Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Pentagon, State Department Debunk Bush Fabrications on Iran

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. Posted September 19, 2007.


The charge that Tehran is using Iran's elite Quds Force to fight a proxy war in Iraq does not ring true, as even the United States' top man in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has conceded.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In his prepared statement to the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees last week, General David Petraeus claimed that Iran is using the Quds Force to turn Shi'ite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" to "fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

But Petraeus then shattered that carefully constructed argument by volunteering in answering a question that the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, had in essence left Iraq. "The Quds Force itself, we believe, by and large those individuals have been pulled out of the country, as have the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that were being used to augment that activity."

Petraeus's contradictory statements on the Quds Force are emblematic of a US administration propaganda line that has in essence fallen apart because it was so obviously out of line with reality. Nine months after the George W Bush administration declared that it was going to go after Iranian agents in Iraq who were threatening US troops, the US military still has not produced any evidence that Quds Force operatives in Iraq were engaged in assisting the militias fighting against US troops.

The US military command in Iraq has failed to capture a single Quds Force member it could link to the Shi'ite militias. And the evidence that has emerged over the past nine months about Shi'ite militias and their relationship to Iran suggests that Quds Force personnel in Iraq never had the mission of assisting Shi'ite militias, as claimed by the Bush administration.

It appears that an increasing number of military intelligence officers in Iraq have concluded that the Quds Force has been steering clear of working directly with Shi'ite militias attacking US troops, to avoid giving the Bush administration a pretext for aggression against Iranian territory.

In a military briefing presented in Baghdad on February 11, an unnamed US official stated flatly that weapons were being smuggled into the country by the Quds Force, but the briefers failed to present any specific evidence to back up the assertion.

Since that briefing, the US military command has captured the alleged deputy head and key logistical officer of the main Iraqi EFP (explosively formed penetrator, or armor-penetrating explosives) network and a Hezbollah operative who was a liaison with the network, as well as a number of what it called "suspected members" or "suspected leaders" of a "secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of and EFPs from Iran to Iraq."

But the interrogations of these detainees have not led to the capture of a single Iranian official. Nor has the US military been able to identify a link between any Iraqi militia member and any Iranian official. On July 6, Major-General Rick Lynch, commander of US operations south of Baghdad, told reporters his troops had not captured "anybody that we can tie to Iran."

Even more devastating to the "proxy war" line, Lynch's spokeswoman, Alayne Conway, acknowledged on August 19 that they had not caught anyone supplying arms from Iran to the Iraqi Shi'ite militias.

There has long been some evidence, however, of a link between Shi'ite networks for procuring EFPs and other arms and the Lebanese Hezbollah. The leader of a Mahdi Army group that was carrying out attacks against British forces, Ahmad Jawwad al-Fartusi, who was arrested in September 2005, had lived in Lebanon for several years and was known to have personal contact with Hezbollah, according to a March 27 New York Times report.

Along with evidence of a growing relationship between Hezbollah and Muqtada al-Sadr's army, which has now culminated in a Sadr office in Beirut, such past links between the two Shi'ite groups suggest that Hezbollah's assistance to the Shi'ites need not have been ordered by Tehran.

US and British officials have acknowledged in the past that the EFP technology being used in Iraq might have entered Iraq from Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than from Iran.

The premise that the Quds Force agents in Iraq were involved in training Shi'ites to carry out operations against US troops was shattered when Lynch told reporters on August 19 that the Iranians were "facilitating the training of Shi'ite extremist" militiamen in Iraq. That clearly implied that the training was being done by Hezbollah.

The Washington Post and other news outlets quoted Lynch's statement but nevertheless reported that Lynch had charged that Iranians were doing the training. A spokesperson for Lynch confirmed to Inter Press Service that Lynch had not made any allegation about Iranians training Shi'ites in Iraq.

Petraeus dealt the final blow to the notion of a Quds Force training role when he noted that the Hezbollah trainers had also been withdrawn from the country.

The briefing by US military spokesman Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner on July 2 was aimed primarily at advancing the theme that Hezbollah acts in Iraq as a "proxy" for Iran. But the real significance of the briefing -- unreported in the US news media -- was the first suggestion by a US official that the Quds Force personnel in Iraq might have avoided direct contacts with Shi'ite militias altogether.

Asked by a journalist why the Quds Force would "subcontract" the training of Shi'ite militias to Hezbollah, Bergner answered that Hezbollah could "do things that perhaps they didn't want to have to do themselves in terms of interacting directly with special groups."

Without mentioning any pullout of Quds Force personnel, Conway said on August 19 that Lynch estimated there were 50 Quds Force agents in his entire area of responsibility in southern Iraq. Four days later, Lynch clarified that estimate, telling reporters that 30 of those estimated 50 agents were "surrogates" -- presumably referring to Hezbollah operatives engaged in training Shi'ites in southern Iraq.

Although it was buried in the August 19 story inaccurately reporting Lynch's statement about training in Iraq, Megan Greenwell of the Washington Post reported the much more significant fact that "some military intelligence analysts have concluded there is no concrete evidence" linking the Quds Force in Iraq with the Shi'ite militias.

The charge that Iran is using the Quds Force to fight a proxy war is an effort to raise tensions with Iran by suggesting a potential reason for a US attack against that country. Similarly, the pressure for targeting the Quds Force in Iraq late last year came from senior officials in the Bush administration who wished to demonstrate US resolve to confront Iran, according to an in-depth account of the origins of the plan by the Washington Post's Dafna Linzer published on February 26.

That policy was regarded with "skepticism" by the intelligence community, the State Department and the Defense Department when it was proposed, Linzer wrote, because of the fear it would contribute to an escalation of conflict with Iran.

"This has little to do with Iraq," a senior intelligence officer told Linzer. "It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It's purely political."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, bush, white house

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another war?
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 19, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cui bono?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And it's 1...2...3...what are we fighting for (I do give a damn)
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 19, 2007 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never misunderestimate the boy emperor, 16 months more with a chimp in charge is an eternity. He chose Betrayus to catapult the propaganda, just as Colin Powell lost his soul. I used to almost trust that guy, he had the right idea when he was George I's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Even Defense Secretary Cheney back then knew better than to occupy Mesopotamia. They all sold their souls and now serve Mammon. If BushCo and his MilIndComp bomb Iran, I'll be thoroughly convinced he means to bring on the EndTimes.
There's still time to TURN BACK. Calling all angels...all Bush calls on are the angels of death. Lots of blood on the hands of our supreme dear rulers in the administration. There'll be hell to pay.....probably literally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War as a boost to populatiry?
Posted by: akai ringo on Sep 19, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it possible that Bush thinks that if he goes to war with Iran, the American people will flock to support a president at war with another country? As Hitler pointed out, if you keep on saying "black is white" enough times, people will come to believe it. So following this logic, all he needs to is keep on repeating that Iran is the enemy of democrary and Iranians need to be liberated. Would the American people swallow this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the lies continue from this Administration
Posted by: kgs1947 on Sep 19, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch this video commentary. It won't appear on big cinema screens! http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Do we need more proof of the well-constructed lies of Mr. Bush and his "team"? It's a two hour movie with three separate segments...the ending is the reason for watching it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran's Peace Offer
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Sep 19, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few days ago I posted a story concerning Iran's President repeated request to the US that they both publicly address the UN on their differences of opinion on Iran's stance, but it seems to have gone missing. Now that this article had been posted, the original article is no longer available, so I will have to leave it up to individual readers, interested in such a story, to go search for it on the Internet.
If my story was one of the ones deleted because it opposed Alternet policy, namely it didn't' relate to that particular story, maybe Alternet can give us a way of posting such important stories, or at least links to that story, and this one became relevant quite quickly, so as not to loose it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America want's MORE!?
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 19, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like you guys basicly NEVER GET ENOUGH!!!

Well, lets just see about that, when we a bit "update" that bodycount of yours!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will it ever end?
Posted by: vomeggido on Sep 19, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The countries outrage about this kid getting tasered (electrocuted) at a Kerry Q&A afforded me a bit of hope that the citizens of this country are beginning to Herr, Bush as the new Fuhrer of world domination by dictatorship.

At least the people are now getting angry and speaking up- err, doing a bit more than speaking up!

The good news is we may actually have another administration (which I seriously doubted until recently) and a 2008 election.

One thing is for certain- whoever they allow to head up the administration this time will need to move at a snails pace- which buys the people more time to arm ourselves.

Bearing arms was the purpose and the solution so we would never have to get this close to such ugly leadership.

I am hopeful this wake-up call will be heard and acted upon by the American people to the tune of demanding the immediate dissolution of the Patriot Act and the re-institution of The American Constitution.

In a perfect world, we will rid our capital of Bush and change everything back that he did. Cancel it all and start over.

I realize this is an idealistic thought- its really the only way to begin the clean-up process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Will it ever end? Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Will it ever end? Posted by: sasquuatch55
What's the matter America?
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 19, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting a little tired and nervous;=))?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And... Posted by: TT5
» And... What is your point? Posted by: buffeliscious
Don't worry America!
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 19, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Theres still room for you in the ash-heap of history! And an old friend wating=P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why this brings my back...
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 19, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
almost back to the days of Ronnie Raygun=P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Flash: US calls for assault on Saudi Arabia after finding Saudi-based terrorists in Iraq
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 19, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Gulf News 9-18-07:
"Iraqi soldiers had earlier killed a top Al Qaeda leader along with two militants from Saudi Arabia and Libya in a gunbattle in western Mosul, 360km north of Baghdad.

This has led to calls from regional allies for the US to take action against Saudi Arabia:
Times of Malta
Finally, the US must increase its pressure on its ally Saudi Arabia to help stem the flow of jihadis from the kingdom into Iraq.

Responding to this pressure from allies, the US has declared an imminent 'massive bombing campaign' against Saudi Arabia. "We're going to bomb them back to the Stone Age", said Robert Gates. "We cannot allow this unchecked aggression to continue." stated Condi Rice.

However, due to the overstretched US Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only option appears to be taking the $20 billion in arms earmarked for Saudia Arabia and dropping them on the country.

The first stage will involve 'decapitation strikes' aimed at the Saudi Royals, but this has raised a storm of protest from France, as many of the Royals are currently encamped in Paris. "Those frogs have betrayed us for the last time", screamed GW Bush, and he vowed that "No place on Earth will be safe for these enemies of freedom!".

Pounding the podium, he thundered "We mean business this time. Sarkozy is a poodle, and we're going to set his ass on fire!". Aids quickly hustled the President off the stage and into a waiting limo.

In a desperate attempt to stave off the impending assault, the Saudi Royals are calling for the construction of a security wall along their 1000-km border:

"JEDDAH, 18 September 2007 —“The contract for building the fence will be awarded soon, God willing,” the minister (Prince Naif) told reporters after meeting with the president of King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh."

Gates and Rice immediately called such attempts 'inadequate and deceptive', and also pointed out that Saudi Arabia poses a massive threat to Israel due to its proximity and its 'long history of support for terrorism'.

"Israel has the right to defend themselves from these savage Wahhabi terrorists, and we support Israel in this effort", said John Bolton. "This time, the gloves are off!".

Opponents of this plan are claiming that it simply an effort to control Saudi oil, a notion which was immediately ridiculed by Donald Rumsfeld.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Credit inspiration to Dahr Jamail: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Its the Saudis not Iran. Posted by: yellow
What alternative
Posted by: willymack on Sep 19, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do the American people have since Congress has abrogated its responsibility to our people by not taking the steps toward removal of this sick and hopelessly corrupt regime? Let's face it; the deck is stacked against us, what with a controlled press, a kissass congress, a crooked Supreme Court, and a corporate/military establishment allied against us. So, how do we stand up to all this? By doing NOTHING, that's how. So, congress doesn't want to represent us any more? Fine, we won't go to work until they do. We'll walk to the store, we'll congregate in public areas demanding the resignation of the crooked officials responsible for screwing us over, including the Supreme Court justices who put the bushie criminals in office. If (and this is a BIG if) we can pull together for a few weeks and do these things, the oligarchy, from the Chump-in-Charge on down will find that they have NOBODY to screw over, and no more blood money to extort from us. I think it's worth a try. What can be taken away from us that we haven't already lost? Our crappy jobs? Our substandard wages and "benefits"? Our right to organize into unions and collective bargining? Our right to protest without being forced to do so in cages far away from "El Supremo" so as not to cause him disterss? Our right to see, read, and hear the unvarnished truth in the popular media? Our right to receive a decent education? Our Constitutional guarantees? By now, the most obtuse of us have come to the realization that this regime is all take and NO give. We must stop supporting their evil. Bringing this country to a standstill by doing NOTHING is one way. They can't arrest us all, folks. There are simply not enough police and military personnel to do it, and, I suspect that many of them would be too decent to act against people guilty of nothing more than doing NOTHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why We Must Go To War
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 19, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, we MUST go to war with Iran because:

1. The White House has said Iran is doing "terrible things," and developing WMD's. Just like all the WMD's Saddam had when the US invaded.

2. Iran won't play ball and bring Iraqi's into the fold. Hence, no USA "friends and family plan" for the Iranians, that's for sure. For GW, why cannot the Iranian's just crap out like the Saudi's and the Egyptians, accept USA hegemony in the region and get marching instructions from Tel Aviv? Then they can be "friends and family" and join th plan.

3. Iran is insistent on restricting USA corporate ownership and domination in the region. For GW, the biggest sin of them all. No "oil on the cheap" from the Iranians. Plus, if they break away from pricing oil in US Dollars what then? China might decide its $1.5 trillion US Dollars in reserve are as worthles as the USA government deficit. Then, hell breaks loose.

So, friends, we must go to war with Iran. The reasons are given above, but there are others I am sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TAKE ACTION
Posted by: lickbush on Sep 20, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tired of INACTION? Stop all contributions/donations to ALL DEMS for the month of October.

Get IMPEACHMENT back on the table.

SPREAD THE WORD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TAKE ACTION Posted by: rotorooter
Bush lying?
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 20, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same old s***. The only time he's not lying . . . there is no time he's not lying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement