http://www.qando.net/ - Iranian IED Factories

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

Another in a growing number of reasons Iran needs to be delt with. The obvious point here, as described by ABC News is it is a fairly anonymous way for Iran to kill Americans:

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq but without provoking a direct confrontation.

What makes these particular IEDs so lethal is their design. Commonly known as "shape charges", they can penetrate any known armor:

When exploded, the copper disc becomes a molten liquid bullet that can penetrate the thickest armor the United States has.

Additionally, they're now using fairly easily obtained triggering devices which can't be jammed:

The U.S. Army has embarked on a crash effort to find ways to stop the bombs, according to an unclassified report issued last month. The devices are easily hidden and detonated by motion detectors — like those used in garden security lights — that cannot be jammed.

The obvious way to cut down on the importation of these devices is better control of the border. That that's a tall order in an area in which pilgrims travel back and forth and centuries old smuggler's trails are still in use.

Instead, it points to yet another reason "regime change" is the best policy for the US as it pertains to Iran. We need to be actively attempting to subvert the existing regime even as they actively provide the means to kill Americans in Iraq and subvert our effort there. Tit for tat, as they say. Given that what is reported is true, I have no ethical problem whatsoever in the attempted overthrow of the Iranian regime.

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

Why would we really expect regime change in Iran to put a stop to this? Maybe in the long term it would, but we aren’t going to be in Iraq for the long term, are we?

Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com

The Iranians have been killing U.S. soldiers by proxy for years now, why is the latest edition any different requiring overthrow of the regime?

Written By: Ugh
URL: http://

The countries of the Warsaw pact and China killed Americans by proxy for years. Hamas, etc. also have killed the occasional American for years. So what’s new?

Written By: timactual
URL: http://

Is this considered an "act of war"? Is there such a thing anymore?

Written By: W
URL: http://

We need to be actively attempting to subvert the existing regime even as they actively provide the means to kill Americans in Iraq and subvert our effort there.

Agreed. If we don’t have plans to train and arm Iran’s pro-democracy dissident population, we damn well have cause to be developing and implementing them now.

Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

If the regime change option becomes necessary and requires overt military force, we should just go ahead and do that and take out as much of their nuclear program as possible all in one go.

We have limited objectives in Iran, and more to the point, we don’t have the ground forces to have bigger objectives. This regime and the nuclear program could be taken down with one concerted ar campaign combined with a sort of "siege" — not in the old sense of starving them out, but in the hyperwar sense. Cut off anything trying to leave the country (particularly to the west or east), and cut off anything trying to get in that isn’t a cruise missile or propoganda.
Give them a sharp enough adverse supply shock and blow up enough infrastructure (like bridges) from afar, and let the Iranians know (via internet, satellite, radio, pamphlets if possible) that the time for a revolution is now. Jam state frequencies, bomb symbols of the current regime, assassinate prominent state figures, and destroy the nuke facilities as you go. Then watch the Iranian regime try to stand up to agitated Iranians who have nothing productive to do with their time, and no nearby American/Coalition troops to take it out on. Keeping the troops and regime figures fed while they try to fend off the destruction of the nuke program and all those revolutionaries (no matter how popular the revolution turns out to be) should be something of a challenge.

And let everyone know that the sooner the current regime collapses, the sooner they can get back to doing business with the world. They can have all the support they want, but there’s one thing they won’t get: American soldiers on the ground. Meanwhile, the nuke program will literally be blown into the next decade. And if the regime that replaces the current one is somehow worse, we can lather-rinse-repeat.

If we can do that and protect neighboring states’ oil production, we can do this fairly clean. Iran currently provides roughly 5% of the world’s supply of oil.

Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://

The countries of the Warsaw pact and China killed Americans by proxy for years. Hamas, etc. also have killed the occasional American for years. So what’s new?

The Warsaw Pact and China had/have massively strong nuclear armed militaries. Iran does not. Hamas was preemptively retaliated against by invading their country by proxy and killing their leadership.

Whats new is that Iran is a weak country and is afforded the same respect as the Soviet Bloc or China, when it could be taken apart almost as easily as Palestine.

Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://

Wulf:

Why would we really expect regime change in Iran to put a stop to this?

+

Well, unless you plan on just renaming the regime and leaving the same guys in charge, I would assume a rival regime (to the one in power) might have different priorities for one thing.

Ugh:

The Iranians have been killing U.S. soldiers by proxy for years now, why is the latest edition any different requiring overthrow of the regime?

As you might have read in the post I said it "points to yet another reason" I believe regime change to be the best policy for Iran ... or perhaps you missed that.

W:

Is this considered an "act of war"? Is there such a thing anymore?

Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that an "act of war" any country wanting a war decides it is.

Jeff:

If we don’t have plans to train and arm Iran’s pro-democracy dissident population, we damn well have cause to be developing and implementing them now.

Bingo.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/

Q, I get your point. But I assume that even if we see regime change in Iran, the people in Iran who hate America will continue doing this for as long as possible. Probably well into the new regime. We’re talking a few years, I am sure. So exactly how long do we expect to have troops in Iraq, vulnerable to these Iranian-made weapons?

These devices may be beyond the abilities of the insurgents in Iraq, but they aren’t exactly on the level of WMDs for complexity or detectability, and the odds of us blowing up the source and the makers are pretty slim. Unless we are going to commit a very large number of troops to invading Iran, in which case they are going to see these things up close again - and of course they’ll see much worse, as well. There is an argument for going into Iran, but this isn’t it. The strategy is not sound.

There is a reason these guys used to send kids with sticks out in front of their tanks, to set off ordinance. It’s dangerous stuff, and there’s no way around that. It’s not any easier to knock out the supply quickly than it is to make the Iranians stop wanting to target our troops in the first place. Short of a plan like Ornery describes (which I certainly don’t expect any time soon), I think we have to face the reality that these devices are in Iraq, and are being used against our troops, and that will likely be the case until we leave. I don’t see how we can initiate a regime change in Iran without increasing exposure to these weapons (and far worse).

The American public doesn’t have the stomach for that. Not unless we see Iranians on jets crashing into the Sears Tower and the Pentagon.

Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com

There is an argument for going into Iran, but this isn’t it. The strategy is not sound.

Wulf, I’m not advocating going into Iran. See the "bingo" at the end of the same comment (after Jeff’s hightlighted comment). No, no, I’m advocating regime change the old fashioned way ... foment it. And we need to get to work on that post haste.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/

Sorry but when the only sources cited are U.S. intelligence officials, I have my doubts. This could just be another example of manipulation of the news. Remember this administration said it will continue to plant stories in middle eastern newspapers. Why should we think ABC News rated any better? Because it’s an American? I think it is another attempt to gin up public support for war against Iran. I personally doubt that Iran is supplying IED’s because the risk is too great. I think they have all the raw materials and know-how needed right in Iraq.

Written By: jumpball
URL: http://

I understand your skepticism, but I’d also note it is confirmed by the US military. They’ve apparently intercepted them coming over the border.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/

"Whats new is that Iran is a weak country"
Weakness is a relative thing. Iran is not so weak that we are strong enough at the moment to invade it successfully. Iraq was weak, too, but it seems to have required most of our military and political resources to handle. Even if we do have the ability, is it worth the price? I submit that the cost of forcefully stopping Iran’s bad behaviour would outweigh the benefits, at least regarding this specific issue.

Written By: timactual
URL: http://

iran by supplying arms to the insergents makes perfact sense with the treats of of a us invasion of iran, keeping the american bogged down, is iraq a really good idea ,the fact its killing lots of us troops is the whole point of the exercise make iraq so costly ,even that great bastion of intellgence bush will thick twice. any invasion of iran will result in another iraq type mess.

Written By: john donald
URL: http://

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!