Just two weeks ago, in his national address announcing a troop escalation in Iraq, the president hinted that [tag]Iran[/tag] may be our next target. Specifically, Bush said, “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.” The wording may have been open to some interpretation, but if a foreign government is facilitating attacks on Americans, it sounds a bit like an act of war.
But is it true? Is Iran providing material support for attacks in Iraq? The LA Times applied a little scrutiny to the president’s comments. Bush, who you may have noticed already has some credibility problems, doesn’t come out looking too good.
If there is anywhere Iran could easily stir up trouble in Iraq, it would be in Diyala, a rugged province along the border between the two nations.
The combination of Sunni Arab militants believed to be affiliated with Al Qaeda and Shiite Muslim militiamen with ties to Iran has fueled waves of sectarian and political violence here. The province is bisected by long-traveled routes leading from Iran to Baghdad and Shiite holy cities farther south in Iraq.
But even here, evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq’s troubles is limited. U.S. troops have found mortars and antitank mines with Iranian markings dated 2006, said U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, who oversees the province. But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found.
The LAT noted that for all the president’s aggressive rhetoric, the administration “has provided scant evidence to support these claims.” For that matter, reporters embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq have not seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement, and British officials, who have also claimed Iranian meddling, “have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.”
“The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case,” the LAT reported. “Some suggest [tag]Bush[/tag] and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.”
You mean the Bush gang would exaggerate a threat, mislead the nation, and fabricate evidence to manufacture a casus belli? You don’t say.
On a related note, Glenn Greenwald noted this morning that this kind of reporting is a welcome change of pace.
In his “surge” speech two weeks ago, the President claimed that “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.” … If this were 2003, every front page headline and lead-in to every television news programs would declare: “Iran responsible for attacks on U.S. troops.” The more conscientious ones might add the phrase “, the President reveals.” But all of the stories would contain one paragraph after the next asserting the administration’s claims about Iran as fact, and would include no investigation of those claims or any real contrary assertions. That was government propaganda masquerading as “independent reporting” — entire stories, day after day, published as fact based on nothing other than the claims of the government (“Bush officials said”; “senior administration officials today disclosed”, etc. etc.).
But, at least in some notable places, the opposite is occurring with Bush’s provocative Iran claims.
Quite right. The WaPo scrutinized the claims in October, and the LAT added additional analysis today. It’s an encouraging sign.