IMO We will be attacking iran within the next 10 months

Iran 'supplies infra-red bombs' that kill British troops in Iraq
By Toby Harnden, Chief Foreign Correspondent
21/08/2005
www.telegraph.co.uk
British soldiers in Iraq are being killed by advanced "infra-red" bombs supplied by Iran that defeat jamming equipment, according to military intelligence officials.

The "passive infra-red" devices, whose use in Iraq is revealed for the first time by The Sunday Telegraph, are detonated when the beam is broken, as when an intruder triggers a burglar alarm. They were used by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group against Israel in Lebanon from 1995.

A radio signal is used to arm the bomb as a target vehicle approaches. The next object to break the infra-red beam - the target vehicle - detonates the device.

Coalition officials see the disturbing development as a key part of an aggressive new campaign by Teheran to drive coalition forces out of Iraq so that an Islamic theocracy can be established.

American and British intelligence officials believe that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is training, supplying and funding part of Iraq's insurgent Shia network and that its activities have been stepped up since the spring.

Links between Shia and Sunni Muslim groups, usually via trading by criminal arms dealers, means that expertise quickly spreads across Iraq.

"These guys have picked up in two years what it took the IRA a quarter-century to learn," said an Army bomb disposal officer in Iraq.

Four British soldiers are believed to have been killed by infra-red devices made in the town of Majar-al-Kabir. The bombmaker, in his early forties, was one of the agitators behind the mob killing of six Red Caps there in June, 2003. The man, whose name is known by this newspaper but has not been published for security reasons, has connections to Iran, and has reportedly been seen with agents from Teheran. His arrest has been ordered, and two of his lieutenants were detained in June.

After the arrests, however, three soldiers from the Staffordshire Regiment were killed when their armoured Land Rover was blown up by a roadside bomb in al-Amara, last month as they were lured into a trap.

Second Lt Richard Shearer, Pte Leon Spicer and Pte Phillip Hewett died instantly as they investigated gunfire.

Guardsman Anthony Wakefield of the Coldstream Guards died from wounds inflicted by a similar infra-red device in al-Amara in May. As the "top cover" gunner, his head and shoulders were exposed in an armoured Land Rover. The bomb was set at a precise height and directed towards the road so it would hit a soldier in this position.

"This was something completely new," said one military intelligence officer. "Before, they used to keep bashing away with the same crude devices again and again. The Iranian influence has shown itself in the sophistication of their bombs and a new ability to innovate."

British intelligence reports indicate that complete infra-red devices, carefully machined in military workshops, are being delivered to Shia militants in Iraq.

British officials said Iran had also been providing Shia insurgents with "shaped charges", which use a directional explosive force to fire a metal projectile that penetrates heavy armour.

Iran's interference threatens to inflame sectarian tensions in Iraq and hasten what coalition officials dread most - civil war between the Shias and the Sunni minority.

Iran's recent elections, in which the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president gave fresh impetus to its "meddling" in Iraq, according to Mohammad Mohaddessin, an Iranian opposition leader in exile in Paris.

"The regime in Teheran is very concerned about a democracy being created right next to Iran," he said. "They also believe that the more chaos there is in Iraq, the less attention will be paid by America and Britain to Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Iranian policy had already been boosted by Iraq's elections. They returned a Shia-dominated government led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who lived in exile in Iran, rather than the secular Iyad Allawi, the candidate preferred by Washington.

Before the introduction of infra-red devices, bombs in Iraq were usually set off by an electronic remote control signal found in a mobile telephone, car locking device, garage door opener or even a child's toy.

They could be blocked by electronic countermeasures developed by the Army in Northern Ireland.

These are powerless, however, against infra-red beams, which can be modified from burglar alarm systems. Military commanders have briefed soldiers to be more cautious and avoid rushing into potential attacks. Patrol routes are varied so that no pattern is set.

Infra-red beams have been used by the IRA, and by the Red Army Faction to kill Alfred Herrhausen, the chairman of the Deutsche Bank, in 1989.

"There has always been cross fertilisation of terrorist technology across the terror diaspora," said a former Army bomb disposal officer. "Infra-red is virtually impossible to jam whereas radio control and cell phone systems are jammable."

Maj Gen Ali Hamadi, who commands Iraq's border defence force, was wounded in the stomach and accused American troops of opening fire on his vehicle in Baghdad, local police reported. A US military official denied that any of their soldiers had been in the area at the time. Iraqis often accuse US troops of opening fire on motorists, sometimes killing them.
11 August 2005: Britain and US warn Iran over links with Iraq rebels
7 August 2005: Iraqi rebels use sophisticated bombs smuggled in from Iran

The sad part is, if they wanted to, Iran could make things much much worse. This is the threat they are trying to use to deter us from attacking their nuclear installations.

Right now they are giving us a preview of what they could really bring to bear to cause chaos in Iraq should they so choose.

I dont know why we dont seal off the border

electric eyes? Advanced maybe if you've never heard of Radio Shack

I don't understand why we didn't just move onto Iran after Iraq.

I don't believe in occupation. We should have hammered them into nothing and moved onto the next enemy. That's what this whole 9-11 response was supposed to be for wasn't it? Where has that gone? Are we "going after terrorism" or are we nation building.

I understand that people believe that we have a duty to assist the citizenry in Iraq after the war but, to be quite honest, screw them. They were technically proficient enough to build it the first time they can rebuild it later.

No amount of good work will ever make Islam do anything but hate us.

Iran should have allready fallen.

Quoted: I don't understand why we didn't just move onto Iran after Iraq. I don't believe in occupation. We should have hammered them into nothing and moved onto the next enemy. That's what this whole 9-11 response was supposed to be for wasn't it? Where has that gone? Are we "going after terrorism" or are we nation building. I understand that people believe that we have a duty to assist the citizenry in Iraq after the war but, to be quite honest, screw them. They were technically proficient enough to build it the first time they can rebuild it later. No amount of good work will ever make Islam do anything but hate us. Iran should have allready fallen.

If you dont rebuild Iraq it will turn into a failed state just like Afghanistan, and will make a perfect place for terrorists to set up a new base of operations and trainning.

Edit to Add: I expect someone to come alone with a "....so what, we'll just nuke them then" response any second now.

Quoted: The sad part is, if they wanted to, Iran could make things much much worse. This is the threat they are trying to use to deter us from attacking their nuclear installations. Right now they are giving us a preview of what they could really bring to bear to cause chaos in Iraq should they so choose. I dont know why we dont seal off the border

We cant even seal our own border....

Quoted: Quoted: The sad part is, if they wanted to, Iran could make things much much worse. This is the threat they are trying to use to deter us from attacking their nuclear installations. Right now they are giving us a preview of what they could really bring to bear to cause chaos in Iraq should they so choose. I dont know why we dont seal off the border We cantWON'T even seal our own border....

Slight correction

Quoted: I don't understand why we didn't just move onto Iran after Iraq.

IMO iran will be a LOT bloodier than Iraq..........

What, we don't have the "SHOCK and AWE Show anymore.

Regardless of our best efforts in Iraq, without stabilizing the surrounding militant regimes such as Iran, it will deterioirate into a regionally fueled civil war. The insurgents who are there now are being funded and armed by surrounding islamic regimes. A lot of the insurgents are themselves from other countries. In order to force a stabile government in one of them you'd have to do it to ALL of them.

Iran, Syria, factions in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other  areas will not allow a stable government in Iran that is not based upon extreme islamic principles.

As far as the nuking goes, we had once stated during the first Gulf War that we would see the usage of any WMD as a justification to use strategic nuclear weaponry against the government responsible. So, an airliner isn't a WMD?

I'm not saying "nuke em' till they glow" but, a limited strike was justified. Besides, what do you think Iran will be supplying terrorists with after they finally get their nuke program up and running?

ETA: Iraq was supposed to be a horrid blood bath, wasn't. I was actually surprised that it wasn't. I'm not saying that Iran would be a cake walk but, what should we do? Sit back and beg not to be attacked again? Half-ass it and bomb a few things while effecting no real resolution, or see 911 for what it was and do what is needed to secure the United States and it's citizenry?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont know why we dont seal off the border We cantWON'T even seal our own border.... Slight correction

Yup.  

In light of all of this new evidence coming forth, we need to make a very blunt and to the point statement toward Iran that if they keep sending weapons into Iraq that kill our people, they will pay dearly. Then we need to follow that up with ruthless strikes if it doesn't stop.  

Quoted: In light of all of this new evidence coming forth, we need to make a very blunt and to the point statement toward Iran that if they keep sending weapons into Iraq that kill our people, they will pay dearly. Then we need to follow that up with ruthless strikes if it doesn't stop.

I dont think that threat would work.

They probably believe we are already planning to bomb them because of their nuclear program. They probably figure, if they are gonna get bombed by us anyway, they might as well give us ours as well too

Quoted:
The sad part is, if they wanted to, Iran could make things much much worse. This is the threat they are trying to use to deter us from attacking their nuclear installations.

Right now they are giving us a preview of what they could really bring to bear to cause chaos in Iraq should they so choose.

I dont know why we dont seal off the border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




We cant even seal our own border....

We could if we wanted to.  Jorge just won't do what it takes.  

Quoted: Quoted: In light of all of this new evidence coming forth, we need to make a very blunt and to the point statement toward Iran that if they keep sending weapons into Iraq that kill our people, they will pay dearly. Then we need to follow that up with ruthless strikes if it doesn't stop.   I dont think that threat would work. They probably believe we are already planning to bomb them because of their nuclear program. They probably figure, if they are gonna get bombed by us anyway, they might as well give us ours as well too

It shouldn't be given as a mere threat. It should be given as a warning to either stay out of our way in Iraq or be prepared to accept the enormous consequences that will be sure to follow if they don't.

Then if they don't heed the warning, follow it up with a round of airstrikes knocking out military targets and facilities where weapons are produced. And take out their nuke development plants in the process.

The way I see it, we haven't yet determined whether or not to strike Iran regarding the nuke issue. But by them taking this approach, they are only helping move things in that direction.

This is why I say Iran can't be trusted with nukes to begin with. The leaders there are insane. Here they stand on very shaky ground as it is with their nuke program, yet they are drawing more attention to themselves by provoking the US and UK. Not smart. Not smart at all.

I am tempted to say the from orbit line, but on a serious note.  If we believe that Iran's nuclear program is a threat then why don't we bunker bust it to pieces?  And if we mean to destroy it completely what would be so terribly wrong with using a nuke so that we know we get the whole program?

A ground war in Iran would surely be long and drug out even though a lot of the folks over there are pro american and would like to be more like the  west.  To me it just seems like too big a bite to chew considering that we already have a pretty good plate full with Afganistan and Iraq.  If we are determined to whip these sandmen into shape sooner or later we are going to have to play hard ball.

After what happened in 79 lord knows they deserve an asswhipping, maybe this is the time for theirs.

.

Nuke'm.

Quoted: If Iran wants to support insurgents in Iraq, I say turnabout is fair play.

+1

I don't think there is call for an invasion, but a large part of the Iranian population are not fond of the current government. Seems like a fertile environment to breed a little rebellion.

Neutrons are our friends. Build, bomb, bury.

Bombing Iran prolly isn't the best idea. Keep in mind the Mullahs aren't winning any popularity contests among the Iranian people, and the Mullahs know this. If we bomb/strike Iran all we're gonna do is unite the Iranian people behind their leaders (the Mullahs) in a united cause against the Great Satan - us.

Working with an insurgency inside Iran and encouraging them to act aggressively is our best option IMHO. We need to see shit start blowing up inside Iran's borders. If the Mullahs feel threatened, they'll come to the table.

Quoted: Quoted: If Iran wants to support insurgents in Iraq, I say turnabout is fair play. +1 I don't think there is call for an invasion, but a large part of the Iranian population are not fond of the current government. Seems like a fertile environment to breed a little rebellion.

The Alphabet Agencies are working on it.

Quoted: I don't believe in occupation. We should have hammered them into nothing and moved onto the next enemy. That's what this whole 9-11 response was supposed to be for wasn't it? Where has that gone? Are we "going after terrorism" or are we nation building.

We should quit "nation building" and move onto "base building". The Iraqis can build an economy around US military bases, it's been done all over the world. Once we're ready, then we launch attacks from Iraq bases into Iran and Syria.

Quoted: I don't understand why we didn't just move onto Iran after Iraq. I don't believe in occupation. We should have hammered them into nothing and moved onto the next enemy. That's what this whole 9-11 response was supposed to be for wasn't it? Where has that gone? Are we "going after terrorism" or are we nation building. I understand that people believe that we have a duty to assist the citizenry in Iraq after the war but, to be quite honest, screw them. They were technically proficient enough to build it the first time they can rebuild it later. No amount of good work will ever make Islam do anything but hate us. Iran should have allready fallen.

We have a duty to make sure the people in power over there are friendly trading partners with us and our allies.  That's exactly why we can't just kick some ass and keep on rolling.  Would you want the new Iraqi govt to refuse oil sales to us and our trading partners?

A purely strategic question (i.e. not considering ethics), why not just "kick their ass and keep rolling" but with the caveat that we secure the oil fields ourselves? By the same token, we could invade Iran, destroy thier military, set up chaos in the streets, and not show up. Sure, they will fall into a civil war but, ethics aside, how does that hurt us? The oil fields are largely far removed, with little cover, from the populaiton centers - easily defended from small arms attack.

Many wars throughout history were "won" simply be destroying the enemy, not destroying the enemy and then occupying them and rebuilding them.