I will repost this subject as NEWS with a very similar piece confirming this about Iran by UN correspondent of GIS, which has been around for over 20 years and is a respected and accredited news source for the intel community.
I wish you guys would listen to me - actually to Alan - when he posts something.
That he is allegedly a monarchists with a fairly new Blog site makes him less a decent source of information about IRAN? NOgt about everything but certainly about Iran or Iran/Iraq and that region?
Does being a monarchist with lots of contacts disqualify him from posting accurate material? As someone said derogatorily?
Or would he on the contrary know more than most of us? And sooner?
Do you really have to wait a couple more days for some other source to break it and not have it first on FR for everyone instead of tucked away and hidden?
Has Alan ever lead you wrong? Have I?
Good grief.
As you well know, I have put a lot of stock in what you and Alan say. In fact, this is probably the first time I have disagreed outright with one of his analysis. That is because I don't rely on single sources for my information. This particular theory doesn't hold water for me. But, as I said, it is quite possible someone leaked information from Iran, but without any "official" knowledge at the top.
If one accepts the premise that Iran is involved with the "insurgency" (supplying IED''s and such) and is trying to foment civil war in Iraq so that we will leave (allowing them the opportunity to move in and pick up the pieces), as I do, and as you and Peters have indicated in the past, then this is entirely counterintuitive.
It makes no sense to that the people who would benefit the most from chaos in Iraq would drop a dime on the guy creating the most chaos there. Especially when they know that the Sunnis would be the ultimate losers in an all-out civil war, and that we would not stick around to be participants. I don't see the logic there, and until I do, I won't buy the idea that Iran's leadership gave Zarqawi.
Even the captured Zarqawi letter that states the al-qeuda should try to start a war between Iran and the US doesn't change that. Many have speculated that Iran itself is looking for such a conflict in order to consolidate popular support for the government, including Alan if I'm not mistaken. If that is true, and I think it may be, that is yet another reason to let Zarqawi keep on keeping on.
It is quite possible though, that having seen Zarqawi killed, and his usefullness at an end, that the Iranian leadership decided to make political hay by taking credit for it giving him up. This, to me, is the more likely scenario.
You and Peters can't be right all the time. No one is. Don't take it personally. And if it turns out you are right, I will humble myself by apologizing on this forum.