good cop / bad cop to appease them all. In a sense he does not exist at all. He’s an empty space between these forces.
Will there be an attack on Iran? To me the best answer is, “We don’t know.” I doubt if even Bush knows. I doubt anyone knows, even those with power. I doubt there is any force that is totally in control, and has final decision-making authority (although I feel that central banks comes closest to such status). Whether or not there will be an attack on Iran depends on continually changing conditions.
In sum, there are factors that oppose war, and that favor war. The way I see it, both factors are equally powerful, and both arguments (there will / will not be an attack) are equally persuasive.
At this point, we simply don’t know.
Thank you again for your comment.
A few years ago I was watching a celebrity on a TV talk show who had just returned from Britain and said in Britain the hair treatment companies by law cannot use the word "rejuvenating" in their commercials, because hair is a dead material and it would be considered deceptive advertising if you say your product will rejuvenate hair. In free America it is the deceived who is responsible for being or not being deceived. This may sound trivial to some but when this practice spreads across the board to all public sectors, media, and politicians, then a dreadful habit seeps into people's minds to not question the meaning of what they are being told.
women didn't question why breast implant companies called their silicone implants "Gel". Even FDA didn't bother. Gel is a polymer (synthetic or natural) materials science term and has its own definition. The silicone was not a gel and as we found out (late), it leached out of the casing and spread in the body. A gel will not leach or flow. The manufacturer called it gel to entrain the notion of gello into women's heads, as if something you can put in your body and not worry about.
When politicians say we will stay in Iraq until we win, no one is questioning them : Sir, winning is not a goal, "winning is the description of accomplishing a goal." Sir, I am asking what the goal is, sir?
When they say we are fighting them THERE so we don't have to fight them HERE, no one is questioning them : Sir could you please give me ONE example in the last three thousand years that any one else has done that, sir? Why can't we just send an email to our embassies advising them to not issue visas to moslem looking men, sir?
Terrorism is probably one of the biggest marketing buzzwords that unfortunately even well meaning journalists are not immune to its flippant usage. Terrorism is "a mode of action" and not a philosophy of confrontation. It does not "exist on its own". You cannot fight or fund it. The same way that you cannot "kill" a virus, because a virus is a chemical compound and is not "alive" to be "killed" (unless you are talking to common folks who will be confused otherwise). Is it any wonder after six years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of solders and mercenaries around the world, rallying so many allies, we cannot capture even one stinking terrorist that we can put on trial on camera and prove he is a terrorist. All the terrorists are either people we don't like, or digital and exist only on computer or TV screens, or dead on the streets and cannot dispute the label.
Historically speaking, terrorism was what the ruling governments called what the insurgent communists regarded as guerrilla warfare. Communists expanded the old concept of political assassinations to targeting high value individuals important to the ruling (noncommunist) governments. Today its the same communists who have yet broken their own record and expanded the definition to targeting the civilians. Only this time they have done it in a manner that moslems are being blamed for.
Long prelude to just say that this article, though not malicious, is simply refusing (or god forbid incapable) to question the meaning of an array of marketing and promotional concepts and nomenclatures (terror network, nuclear ambitions, WMD, ...) and just use them to describe what other people out there are saying.
Just like a bunch of neighbors get together in one spot and talk about what they have heard about the heart problems of one of their neighbors and if the doctors will operate on him or not, while none on them seem to understand the medical terms they have heard, but keep saying them as if they do.
I agree with thx1138's critique and don't want to duplicate it. If I just can add to it, the author does not question what the purpose of attacking Iran might be. You cannot describe attacking Iran "costly" unless you know what the "gains" are. The author seems uninterested in the fact that the Iran war promoters are the same as Iraq and Afghanistan war promoters and none of the attacks has anything to do with the quality of intelligence we have about those countries.
My own gut feeling about the reason for hesitation is in the military. I bet some high ranking officers are not enthusiastic about all out confrontation.
But we are angry here. We want the truth to be told. We want the government to start telling the truth to the masses that feed it.
Yes, a big joke I know. Demanding the impossible. By all means, have a great laugh on our dark depression.
Quite expensive laughter we are all paying for, indeed.
In light of what has been happening in this world, the MEDIA BLITZKRIEG ATTACKS on Syria and Iran beg to be deciphered once and for all, by as many people as possible, lest we enjoy another towering inferno of bloodlust, amputated limbs, and handicapped minds.
Of course, we know what is in store for us!
To be brushed aside, interrupted, and treated rudely - like what happened to HELEN THOMAS - by those two sideshow-goofs, tony snow and that weird, strange green thing.... that bush,shrub,grassy, greenish,.....you know the one.....Rove wrote many of his screenplays.
Bit-O-Reality here and say that these so called "Nuclear Ambitions" of Iran TOTALLY revolve around "ENERGY PRODUCTION" Read:PRODUCT! Energy for SALE. Not just OIL. Energy for the many users that desperately need it at a fair price.
The Iranian Refinement program can at this point on a Great and productive day muster 11% U-235. IF all of there proposed centrifuges were all on line an producing then they could do 22% perhaps.
22% is Fracking Well Short of the 95%+ needed for use in fission weapons.
There is ABSOLUTELY no place on this planet that could in a clandestine environment muster even a 50% program FORGET a 95+ one. Crap look at the infrastructure to do the initial stages of the Manhattan project.
Whole cities and support industries sprang into being almost over night. You don't hide these programs for long from ALL the interested world parties it just is not doable.
So everyone that seems to think that the Iranian plan is ANYTHING other than selling TeraWatts of juice to all the land the Zion builders destroyed i say this You are a MORON.
Don't like it? Tough look up the facts and see for your self. Iran if it wants it can supply all the lands the IOF covet with AC power 24 hours a day. But try to play these finger pointing sessions without ANY real evidence then you will just have to talk to Iran's Big Brother. Games and Spook Op's will not buy you one watt.
When enough Arab people come to and realise that there going to have to work in UNISON againt the Empire Money Changer sect Just to survive. But once they see that the West is just as impotent as Russia was AFTER a shipment of American Stingers went into Afghanistan. Well George Just how long did you think it would take for the Iraqi to see the usefulness of all that DU you were throwing around? Now that they are shooting it back at you you have to com up with this EFP bullshit? Lame and Moronic. Anyone with WWW access can figure out the EFP. Even a person who has never even seen an Iranian can do it.
Zion man is going nuts. Just how nuts is going to soon become very apparent to all watching this Soap Opera of BS from the Americans.
Soon "THERE" Money and it's use is going to be issue number 1.
Who has it and Who shuns it.
Who play Along with and Who Fights there Evil plans.
First you take D.C. Then you take New York (:
Anyone thinking that the President of Iran controls the War parts of Iran's government in a We are under attack eventuality like a B-52/AGM-129 Strike mission is also a moron.
Ahmadinejad is not tasked with those burdens those fall to other more frighting individuals the Americans are scared poopless about.
In sunburn country you are a sitting duck be it on the waves or in the sky if you try to pull any shit.
Poopless.
And they have a broken arrow to boot.
Poetic and entertaining.
Anyone notice the 6 crew offed after that B-52 fight to a Mid east staging base?
Nice bit of jewish lightning on those.
First you take D.C. Then you take New York (:
OK MAINSTREAM MEDIA, IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
The "Iranian weapons are killing GIs in Iraq" meme
Here is a question I've been trying to have answered for four years. I've written directly to every broadcast media "personality and "on-air talent" in the United States in addition to several dozen reporters at the major newspapers. I've had two or three "I'll get back to you" reponses with no further details provided. It's impossible to get a straight answer from reporters here in the States or overseas. Copied below is the letter I've sent to the mainstream media:
Question:
WHERE and WHAT are all these "Iranian weapons" we keep hearing about?
Could we have some details please?
Someone kindly identify or explain:
1.) Exactly what type of weapons? Rifles, pistols, automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, artillery, artillery rockets, anti-aircraft systems, etc. etc.
2.) The caliber or bore size of the weapon(s). In the case of rockets the size of the rocket (length and or diameter). The military or manufacturer's identifier or nickname for the item or system would be helpful. There are enough reference materials available to immediately identify whether a specific weapon being claimed as "Iranian" is indeed manufactured in Iran.
3.) The manufacturer of the weapon (the armaments company, corporation, defense industry or factory) if possible.
4.) Regarding those so-called "sophisticated" IEDs and EFPs:
The Iraqis came close to completing a functioning nuclear reactor in the early '80s until the facility was bombed by the israelis. Building a nuclear power plant and processing the uranium required to run it is at least one thousand times more complicated than constructing machined-component shaped charges (as in IEDs and EFPs). Those weapons could be described as upgraded versions of remotely-activated claymore land mines which have been around for at least forty years. Building IEDs and EFPs is child's play in comparison to the construction of nuclear power plant equipment. To claim that IEDs and EFPs are "sophisticated" and cannot be built by the Iraqis themselves is absurd. Those items can be fabricated in any modestly equipped automotive machine shop. Anywhere. The electrics required are common, off-the-shelf items available at any Radio Shack or similar electrical or electronics supply store. The Iraqis have over fifty years of experience with oil field equipment and repair. There are hundreds if not thousands of competent machinists and electrical technicians in the country, civilian as well as ex-military who are perfectly capable of constructing so-called IEDs and EFPs.
So, along with any standard weaponry that's being claimed as "Iranian" what singular characteristics identify those IEDs and EFPs as being of Iranian manufacture?
As it stands now I find all these accusations concerning "Iranian weapons" to be extremely dubious. If Iranian weapons have been verifiably found in Iraq then do tell us what they are -- specifically. There are many thousands, maybe millions of military vets like myself who have at least some familiarity with military ordnance. We and most American citizens would like to know precisely what these supposed "Iranian" weapons are and what substantiates them as being "Iranian." The claims so far have been vague, unsubstantiated and wholly unconvincing. They've neither been supported with details as to what types of armaments nor general specifications. I'll merely mention Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and you'll understand my skepticism.
To repeat, in closing: WHAT specifically are all these "Iranian weapons" we keep hearing about, WHERE are they and how do we know they're "Iranian"?
P.S. There were some photos of 81mm mortar ammo trotted out by the u.s. army or some government agency several months ago. Those proved little or nothing of course. 81mm is a relatively common mortar bore size and that size launcher and ammo are manufactured in several countries other than Iran, including the United States.
P.P.S. To provide another complication Iranian manufactured weapons are openly available on the world arms market. The mere discovery of a weapon manufactured in Iran does not conclusively prove it was shipped directly from Iran into Iraq. That is not even worth speculating about at this point because I haven't seen any proof at all of Iranian weaponry being used in Iraq.
P.P.P.S. I've heard from friends who still have contacts in the army that the Iranian 81mm mortar launcher is a direct copy of the old USA M-29 launcher. The design drawings for the M-29 launcher and ammo were purportedly provided to the Iranians by Oliver North during the Iran-Contra episode.
Regards,
Jonny