US: "Irrefutable" Proof Iran Arms Taliban

Diplomat Says Regime Knows What's Going On; Ahmadinejad Defiant On Nuke Sanctions

(CBS/AP)  The United States has "irrefutable" evidence that Iran is transferring weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, with the knowledge of the Iranian government, and NATO has intercepted some of the shipments, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.

"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns 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 also said that NATO needs to 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 relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Burns' claims of evidence Tuesday came after he first accused Iran of supplying the Taliban the day before. Speaking to reporters in Paris, he said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East.

"It's a country that's trying to flex its muscles, but in a way that's injurious to the interests of just about everybody else in the world," he said. "I think it's a major miscalculation."

Burns also criticized Iran's perceived intransigence over its nuclear program, which many Western powers fear masks a plan to build weapons, though Iran says its intentions are to generate energy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off the West's criticism Wednesday of Tehran's controversial nuclear program and said that eventual new U.N. sanctions would not harm Iran.

Speaking to a crowd of several thousand supporters in the city of Semnan, 150 miles southeast of Tehran during a two-day provincial trip, the Iranian leader stuck to his belligerent rhetoric.

"This nation will punch its intimidators in the mouth," said Ahmadinejad, in a reference to U.S.-led group of Western nations that have chastised Iran over its uranium enrichment. His speech was broadcast live on state television.

"You — the West — have to know that your resolutions will not be worth a red cent for the Iranian nation," added Ahmadinejad.

The U.N. Security Council is preparing to debate a third set of sanctions against the Islamic republic in response to Tehran's continuing refusal to suspend the enrichment, which can produce fuel for civilian energy or fissile material for a bomb.

Referring to two previous rounds of sanctions imposed by the Security Council, Ahmadinejad said they had no negative impact on his country and reiterated that Iran would not give up its right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology under any circumstance.

Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Afghanistan that Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, but stopped short of blaming the government itself.

Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.

In an interview with The Associated Press on 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.

Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.

[cayrick]

Please take my comments in an objectively.
- Afghanistan is predominently Sunni and Iran is predominantly *****. So why would Iran aid Afghanistan?
- Iran's priority is it's nuclear program right now and it is taking enough heat for that alone. Why would it go out of it's way to antagonize the US more than it already has. Does Iran have a death wish?
- Israel has said it will never allow a nuclear Iran. It is not strong enough to mount a conventional attack against Iran by itself. Ariel Sharron has stated that Israel owns the US gov't. AIPAC is the most powerful and organized lobby group in Washington.
- The US gov't lied to the public about the motive for attacking Iraq. Why should the case against Iran be different.
These allegations against Iran are setting the stage for another act of false flag terrorism in order to legitimize an attack.
- The flotilla off the coast of Iran and the 20k additional troops are proof that the US is ratcheting up for a confrontation.
The question is how will "Iran" provoke and attack and how many US lives will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of "humanity". The last time it was 3,000 lives plus all the troops lost in Iraq.

[brianbwb-2009]

More badly told lies from the Bush-Blair lie machine.

"NATO has intercepted some of the shipments,"

Show them, and prove they are not plants, taken from Iraq, or else ****

Lets see, "Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military", So who is this "advanced Western military", huh?

"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," he said, without specifying what this so-called evidence is. Sounds like Bush's "Saddam's got WMDs, we can't show you the proof, cause the enemy will know how we got it". 100% pure Bull.

"Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban."

Even Bush's diminished IQ can understand this as they can't stop the strife between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq.

Wake up people, the Taliban are only a threat to Bush's pipeline, and his puppet Karzai. No threat to us here.

There is no evidence for Iran's involvement, or *something* could be shown. The Afghanistan government, which ought to be pretty close to the action, doesn't believe there is any:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070614-0238-iran-taliban.html

Rather looks like someone is pimping the war.

Attack Iran? Try it - a decisive US military defeat in the field may finally teach the American brainstem something. If the (actually quite good) Iranian air defenses don't work then Iran will have to be tackled on the ground, in Iran, or there's no gas for the SUV, or the economy. Boy is this smart. Recall the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians will fight. It will be harder to win than Vietnam or Iraq. No matter the damage Iran suffers we're talking tens of thousands of American bodies, folks, at least. Not actually a good idea.

Hell, if the Sunburn works (and there is every reason to believe that it will - google Sunburn for specifications), there will be tens of thousands of American dead *immediately*, regardless.

Here's a Sunburn article: http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

There is no evidence for Iran's involvement, or *something* could be shown. The Afghanistan government, which ought to be pretty close to the action, doesn't believe there is any: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070614-0238-iran-taliban.html

Rather looks like someone is pimping the war.

Attack Iran? Try it - a decisive US military defeat in the field may finally teach the American brain
stem something. If the (actually quite good) Iranian air defenses don't work then Iran will have to b
e tackled on the ground, in Iran, or there's no gas for the SUV, or the economy. Boy is this smart.
Recall the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians will fight. It will be harder to win than Vietnam or Iraq. N
o matter the damage Iran suffers we're talking tens of thousands of American bodies, folks, at least.
Not actually a good idea.

Hell, if the Sunburn works (and there is every reason to believe that it will - google Sunburn for spe
cifications), there will be tens of thousands of American dead *immediately*, regardless. Here's a Su
nburn article: http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

There is no evidence for Iran's involvement, or *something* could be shown. The Afghanistan government, which ought to be pretty close to the action, doesn't believe there is any: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070614-0238-iran-taliban.html

Rather looks like someone is pimping the war.

Attack Iran? Try it - a decisive US military defeat in the field may finally teach the American brain
stem something. If the (actually quite good) Iranian air defenses don't work then Iran will have to b
e tackled on the ground, in Iran, or there's no gas for the SUV, or the economy. Boy is this smart.
Recall the Iran-Iraq war. The Iranians will fight. It will be harder to win than Vietnam or Iraq. N
o matter the damage Iran suffers we're talking tens of thousands of American bodies, folks, at least.
Not actually a good idea.

Hell, if the Sunburn works (and there is every reason to believe that it will - google Sunburn for spe
cifications), there will be tens of thousands of American dead *immediately*, regardless. Here's a Su
nburn article: http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

[tbweb]

bm6005,,,

You have a point, nobody wants to hear straight talk, everybody wants it sugar coated! Well here is the unsweetened version! The U.S. is at war whether it wants to be at war or not! The enemy does not care about Bush bashing, it was a mistake, we are sorry, let us go home now or any of that nonsense, the enemy just wants a piece of our a s s now and thats the deal. The U.S. should have handled Iran and its nuclear nonsense early on and not let it get out of hand, the same way Ronald Regan handled Libya and Khadaffi when Khadaffi had nuke dreams. The root problem the U.S. has with Iran now is that no matter what Iran does against the U.S. nothing happens to Iran! Iran takes hostages for 444 days, sack our Embassy, detain our citizens, talk trash in the media, talks about punching us in the face, supports insurgents in Iraq and now Afghanistan, supplies advanced IEDs to insurgents, funds Hezzbolla, Hamas and you name it! Talk about Girls Gone Wild, how about Iran Gone Wild! There is no doubt in my mind that if Ronald Regan (R) was in office, Russia and China would just have to decide whether to nuke the U.S. or not, because Regan would be all up Irans a s s with no mercy!

[j-whitman]

In my 13 years of sea duty & 7 ashore, I can tell you about politically minded officers that would make your hair stand on end & wonder how we came back to port at all.

[bm6005]

Military officers do know his story and most heed the lesson -- better to tell harsh truths.
Posted by secundus2

Sorry, but my 2 yrs in the Army ('65-'67) and 41 yrs of corporate work has shown me the opposite. I could write a book on the BS and lies I've seen as people cover their a$$. In fact my career was curtailed because I was direct and to the point (not that I cared). I remember a meeting once where my boss rambled on for twenty mins when the answer was no!

[tbweb]

j-whitman,,,

The U.S. cannot shut down and must still function and respond to known threats. I agree with a lot of Post but not to the point of doing damage to our nations ability to conduct business. The U.S. must remain operational for the next administration and be in good shape when the next administration takes over. The world will not stop spinning for the next 18 months waiting for GW to leave office. More to the point, Americas enemies are out to exploit our situation and GWs poor standings. We can't allow significant enemy gains despite GW. The U.S. has to function and take care of its business as if none of this was taking place, thats our hallmark, thats our power and no one displayed that quality and skill better than Bill Clinton! With the world crumbling around him, scandal after scandal, Bill Clinton remained focused and effective and thats what we all must do as well. We cannot shut down and be disfunctional, just a little more cautious thats all. I hear you, I hear all of us, but like they say the dogs bark but the caravan moves on ...

[j-whitman]

Dinner time, anger makes me real hungry..

[j-whitman]

I'm mistaken on the number of high school students not graduating... The national graduation rate is 67 percent.

[j-whitman]

tbweb,,, With your collective knowledge you could fill a demitasse cup half full.

[j-whitman]

tbweb,,, I'm 57... You might love incompetence, dishonor, & corruption running our country into the ground & destroying our National Security for years to come -- I sure as hell don't...
.. Bush has killed 10's of thousands in this "War of Roses",, over 3,500 of our brave lost thier lives for lies & no gain at all, & more today. And it's only the middle of the month.

[tbweb]

tbweb,,, Come on man,, you seriously don't believe that, do you ?? How old are you anyway ?

Posted by j-whitman at 07:51 PM : Jun 13, 2007

j-whitman,,,

Based on all of your collective knowledge about Iran, proven and unproven, you sit there and type on your computer acting like Iran does not deserve to have its a s s waxed? How old are you I beg to ask in return! Iran should have been bombed yesterday, last week, last year and right now!! Get real. Pres. Bush and what ever feelings you may have about him has nothing to do with Iran deserving to eat bombs!!

[j-whitman]

tbweb,,,, Reagan called it "Trust But, Verify" --- Bush has tought America he can't be trusted with anything at all. --- His own republicans told him to his face he's no longer credible on Iraq (the center of terrorism according to Bush)

No Child left Behind -- 1 in 3 high school students in the Class of 2006 will not graduate this year

[j-whitman]

tbweb,,, Come on man,, you seriously don't believe that, do you ?? How old are you anyway ?

[j-whitman]

secundus2,,,, I've seen submarine C.O.'s falsify patrol reports.... This is the new Yes Man Military, they will all do what is politically expedient for thier own promotions & reality & truth be dammed.

[tbweb]

j-whitman wrote:

So far, all I've seen was pictures of old munitions including some American we have all seen before... Any ACTUAL proof yet ????

Posted by j-whitman at 07:34 PM : Jun 13, 2007

j-whitman,,,

Sometimes displaying proof reveals too much information and where it came from and put others at risk. Of course this is where trust comes in. But before you go on your no-trust tirade, I've heard it a million Post, I'm just making the point some proof cannot be revealed while more proof is sought.

[secundus2]

Military officers have credibility because they suffer if they falsify reports. You are ignoring news that you don't want to confront.
Posted by secundus2

Apparently you haven't heard the name Westmoreland!!
Posted by bm6005 at 10:31 AM : Jun 13, 2007

Away most of the day, but yes, Westmoreland falsified body counts and progress reports. Result? Ho Chi Minh, Gen. Giap and the Viet Cong won out and Westmoreland went nowhere in politics, didn't even get a serious look at a nomination. Military officers do know his story and most heed the lesson -- better to tell harsh truths.

[j-whitman]

So far, all I've seen was pictures of old munitions including some American we have all seen before... Any ACTUAL proof yet ????