Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US military chiefs eye confrontation with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US military chiefs eye confrontation with Iran

    US military chiefs eye confrontation with Iran
    By Philip Sherwell in Washington,

    Sunday Telegraph/UK
    04/02/2007

    America's military chiefs are at loggerheads with the country's
    diplomats and spies over tactics for confronting Iranian agents in Iraq
    over their role in lethal attacks on US forces.


    American drones are flying over Iran in search of intelligence about
    its nuclear facilities


    The rift has spilled over into a dispute about how and when to publish
    alleged evidence of Iranian backing for Iraqi militias and Iran's
    provision of supplies and technology for roadside bombs, the biggest
    killer of American soldiers in Iraq, a White House adviser revealed.

    It is fuelling fears among some US diplomats - shared by Britain and
    its European allies - that hawks within President George W Bush's
    administration are preparing the ground for military action against
    Teheran before he leaves office in 23 months.

    Angered by the mounting toll of troops killed by ever-more
    sophisticated devices, US commanders insisted last month that the White
    House give them authority to target and kill Iranian operatives in Iraq
    as part of the new 21,500-troop "surge" strategy ordered by Mr Bush.

    But the State Department, headed by Secretary of State Condoleezza
    Rice, and the CIA had argued against openly targeting Iranian agents,
    most of whom claim to be diplomats based at Teheran's network of
    consulates, liaison offices and cultural offices in Iraq.

    They contended that this approach could escalate into direct armed
    conflict with Iran, which is under intense international pressure to
    give up its nuclear programme.

    The State Department and the CIA, which both objected to the way the
    Bush administration used pre-war intelligence on Iraq, also wanted to
    publicise clear evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq as a way of
    justifying the US stance.

    "The military's highest echelons really do not want the release of
    details of what Iran is up to as they don't want the Iranians to know
    what's working and what's not," the administration adviser said.

    "The military and the State Department and CIA are coming at this from
    very different approaches. State and the CIA believe we should respect
    the supposed diplomatic immunity of these Iranians. But the military
    has had enough and they say 'to hell with their fake diplomatic
    immunity'."

    The splits within the administration come as reports emerge of new
    variants of "explosively formed projectiles" allegedly made with
    Iranian help.

    The Pentagon said the first soldier was killed by one of the devices on
    Jan 22, but it is refusing to give further details of their use because
    it wants to limit the information available to its enemies.

    The US has also suggested that Iranian operatives may have been
    involved in the abduction and killing of five soldiers in Kerbala, a
    potentially explosive accusation. But Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush's
    national security adviser, acknowledged on Friday that the intelligence
    briefing on Iranian interference in Iraq - publication of which has
    been delayed twice - was still being refined.

    The build-up of anti-Iran rhetoric and despatch of two US aircraft
    carriers to the region has echoes for some of the run-up to the
    invasion of Iraq, prompting suspicions about the intentions of the
    remaining hawks within the administration, led by the vice-president,
    Dick Cheney.

    The defence secretary, Robert Gates, sought to play down these concerns
    on Friday, saying that the US was not planning for a war with Iran but
    was determined to stop Iranians supplying bombs for attacks on American
    troops in Iraq.

    Dan Goure, a Pentagon consultant, said that targeting Iranian
    operatives in Iraq was crucial to Mr Bush's "surge" strategy. "You
    cannot try to deal with the militia if you're not dealing with the
    Iranians backing them," he said. "The message now is that the gloves
    are off. This is Bush's last chance in Iraq and he isn't going to hold
    back."

    The US has also increased flights of unmanned spy planes over the
    border corridor between Iraq and Iran, to track movements across the
    frontier to back up its claims about Teheran's behaviour.

    The drones were being flown into Iran from bases in Iraq to maintain a
    24-hour check on a corridor running along "much" of the Iranian side of
    the border, an American intelligence officer told this newspaper.

    The US is intent on not launching any attacks that could inadvertently
    hit Iranian soil. But once suspects were a few miles from the border
    inside Iraq, they would be "whacked", the officer said.

    John Pike, director of the military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org, said
    there were 600 or 700 drones operating in Iraq and "the air is thick
    with them".

    The Iranian military had upgraded gun and missile posts a few miles
    into its territory and was trying to bring down the drones, the
    intelligence officer said. The US is also believed to be flying drones
    above Iranian territory in search of intelligence about its nuclear
    facilities. The drones can use radar, video, still photography and air
    filters designed to pick up traces of nuclear activity to gather
    information that is not accessible by satellites.

    Teheran claims it developed its secret atomic programme for civilian
    energy purposes, but Western governments believe it is pursuing a
    nuclear bomb.

    ¢Mr Bush has asked Congress for an additional $245 billion (£125
    billion) for Iraq and Afghanistan for the next two fiscal years. If
    approved, the overall cost of the "war on terror" since the Sept 11
    2001 attacks will rise to nearly $750 billion (£381 billion) - more in
    real terms than was spent on the Vietnam war.
Working...
X