« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
State Dep't Official: Iran Definitely Arming Taliban
In a statement echoing February's claims that the Iranian government was arming Iraqi terrorist groups, Nicholas Burns, the State Department's influential undersecretary for political affairs, told CNN today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is arming the Taliban as well:
"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this and it's a pattern of activity," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN."If you see the Iranians arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank and, of course, arming Shia militants inside Iraq itself [sic]. It's very violent and very unproductive activity by the Iranian government."
And one that puts Tehran contrary to the U.N. Security Council, Burns said.
Burns's comments come a little more than a week after Defense Secretary Bob Gates said that it wasn't yet certain whether the presence of Iranian weaponry in Afghanistan indicated a concerted strategy on the part of the Iranian government. Now, apparently, the evidence has become "irrefutable."
If Iran is in fact aiding the Taliban, it's aiding an old enemy. In 2001, according to a presidential rival to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guard helped U.S.-backed Afghan fighters overthrow the Taliban. (U.S. intelligence officials have called the claim somewhat overblown.) The theory goes that now, Iran feels so threatened by U.S. forces on its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan that it will cast its lot in with whomever fights the Americans, despite old antipathies. It's known as "managed chaos." Muhammed Tahir, writing for the Jamestown Foundation, contends, "Iran has been increasing its operations in Afghanistan in an effort to gain influence with the contending insurgent factions and to hasten the departure of U.S. troops from the country."
It's a plausible enough theory, given that Iran remains surrounded by U.S. forces led by a bellicose administration, but it remains unclear what Burns's "irrefutable evidence" of Iranian strategy is, and how it represents an improvement over the evidence Gates possesses. Determining the ultimate provenance of Iranian weaponry is tricky. Last year, the Guardian reported that Iranian operatives were offering military support to Taliban-held areas in Afghanistan -- but most likely, those Iranians were Baluch seperatists fighting Tehran, rather than Iranian government agents. That's not to say that the Iranians aren't supplying the Taliban -- only that "irrefutable" evidence of who's arming who in Afghanistan is often more refutable than it might initially appear.
Comments (37)
JR wrote on June 13, 2007 12:31 PM:Oddly enough the Iranians almost went to war with the Taliban in 1999-2000.
Now they're arming them?
Either the statement is false, and the administration is once again playing fast and lose with the facts to sell another ill-advised and costly military engagement.
Or it is true, and the administration's policies in the Middle East have been so disasterous that two groups who were nearly engaged in a full blown war 7 years ago are now allies against the U.S.
Conclusion: Things won't get better until professionals are calling the shots--and that won't happen as long as Cheney/Bush are in the White House.
AnneW wrote on June 13, 2007 12:39 PM:"Or it is true, and the administration's policies in the Middle East have been so disasterous that two groups who were nearly engaged in a full blown war 7 years ago are now allies against the U.S."
Unfortunately, I think that might be what's happening.
Iran probably does feel more threatened by our presence, than the Taliban's...and justifiably so.
gonzone wrote on June 13, 2007 12:53 PM:I, for one, demand to see the "irrefutable evidence." It's a little lack of trust thing.
rusty wrote on June 13, 2007 12:54 PM:...it's a slam-dunk, mushroom cloud, smokin' gun kinda thing - oh yeah, and they want the UN to do something about it. next we'll be hearing about the "coalition of countries who didn't say no".
NPE wrote on June 13, 2007 12:54 PM:I'd have to see much firmer proof before I believed this. If you want examples of how willing Sunni extremists and Shia theocrats are to set aside their differences and let bygones be bygones, just look to Iraq.
kvenlander wrote on June 13, 2007 1:00 PM:I might believe this if the Secretary of State presented the proof in a UN session.
Wahoo wrote on June 13, 2007 1:02 PM:Who is Burns?
Is he a diplomat or a White House appointee?
Why should we give him credence?
Please TPM, inquiring minds need to know.
rusty wrote on June 13, 2007 1:07 PM:you guys can't be serious enough to even question who this guy is - we lost any and all diplomatic credibility a long time ago. i'd say about the same time they put "palau" down as one of the countries that was a part of the coalition of the willing. palau dammit. There are only like 15,000 residents, and probably about 75% of them live as subsistence farmers or fishermen.
we are an international joke on the credibility front.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 1:13 PM:The Jamestown Foundation is a conservative American think tank whose stated mission is to "inform and educate" policy makers about events and trends which it regards as being of current "strategic" importance to the United States. Its website claims that: “Jamestown’s material is delivered without political bias, filter or agenda.”
Founded in 1984 after Jamestown's late president and founder William Geimer's work with Arkady Shevchenko, the highest-ranking Soviet Union official ever to defect when he left his position as undersecretary general of the United Nations.
The foundation’s 17-member board includes Chairman Clinton I. Smullyan and Vice Chairman R. James Woolsey, Jr.. The other members are Zbigniew Brzezinski, Barbara Buchanan, Jams H. Burnley, Peter C. Cook, Diana Denman, Willem deVogel, Edward O. Gaylord, James G. Gildwitz, Patrick W. Gross, Ralph W. Hauenstein, James Hauslein, Artemis Joukowsky, Woody Peterson, and Arthur Waldron. Vice President Dick Cheney and Marcia Carlucci, wife of Frank Carlucci, are former board members.
The Jamestown Foundation claims it contributed directly to the spread of democracy and personal freedom in former communist bloc countries during the 1980s. It acquires its information through official or intelligence channels.
Currently, its primary focus is on Eurasia and Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Foundation
It is such a shame that George Tenet is not available to substantiate such assertions. I hear Colin Powell has a new gig advocating closing GITMO, that PNAC member Scooter Libby might spend part of his New American Century in jail, and that the Plames are writing a book. You would think that if Jamestown Foundation had ties to any Taliban that that would be violation of the Patriot Act and that they were sleeper cell members... which of course is now found to constitutionally questionable....
Jack Abramoff providing means and materials to radical elements of the Israeli society for violence did not of course imply that that was US policy or did it?
But Ihave never liked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad anyway and feel that the detainment of Americans without public charges constitutes war crimes anyway... of thet trite thing called the constitution... But in the bizzaro world of 'animal farm' diplomacy that we have witnessed recently I guess that this is all par for the course.
Seems like deja-vu all over again.
At least the Weekly Standard did not provide the press release, and I guess the tpmmuckraker and Jamestown are in the same business of national security speculation.
Easy Joke wrote on June 13, 2007 1:15 PM:Is he related to Montgomery Burns? But seriously, I hope that this "irrefutable evidence" is something more substantial than a forged, Italian letter.
Redshift wrote on June 13, 2007 1:21 PM:So who's going to be the first journalist to say "you lied to us about Iraqi weapons, why should we believe you about this?"
Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
Arash wrote on June 13, 2007 2:04 PM:As a French of Iranian origin, I am twice disgusted by these American diplomats who call us Old Europe and build false "proofs" against Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc... to justify their dirty wars.
Who do you think still believes the US when they make such statements? Who cares about US complaints in Iraq or Afghanistan? Who can imagine, just one second, that the US govt is even at 1% responsible of its actions?
For now, no one in Europe, except some few pro-Blais in England... And that's what makes me believe that in Europe, alongside with South America, Africa and Asia, no one trust the US anymore.
David Curley wrote on June 13, 2007 2:10 PM:Very recently Karzai gave a speech in the presence of someone from the administration (Cheney? Gates?)in which he pointedly thanked Iran for generous development assistance to Afganistan. This assistance certainly is not any secret in Afganisthan. Part of the reason for US allegations of secret Iranian aid to the Taliban is to counter known and public Iranian assistance to the government of Afganisthan, and increased Iranian influence there as a result. I agree one should want good evidence for these US allegations, especially given this pretty obvious purpose for them, but perhaps a double-sided strategy on the part of Iran also isn't completely impossible. Isn't the war serving their interests?
AnneW wrote on June 13, 2007 2:11 PM:I still do not think it's that far fetched...it's the same reason the US is now arming Sunni insurgents that are not particularly friendly us.
itsbenj wrote on June 13, 2007 2:15 PM:Oh dear God. There is NO PLAUSIBILITY to the assertion that Iran is arming the Taliban!!! They HATE each other, they are not working together. IDIOTS!!! Anyone who believes this, even for one second, is an idiot.
cevrero wrote on June 13, 2007 2:17 PM:So things aren't going so well in Afghanistan either and this administration needs someone to blame.
All these Pro-war advocates are so full of shizzle,....every week it's this and that based on top secret indisclosed evidence or ,even worse, ill-informed hear say. And then we find out a month later that's not the case. When all the so called intelligence you claim to have over the years is wrong, you have to stop calling it "intelligence",....just call it what it is: " stupid bullshit".
Can the anti-war senators please stand up and say something!
itsbenj wrote on June 13, 2007 2:18 PM:Karzai is NOT part of the Taliban!!!
JR wrote on June 13, 2007 2:30 PM:"No one trusts the U.S. anymore". Not even two-thirds of Americans (e.g. to the degree that we're talking about the National leadership--especially in the White House). It's a sad statement.
Colon Powell wrote on June 13, 2007 2:34 PM:Iran is arming them with mobile bioweapons labs. The sallelite photos are irrefutable.
Mary wrote on June 13, 2007 2:54 PM:Weird that, despite the stories of Rice and her diplomacy push, the sabre rattling is coming from State and Gates is being more cautious.
Tom Betz wrote on June 13, 2007 2:55 PM:Don't forget what General Dan McNeil said!
According to the top NATO general running the show in Afghanistan, the Iranian government is definitely helping the Karzai government, is it really helping out the Taliban? Not so much.
From the AP (click on my name for the whole article):
McNeill, the commander of 36,000 troops in NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said the indications cut both ways. There is "ample evidence" Iran is helping the Karzai government, particularly with road construction and electricity in western Afghanistan, but Iran may also have helped the Taliban and other political opponents of Karzai, he said.
"So what does that add up to?" McNeill said. "It makes me think of a major American corporation that will give political campaign money to three or four different candidates for president of the United States. ... This corporation wants to be aligned with whomever comes out on top."
McNeill, a 60-year-old four-star general from North Carolina who has fought in most American conflicts since Vietnam, said he had no hard evidence that the Iranian government has helped the Taliban. He said munitions, particularly mortar rounds, "clearly ... made in Iran" have been found on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but said that does not prove that the Iranian government is formally involved in aiding Taliban fighters.
"If I had the information, I would have no reservation about saying it," he added.
aguaweasel wrote on June 13, 2007 4:14 PM:Iran thinks the Taliban is a bunch herectical yokels. They almost went to war with the Taliban in 1999. They are probably supplying arms to some Dari Speaking Warlords, or using conduits from many of the refugees that live in Iran from the past Afghanistan wars.
If the IFOR forces in Afghanistan start getting hit with shoulder fire IR missles or sophisticated IUD that have a laser as a tripwire, then the Taliban or other forces are getting outside help. The Warlords in Afghanistan are suspectible to Iranian help than the Taliban.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 4:37 PM:I think that Iran is supplying Afghan fighters because ``Bud'' Cummins is lazy.
When we step back and ponder where the weapons come from, where are the serial numbers, the manifests, etc....
The real issue is why there has not been an equal emphasis on winning the peace? Where is the diplomacy and nation building?
I'm not sure if I'm to believe that progress is thwarted due to the fact that the solution is based in a political solution or the fact that weapons are being introduced into the equation.
I'm confused, I hear that without political progress that the surge is going to be a long hard slog....
And then I guess all the problems are related to some weapons being found of international origin as if there ever has been a manufacturing capability within Afghanastan of armanents. I thought they grew poppy and sold herion and used that cash to import arms?
Shaped Charge History
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm
What you see is that this technology has been used in warfare since the first world war.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=iran+supplying+explosive+shaped+charges&spell=1
And if you look back on the assertions (not the charges) that the technology required to create a foci of maleable metal is abundant.
while I still think the leader of iran is the most rancid pos on the face of the planet, the most dangerous leader bar none...
sometimes making assertions without facts and substantiation just diminishes credibility....
xargaw wrote on June 13, 2007 5:46 PM:These people have no credability at all. They could show us irrefutable evidence and I would still not believe them. We need a whole new team in the Executive Branch before anyone in America should trust again. Who knows what they would manufacture to make a point. It is easier for them to lie and speak the truth.
xargaw wrote on June 13, 2007 5:46 PM:These people have no credability at all. They could show us irrefutable evidence and I would still not believe them. We need a whole new team in the Executive Branch before anyone in America should trust again. Who knows what they would manufacture to make a point. It is easier for them to lie and speak the truth.
Thomas Nikides wrote on June 13, 2007 6:53 PM:Not to reduce these comments to an absurd level, but if Iran is arming its former antagonists,the Taliban, one has to be put mind of the oft repeated, ad nauseum: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Which leads us on to FDR's comment about a one-time Latin dictator, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch."
Thomas Nikides wrote on June 13, 2007 6:56 PM:Not to reduce these comments to an absurd level, but if Iran is arming its former antagonists,the Taliban, one has to be put mind of the oft repeated, ad nauseum: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Which leads us on to FDR's comment about a one-time Latin dictator, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch."
Thomas Nikides wrote on June 13, 2007 6:57 PM:Not to reduce these comments to an absurd level, but if Iran is arming its former antagonists,the Taliban, one has to be put mind of the oft repeated, ad nauseum: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Which leads us on to FDR's comment about a one-time Latin dictator, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch."
bjobotts wrote on June 13, 2007 7:29 PM:The State Dept. is the most corrupt and incompetent depts. in our government. It's hard for me to trust anything that comes from that dept.
dh wrote on June 13, 2007 7:34 PM:They've been running drugs and arms to the highest bidders for years. Lots of money to be made from running arms and gangs from all the countries in the region are involved...but not their governments.
Hell, the main crop of Afghanistan is opium, mixed with the sale of arms and the war profiteers are everywhere. It's incompetent to make public claims about a particular "country" providing weapons to our enemies when they could have changed hands many times before our enemies get them. Proving the "governments" of said countries are involved would be very difficult to prove, much less be irrefutable. So I just don't buy it. I see it as just more "bomb Iran" rhetoric from this administration and the neo cons. Just saying...
How about this: It has finally sunk in on Bush that the war in Iraq is (and will be presented in all future history books as) a complete disaster and one of the worst foreign policy decisions in US history. He is desperate to establish something of a positive legacy. SS "reform" is down the tubes. Immigration legislation is fairing no better. The "surge" in Iraq is not producing the desired results. (Big surprise) Bombing N.Korea is out. Using his last 18 months in office to staff gov't agencies with competant professionals just wouldn't quite have enough dramatic effect. Hmmm. Might just listen to Cheney one more time. I mean, the odds are surely in his favor at this point. Bomb Iran. Yeah, thats the ticket. That'd fix up that legacy thing.
bjobotts wrote on June 13, 2007 7:36 PM:Once again it's more confusing and complicated than:
dh wrote on June 13, 2007 7:42 PM:*******The enemy of my enemy is my friend...unless of course the friend of my enemy is my friend so then my enemy becomes my friend...I think, or...wait...the friend of my enemy is my friend and his enemy is my friend but his friend is also my other enemy so...oh crap...just shoot the one in the middle and stop listening to outdated proverbs...wait...aren't you my son's enemy but my daughter's friend or...geez, am I stuck in the middle with you?
Make that "competent."
Sharon A wrote on June 14, 2007 5:25 AM:Yeah, Burns, and Saddam had WMDs and was Osama bin Laden's best bud.
You and Condo Rice, aka Mushroom Cloud For Brains, should take your show on the road as a team.
You could do the ventriloquist/dummy act together. The problem is, however, that you're BOTH dummies!
Or you think the rest of us are.
Varsi Padayachee wrote on June 14, 2007 7:51 AM:Irrefutable evidence? Just because the US says so? or is there verifiable evidence? Sadly, it is deja vu, all over again! No proof, lots of smoke and BS, led us to the mess in Iraq, and now this. Awfully sorry Mr. Burns, you can con some people, but not all!
Jeff R. wrote on June 14, 2007 8:05 AM:Oh! by the way, will you tell us why the US and Israel are providing arms to Fatah in their fight to control Palestine?
Burns is a career foreign service officer and served as State Department spokesman and ambassador to Greece in the Clinton administration. I don't know what happened to him: either he drank a heavy dose of koolaid or he's such a loyal career person he spout whatever B.S. the administration is peddling. One thing about Iran is that it's government is hardly monolithic. There are many competing factions with different goals and motivations. So it's possible one part of the government is supplying the Taliban, but there may be no consensus. Recall that when the Iranians held the British sailors, one reason it took so long to release them is that the various stakeholders in the Iranian government had to get together and agree on what to do.
Anonymous wrote on June 14, 2007 8:43 AM:Very good point Jeff R, and before the invasion of Iraq it was Iran that had a very active youth counter swell to the mullahs, of whom the assertions of the mullahs was 'supported' by the US invasion of Iraq. It is amazing that when asked about progress in the GWOT the answer is well there is no formal structure like the cold war adversary, and then when there is proclomations such as these, there is a direct inferrence that there is a state sponsored legislated bill to support groups.
While I don't for a moment discount the possibility of ISI, FSB, SAVAK, or other 'actors' competing in that free for all... I feel however that the funds derived from opium will become agnostic politically in what they can purchase.
If indeed SAVAK is supplying arms and material support to fighters and factions in Afghanastan, and that seems to be an assertion at this juncture, that fact does not omit the need for a recognition that the military cannot impose military solutions in the absence of political ones.
Looking back on all of the 'axis of evil' members. the priority should of been AQ Kahn, North Korea, and Iran. And how that landed us in Afghanastan and Iraq is beyond me.
If SAVAK is supplying arms it is a sidebar issue to their nuclear programme which should have been addressed with trade boycotts and a naval blockade and not the invasion of their neighbor.
Finally there is the funding issue... the raison d'eÃtre of many of these agencies is predicated on the fact that they are monitoring programmes, and in their funding requests the raison d'eÃtre is often exagerated, in essence a 'putting themselves on the record' with caveats.
I would not be surprised that there is somebody somewhere advocating funding to determine he source of weapons, funding of them, irrespetive of the validity, scope, and magnitude of the issue.
That raison d'eÃtre is one part of how the pre-war intel was manipulated in Iraq...
It might be why there are indeed Savak weapons in Afghanastan.
Nothing new here....
Meah Bottoms wrote on June 14, 2007 10:22 AM:We have heard that old saw before, haven't we?
I don't believe a word of it. This is drumbeating, starting with the firing of Pace, and Face the Nation starring Joe Lieberman. As if this administration hasn't had enough. Amazing. Somehow I can't forget that visit to the aircraft carrier that the VP made after his last Iraq visit. Why did he do that? And now we have the Navy in charge. Gosh.