troung

U.S. Launches Armed Force to Block Iranian Influence in Iraq
By Anna Mulrine

Posted 1/18/07

The U.S. military has launched a special operations task force to break up Iranian influence in Iraq, according to U.S. News sources. The special operations mission, known as Task Force 16, was created late last year to target Iranians trafficking arms and training Shiite militia forces. The operation is modeled on Task Force 15, a clandestine cadre of Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force soldiers, and CIA operatives with a mission to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives and Baathist insurgents in Iraq.

Task Force 15 killed al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, last June.

The new classified directive is part of an escalation of military countermeasures against Iran, authorized by President Bush, to strike back at what military officials describe as a widespread web of Iranian influence in Iraq that includes providing weapons, training, and money to Shiite militias.

"It's present, and the issue is how do you deal with it," says a senior U.S. military official. "That's the question of the day. Those networks are something you've got to deal with. You've got to figure out, bottom line, who plans them, who finances them, who brings stuff across the borders."

Bush signaled the new get-tough stance toward Iran in his recent televised address on Iraq policy.

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," Bush said in his speech to the nation last week. "We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

But the details have been sketchy on how that is being implemented.

U.S. Troops Grabbed Five Iranians

On the heels of Bush's speech, U.S. forces grabbed five Iranians with alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, reportedly using stun bombs, seizing computers, and taking down an Iranian flag from the raided building's roof. Iran claimed the building was a consulate and the men were diplomats. One of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians condemned the raid, calling it an attack on Iraq's sovereignty.

Iran's efforts to foment chaos in Iraq are primarily carried out by the Iranian intelligence service and the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds (Jerusalem) Brigade, the foreign operations arm of the Iranian military, which also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. The most visible Iranian political and militia involvement has been in predominantly Shiite southern Iraq, especially in and around the oil export city of Basra. Iran is also seen as a major backer of anti-American Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, blamed for abducting and killing Iraqi Sunnis.

The United States is trying to counteract the impression of being overtaxed by its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are able to press us in many ways," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in Brussels on Monday.

To show otherwise and to present a powerful military face, the U.S. Navy will be stationing a second aircraft-carrier group in the Persian Gulf for the first time since the 2003 Iraq invasion. The Pentagon also said it is sending additional Patriot antimissile batteries to defend friendly gulf Arab states that are within range of Iranian missiles.

U.S. officials see Iranian fingerprints in violent attacks throughout Iraq and all but blame Iran for complicity in the deaths of American soldiers.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, voiced such concerns in Senate testimony last week, saying that "we know that Iranian-supplied and -made weapons are on the streets of Baghdad killing our troops." U.S. officials, including the president, have stopped just sort of directly blaming Iranian government leaders for American deaths in Iraq–a claim that, if made, could lead to pressure for U.S. military action against Iran itself.

Military Cites Iranian-Made Roadside Bombs

U.S. military officials have been tracing the growth of Iranian influence through the increased use of Iranian-made explosively formed projectiles (or EFPs) as roadside bombs. When this particularly deadly and distinct variation on the improvised explosive device detonates, it melts and reshapes metal, turning it into what is essentially a deadly dart that punches through a humvee's armor plates.

"When the EFPs start popping up, we know, oh, that's Iran, that's Shia," says one U.S. special operations officer who served in Iraq. A senior American commander in Baghdad adds that the military has been able to trace numbers and manufacture dates back to Iran.

And the use of weapons like EFPs, say soldiers on the ground in Iraq, is spreading.

"They were initially used just down south, where Iran has a lot of influence," says the officer. Now they are moving into Baghdad and areas north of the city as well. "That is a change. If you follow the track of them, it also follows the track of Iranian influence."

In the restive province of Diyala, what has long been a transit point for goods and trafficked arms flowing across the border with Iran, U.S. military operatives have intercepted donkeys carrying Russian antitank mines and other weapons. Iran uses "a certain type of mortar," adds the special operations officer. "We can look at it and say, 'This comes from Iran.' "

In Baghdad neighborhoods like Karrada, south of Sadr City, U.S. soldiers confiscate Iranian cellphones in Shiite militia strongholds and have arrested suspects who speak only Iran's Farsi language. A U.S. soldier south of Sadr City adds that he is increasingly told by locals that Iranians are coming to live in certain areas.

"Iranians are moving in," he says, adding that there is evidence that they train Mahdi Army snipers and help direct militia activity.

But it can often be unclear whether, for instance, munitions are coming at the direction of the Iranian government or are being provided by arms dealers or others who may be acting on their own. And U.S. officials sound a note of caution.

"A lot of people say there are Iranians here, there, and everywhere," says one U.S. military officer. "Lots are Shiites that fled [Iraq] during the Iran-Iraq War, went over to Iran for 20 years, and are now infiltrating back into Iraq," he says. "Are they are Iraqi or Iranian?"

U.S. military officials in Baghdad emphasize that in addition to military measures, the United States needs to pursue diplomatic tracks and emphasize the importance of trying to open a dialogue with Iran. Says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad: "Not dialoguing, not engaging, is not going to solve this problem."

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Stan187

Somehow I'm just not buying that the Iranians would send infilatrators into Iraq who didn't speak any Arabic at all. As far as I know, most Iraqi Shias do not speak Farsi as their main language.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

smilingassassin

I just find it funny you didn't really hear much Bluster from Irans President fiollowing the raid and detention of 5 Iranians in Iraq.

TheChosenOne

And that is the question to answer that I know I don't have the answer too. Are the weapons which we know are coming from Iran, coming from independents or the government? Either way, it needs to stop. I think opening a dialouge with Iran is a must. I guess my personal opinion is that the Iran government is behind it in some way or form. I mean, we financed Iraq covertly with weapons during the Iraq/Iran war from 80-88, perfect oppurtunity for Iran to get back eh?

Bluesman

Factually incorrect: the US did NOT supply Iraq with weapons, and anyway, they've been 'getting us back' ever since they started the whole thing by the grossest violation of the only means nations have to deal with one another, when they seized our diplomats and embassy. And their goddamned 'President' was leading the charge.

As for the present day, you'd have to be deluded to not understand the Iranian government's complete and total control over the flow of weapons into Iraq. They are killing US troops, it's on purpose, and we should pay them back in kind.

Opening a dialogue with such as them? They would likely as not seize our people all over again, because that's what animals like that DO.

No, sir. We've been at war since 1979, but our side is just now coming to that realization. It's time to make them know what they've asked for: red war to the knife.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Bluesman

Personally, I believe we should keep on doing it - busting up their 'consulates' and 'embassies' until we have exactly 52 Iranians in custody, then hold them for exactly 444 days, humiliating them in front of the world's television cameras the entire time.

THAT is what I'D do.

S-2

Correct me if wrong, but I recall the POTUS explictly inviting discussions with both Iran and Syria about Iraqi security. Seems that Iran required a bit of linkage to the proliferation issue.

Galrahn has recently noted an unusual series of naval deployments directed towards the Persian Gulf and northwest asia. We will, it seems, have an abnormally large contingent of naval vessels surged into the region by late February/early March.

This by Galrahn from another board. It makes for interesting reading-

"I am rarely interested in conspiracy theories forwarded by the media, but there are a number of events taking place that sure do give credibility to the possibility of covert action about to happen.

Putting the facts on the table, what is about to happen?

1) In early summer of 2006, the US Navy put together the largest CSG since 2003 for a planned deployment in January 2007. At the time there was a war breaking out in the Middle East between Lebanon and Israel, and signs of ballistic missile launch in North Korea. This was before the nuclear detonation in North Korea. The mission would be for the Stennis CSG, with 1 CG, 1 DDG, and 1 SSN to be augmented with 2 AEGIS BMD DDGs in a Task Force designed to field the full capability of Naval power. The mission would be to North Korea for operations while the USS Kitty Hawk is put up for repairs.

2) A United Nations military force is established in Lebanon, mostly made up of Italian, Spanish, and French troops supported by Naval assets led by Germany and supported by several NATO countries. Naval assets in the region include some of the most advanced European warships, and are expected to be augmented by February 2007 with Spanish, Italian, and French aircraft carriers operating in the region and surrounding areas.

3) In late fall of 2006 the US and UK announced it would be sending minesweeepers to the Persian Gulf to replace the existing coastal minehunters based in Bahrain that are being sold to Egypt. 2 Royal Navy minesweepers arrived yesterday, while the first of two US minesweepers was carried across the Suez last week on Condock V.

4) In early 2007 Israel repeated warnings to Iran from 2006 that Israel will strike if Iran does not halt its nuclear program and abide by UN demands.

5) The US announces a series of interesting deployments. Starting with 21,500 US Army troops, starting with 8000 marines and 600 Patriot Missiles followed by some of the most advanced Army units in the world, troop levels in Iraq and the Gulf States is expected to increase dramatically.

In addition to this, the USAF deploys F-117s to South Korea, announces the first foreign deployment of F-22As to Japan in February of 2007, and the Washington Times reports around 70 F-16s deployed 'somewhere to Southeast Asia.' Additionally, electronic warfare units consisting of equipment like the EC-130 Compass Call, EA-6Bs, A-10s, and AC-130s. This comes as 12 F-16s arrive in Turkey for 'exercises,' which is interesting considering US F-16s haven't been in Turkey since before the Iraq war.

The Navy deployments however are very interesting. In the same sentence Bush announces that Patriot missiles will be deployed to the Persian Gulf, the President also announces the Stennis CSG will be heading to the Gulf. This is particularly interesting because it was expected the Stennis CSG would deploy to Asia as planned, and not arrive to the Middle East until March when it relieved the Eisenhower CSG. What makes it interesting isn't that a carrier is being sent to the Gulf, but the Stennis CSG AND Patriot Missiles specifically are being sent.

You see, when the commanders started talking about surging a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, it really left only 2 CSGs to choose from, either the Reagan CSG or Enterprise CSG, or so I thought. The Reagan CSG is being surged as I thought, and will be deploying in a few weeks, but instead of going to the Gulf, it will cover for the Kitty Hawk and presumably use forward deployed escorts for BMD as it patrols Asia.

By deploying the Stennis CSG to the Gulf, and ALSO sending Patriot Missiles to Iraq, a missile system that has no obvious role in counter-insurgency, I think it is legitimate to raise the red flags. The Stennis CSG is built around Ballistic Missile Defense, it wouldn't be sent to the Gulf unless Patriots were sent to support AEGIS BMD, because neither DDG supposedly has SM-3s yet, so it would need Patriots to be the interceptor.

6) Saudi Arabia offers Sec of State Rice to send troops into Iraq if the Iraqi government is unable to execute the new US plan. This is really interesting, because ever since Saddam’s regime in Iraq fell, Saudi Arabia is now the counterbalance in the region to Iran. Have you been paying attention to the budget blowout Saudi Arabia has had since 2003 regarding weapons systems? Saudi Arabia doesn’t have US troops, or planes, protecting them anymore. If war breaks out, their armed forces are the first and only line of defense against Iranian attack.

7) Strategic Bombers are about to conduct their rotation, meaning it will just so happen that come mid February, at the same time the US will have about 150 additional fighter aircraft including some of the key stealth aircraft deployed to north Asia, and an additional 150 aircraft will be deployed to the Middle East, there will also be additional strategic bombers forward deployed to both Guam and Diego Garcia, and it just so happens to coincide during the precise time period between Red Flag 07-2.1 and Red Flag 07-2.2 at Nellis when many, many reserves are called up for annual exercises.

8) Finally, the US military in Iraq appears to be refocusing on going after Iranian agents in Iraq. The Pentagon is going out of its way to talk about IEDs and Iran in the same sentence, basically telling family of soldiers that Iran is responsible for a soldiers death.

So you tell me what is happening. The best USAF strike assets are in the Asian theater, and the best defense assets will be in the Middle East. The Stennis left today so they would arrive to the Middle East by the second week of February, instead of next week as originally planned months ago. There are a lot of coincidences, from the rotation of strategic bombers to the increase in troops in Iraq to the rotation of strategic bombers, not to mention the surge of the USS Reagan CSG and the upcoming scheduled deployment of the Bonhomme Richard ESG, there are a lot of things happening.

After all, the submarine force recently has a “stand down” effective until Jan. 19th, which coincidently, would be when the Stennis CSG passes by Pearl Harbor. Oh wait, that is just a coincidence, just like the minesweepers, Patriot Missile Batteries for counter insurgency, Stennis redeployment, announced USAF operations, and announced progression of troop deployments to the Gulf region.

Yes, I am embellishing, but not much. I’m actually just curious what you think is happening. I have a theory, one that hasn’t been forwarded anywhere yet, and I wonder if you have a theory to. I think there is about to be a war in February or March, but not in the obvious way you may assume."

Stan187

Those are some interesting observations. Gotta mull it over, though, too, am not much of one for conspiracy theories.

Ray

It is possible since Iranian visit in large numbers the holy Shia shrines in Iraq and so it would not be seriously out of place!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

In the Intelligence, it is the practice that spies/ enemy agents/ agent provocateurs and 'nests' are broken only after they have lost their value.

It is better to have 'known devils' and known enemy organisations who can be kept under observation and their nuisance value impeded through a variety of means. It also leads the Intelligence to know the supporters and agents of enemy and they can be suitably dealt with. Further, if one knows the enemy's agents, then 'dubious' information can be fed as authentic to run them in circles and even making them worried with fear!

By razing such known enemy organisations or killing agents would mean starting afresh and to find out about new organisations and spied is a back breaking effort which all people who are in the Intelligence would vouch.

So, as I see it, one should not wipe these known areas of the enemy's operation!

However, if humiliation is more important, then sure one should raze them to the ground and make them lick the dust.

Intelligence is blamed for all fiascos of the government, but it is only the man in the Intelligence who knows how the government ruin their painstaking work in just a moment of picque and then go ahead and blame the Intelligence!

Ray

S2,

I have read the one on Galrahn somewhere on this Board itself.

What do you make out of it since you are an American officer and can put two and two together.

To me, it does not appear as if the US is poodlefaking and it is a normal change over.

There seems to be more than what meets the eye!

smilingassassin

I agree, its time to start sending them a message.

Officer of Engineers

I do the Noreiga thing. Surround their embassy and blare Celine Dion music 24/7 for 444 days.

__________________
Chimo

S-2

Brigadier,

"What do you make out of it since you are an American officer and can put two and two together."

A couple of small points. I no longer hold a commission and am, as such, entitled to gross speculation. I'm not certain that, in any case, there's a direct correlation between my commissioning and my basic math skills, so don't be surprised if my answer is "three"!

Sir, the POTUS speech about Iraq caught me by surprise when mentioning the STENNIS CSG and the Patriot deployments. THOSE are unusual within the specific context of Iraq. I've generally seen Patriot deployments to this region to be a specific intelligence indicator of an imminent strike. Of course I could be wrong (yet again). I've also believed that no attack upon Iran would occur before the Mahdi Army, Badr Brigade and other associated Iranian-supported elements are neutralized within Iraq. We'll know much more there by the end of February.

That Galrahn has connected the use of AEGIS as a guidance system for PATRIOT is interesting, as well. Clearly, a strike upon Iran from the sea precludes the need for permission to use host-nation facilities within the region. A retaliatory strike by Iran upon our deployed vessels would, however, permit us to bring to bear ALL of our regionally available forces in their defense. This would enable the use of shore-based PATRIOT in a fleet BMD role.

Sir, I just don't know. It's difficult for me to imagine this POTUS allowing Iranian nuclear weapons to remain on the table for the next administration. I absolutely do not believe that Israel possesses the means to effectively neuter such a capability, short of nuclear weapons-which I cannot as yet imagine.

I do believe that Iran is vulnerable to a sustained and extensive air campaign that is directed at their national infrastructure. Hardening, dispersing, and making redundant their nuclear facilities, SASPs, and research locations doesn't make their electrical, communications, water, and sewage facilities/grids any less vulnerable.

I've long been confused by the particular Iranian calculus that's generated a policy of such extreme brinksmanship. It only makes sense where the end goal is to possess nuclear weapons as a tool of strategic leverage, not defense. This seems clear in light of Iranian recalcitrance during the EU-3 negotiations and even the eventual Russian offer to provide secure reactor fuel.

As such, I think most are agreed on Iranian intent to obtain nuclear weapons as a matter of advantage. It seems the question now is whether this is permissable/tolerable. According to N. Korea, it is. According to Galrahn's info, that may be subject to further discussion also.

Brigadier, it's been a long time coming and I wouldn't be surprised one bit were events to taking an interesting turn in the skies over Teheran and Pyongyang. Perhaps Baghdad, Seoul, Tokyo, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh as well. This pot keeps coming to a boil and it's going to overflow at some point.

S-2

From the N.Y. Post-

"January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy avia tor and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand.

STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numer ous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean - the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran.

The admiral also understands China's junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime: During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed.

While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose.

Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He's turning to the Navy.

AS a retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service. I realize that the Army's leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there's yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army's leadership has failed us at the strategic level.

After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East.

Our Army is deployed globally, but our generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines, with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally). Perhaps the Army's Gen. Dave Petraeus will emerge as an incisive strategic thinker after he takes command in Baghdad, but his predecessors routinely got mired in tactical details and relied - fatally - on other arms of government to do the strategic thinking.

The reasons are complex, ranging from service culture to educational traditions, but it's incontestable that the Navy long has produced our military's best strategic thinkers - captains and admirals able to transcend parochial interests to see the global security environment as a whole. Adm. Fallon's job is to avoid the tyranny of the moment, to see past the jumble of operational pieces and visualize how those pieces ultimately might fit together.

NOR is the Iran problem the only Navy-first issue facing CENTCOM. As you read this, our ships are patrolling the coast of Somalia to intercept fleeing terrorists - and have been hunting pirates in the same waters for years. China's future development (and internal peace) is tied to dependable supplies of Middle-Eastern and African oil transiting Indian-Ocean sea lanes, as well as to shipping goods along the same routes. In a future confrontation with China, our ability to shut down the very routes we're now challenged to protect would be vital.

Not least because of the botch-up in Iraq, there's a growing sense of the limitations of U.S. ground-force involvement in the Middle East. That doesn't mean we won't see further necessity-driven interventions and even other occupations, only that our strategic planners have begun to grasp that positive change in the region - if it comes at all - is going to take far longer than many of us hoped and won't always be amenable to boots-on-the-ground prodding.

If we can't determine everything that happens in the Big Sandbox, we need to be able to control access to and from the playground - a classic Navy mission.

And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world.

Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems. Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future."

Ralph Peters' latest book is NEVER QUIT THE FIGHT.

While I'd perhaps argue that the U.S. Army has produced it's share of global strategists-particularly George C. Marshall, this article amplifies some of the earlier thoughts expressed by myself and others.

I've openly questioned whether the United States has a coherant overarching strategic vision to global security, given our preoccupation with Iraq. Maybe GWB has used his time wisely in rethinking Iraq through a larger context.

Let's hope so. Then let's hope that execution follows with eloquence.