Posted on 06/13/2007 9:17:29 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
PARIS - NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.
"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."
Speaking separately to The Associated Press, Burns said NATO must act to stop the shipments. The Iran-Afghanistan frontier is "a very long border. But the Iranians need to know that we are there and that we're going to oppose this."
"It's a very serious question," he said, adding that Iran is in "outright violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion the Iranian government was directly involved in the transfers but stressed Washington has proof that weapons from Iran were being sent to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
"We absolutely are certain that there are Iranian-origin weapons flowing into Afghanistan to the Taliban," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
"We do not know the extent of any Iranian government involvement at this point, but given the nature of the regime and also some of its past behaviors elsehwhere — whether in the Palestinian areas or in Iraq — it certainly raises very serious questions and we are quite concerned about it," he said.
Tehran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies it is aiding the Taliban, calling the accusation part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Iran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.
Burns acknowledged that it was "curious" that Iran would aid the Taliban.
"It's quite surprising," he told CNN. "The Iranians had said that they were the mortal enemies of the Taliban in 2001 and '02."
Burns did not give details on the scope of the alleged Iranian shipments, although he appeared to indicate that they were limited. "I don't think it's made a substantial difference in the greater theater of the war," he said.
"It is not going to turn the tide against us, but it is very troublesome, it is illegal under international law ... and the Iranians need to stop it," Burns told the AP.
Burns, who was holding talks in Paris, first accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan — the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.
In Afghanistan last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of anti-government Taliban fighters, but he stopped short of blaming Tehran.
Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments alleged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.
In an AP interview Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military" in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.
"In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, Burns claimed that sanctions already leveled against Tehran were being felt and reiterated the threat of more if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment — which the West fears could be meant for the production of nuclear weapons.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday dismissed the possibility that a third set of Security Council sanctions would harm Iran.
Burns disagreed. "I think most people would say that the Iranians are experiencing considerable economic difficulties because of the financial sanctions that have been taken outside the Council and because of Security Council sanctions," he told CNN.
While diplomatic solutions are preferable, "they will get sanctions if they choose confrontation," Burns said. "All of us want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. That's the policy of the entire world."
Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), pictured May 2007. The UN atomic agency thinks Iran could have 8,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by December, a significant rise in nuclear capability likely to fuel fears that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons, diplomats said Tuesday.(AFP/File/Jean-Christophe Verhaegen)
A solid case for a military strike is being made. Why else are we recently documenting every undoubtable proof for Iranian terror-support.
“Burns acknowledged that it was “curious” that Iran would aid the Taliban. “It’s quite surprising,” he told CNN.”
Is anyone here surprised by this?
The State Department is full of morons.
Yaaawn !
sorry but I don’t think we’ll do squat.....
Didn’t some other country ship arms to the Taliban in the ‘80s?
It’s just a matter of time as the Iranian honchos get more and more bold. They’ll cross the line. This isn’t it.
Slap the hard with an unenforceable resolution. Tell them we’re mad and they’re not playing fair.
I must be in a really bad mood lately, but I say-—BLOW THEM TO HELL!!
While you're contemplating your answer to that, be sure to keep your timeline straight. The Taliban did NOT come to power until after the USSR was ejected from Afghanistan.
Sure, I agree with you. We can't afford it and we are putting our massed troops in Iraq under danger from Iran's retaliatory missile strikes.
I really think most of the world has lost it's balls since WW2. And why not? It was the single most devastating and bloodiest war ever.
Most countries are taking the ostrich approach instead of facing reality.
Today, the only ones who are willing to fight and die are unfortunately, are the "naive" Islamic fundamentalists.
No. Nor was anyone here surprised to know of Saddam's links with Osama Bin Laden. Only the Left thinks that a marriage of convenience between ideological enemies is impossible. Just one more reason not to have a Liberal as President.
I'm sure that the Iranians are yawning in fear.
“BLOW THEM TO HELL!!”
I second.
Coincidentally, they just finished converting USS Michigan from Tridents to 154 Tomahawks.
Stop saying it’s serious and illegal and actually DO SOMETHING about it.
photo of El Baradei reflecting on the glorious return of the Mahdi...
Mr President, please get off the Immigration Train and kick Iran’s ass. Our men and women in the Armed Forces deserve better.
How 'bout, "I strenuously object?"
Burns acknowledged that it was "curious" that Iran would aid the Taliban.
"It's quite surprising," he told CNN. "The Iranians had said that they were the mortal enemies of the Taliban in 2001 and '02."
Do you have to be born stupid to have a job like that, or did somebody just drill the brains out of these world-class assclowns?
OMG! The Iranians lied about something! I'm shocked. Shocked!
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.