Posted on 07/07/2004 6:56:23 AM PDT by KriegerGeist
Iranian Intel Officers Captured in Iraq
By Bret Baier | FOX News | July 7, 2004
WASHINGTON — American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed.
Senior officials said it was previously believed that Iran had officers inside Iraq stirring up violence, but this is the first time that self-proclaimed Iranian intelligence agents have been captured within the country.
The Defense officials also confirmed to FOX News that in recent days there has been significant success in tracking down "known bad guys" based on information from local citizens. While those captured aren't from the list of former regime members or from terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's network, they are "active" bombers and organizers of recent violence.
The arrest of the two Iranians suspected of attempting to carry out a vehicle bombing has focused new attention on how Tehran is trying to protect its interests in the country it fought for eight years in a devastating war.
So far, Iran is believed to have used money, not guns, to influence Iraq — particularly by spreading wealth among Shiite political factions — while avoiding a direct confrontation with its longtime rival the United States.
Monday's arrests came on the heels of comments by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari saying some neighboring countries were financing and training terrorists in Iraq, apparently referring to Iran and Syria.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I agree with your assessment. You have far better insight into this that I do, with my "knee-jerk" draw and fire reaction.
I just hate these guys sending in the means to injure or kill our soldiers. I have no doubt now that Mookie al Sadr is an Iranian agent and has to take his marching orders from Iran... thus his calling for his mutts to continue the resistance to "the occupation" even though we are working hard and quickly to get the heck out of Dodge [that is un-occupy]. It's illogical and lacks any common sense, because if the "resistance" just quit resisting, we'd go away.
I could agree with that, except that I would swap the word Penatgon for U.S. State Department.
With what?
"An Act of War! On to Tehran!
With what?"
I wish I could dispute your answer. Unfortunately I can't.
They identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers? Why would they do this?
Because they are not very smart.
according to unnamed DNCIA sources...
The GWB doctrine intends to destroy the infrastructure that support terrorism (Syria, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia). Iraq was the geographical key because control of this country allows US to separate the remaining three and establish a base to attack either one of them. Control of Iraq and fomenting Iraqi anger against Iran and Syris will allow the Iraqi government to unite their nation and build a ground army to fight either one. Our airpower and SOF teams with Iraqi troops can defeat the armies of Iran. This may weaken the Tehran government so the people and students can overthrow it in the streets. Once Iran falls, a major paymaster for terrorists is gone, leaving Syria severely isolated. Either Assad submits like Libya or face destruction. If all these objects are achieved, the terrorists will be badly weakened and the Saudis can not sit on the fence. She must go after the terrorist support structure in their country or the US/Iran and Iraq will do it for them. I think after Iraq there are more wars and battles to come. If we are successful, GWB will change the landscape of the Middle East.
Not very intelligent or they were just afraid that we might put them in jail with ladies underwear on their heads.....
Ever heard of the U.S. Military and airstrikes? Don't buy into the 'we're spread too thin' crap - we've got plenty of troops still stationed around the world, that we can call upon.
My guess is we showed them what would happen when we turned them over to the Iraqi interrogators if they couldn't provide reasonable answers to some simple questions. The video tapes of Iraqi interrogation methods were pretty persuasive.
With what?
With airpower...at first. 6 months of intense shawk 'n awe. May never need to send troops...depending on how the Iranian opposition reacts.
I would approach Iran much as we approached Afganistan. Minimal ground forces, mostly spec ops designating targets and organizing resistance. We don't want to try and occupy Iran, too many things can go wrong.
Why not just equip the new Iraqi military with M1A1 Abrams, Bradly fighting vehicles, Strykers and U-64 Apaches. They could sweep through Iran fairly quickly.... we might have to provide some additional air support or atleast shoot down the Iran Airforce.
More like Iranian unintelligence officers.
They may have been identified by certain documents they had, who they were in contact with, or any number of means. After you're busted as an actual spy, your options are quite limited. Coming clean may be their only chance to avoid execution.
Being an election year, they figured they were safe.
Not, if we are done in 60 days.
Ah, they are probably going to test negative for Iranian intelligence, and the Pentagon denial will shortly follow
that was so funny I just choked on my soda
at the very least send a cruise missle or two to Iranian Intelligence. I know it seems clintonian (except I would do it during the day when there are actually people there) but some response is required.
Congressional Record: September 14, 2001 (House) Page H5638
AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
The text of H.J. Res. 64 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 64
.....blah blah blah....
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force".
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
A little loosey goosey, but the Supremes would up hold it..IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.