Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Rosett Report

Cement, Lies, and Iranian Weapons Deals

June 27th, 2014 - 10:54 pm

Quick quiz. What do the following items all have in common?

Bags of cement, crates of marble, polyethylene pellets, lentils, cotton and powdered milk.

Answer: All these items, in recent years, have been used by Iran to conceal illicit weapons cargoes, shipped in alleged violation of United Nations sanctions.

The source for this information is a confidential 14-page report produced by the United Nations Panel of Experts on Iran sanctions, and obtained this Friday by Reuters — whose Louis Charbonneau has written a story disclosing some of its contents, under the headline “Exclusive — U.N. experts trace recent seized arms to Iran, violating embargo.”

The particular Iranian duplicity on which this UN report focuses is the shipment earlier this year of weapons hidden among bags of cement aboard a Panamanian-flagged ship, the Klos C. The weapons — including rockets, fuses, 120 mm mortar shells and roughly 400,000 bullets — were loaded onto the Klos C in an Iranian port. The Klos C then called at the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, before heading to the Red Sea, where the ship, making for Sudan, was intercepted by Israeli naval forces.

According to Reuters, the UN panel’s confidential report confirms that the weapons hidden aboard the Klos C were shipped from Iran, in violation of UN sanctions. (Apparently the report does not speculate on the ultimate destination for the weapons — which the Israelis said was Gaza. Nor could the UN experts confirm the Israeli account that the weapons were smuggled into Iran from Syria, before being loaded aboard the Klos C. Perhaps Israeli authorities have better intelligence on Syria, Iran and Gaza than do the eight experts on the UN panel? But the UN report does confirm that the weapons were shipped from Iran).

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Actually it runs through the Ummah. Iran is only a part of the Shia faction of the Ummah and is only partly responsible.

To defeat the Jihadis you have to kill their paymasters. Now who is paying the way?

And the light goes on. Hope and Change...
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I'd be quite happy to have a negotiating team (and cabinet, for that matter) of M. Thatcher, J. Kirkpatrick and C. Rosett.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Iranian lies. What about Obama's lies? He says the Iranian negotiations are to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I suspect it's to stop Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities - until it firmly has its bomb making facilities in place, which should happen sometime near the ed of the talks.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (14)
All Comments   (14)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
They are not missils...they are crutches for handicapped people. See, you prop one up like this, put the second one under your armpit...
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
As I recall Bush wasn't about to stop the Iranians or let Israel do so. Even so the intelligence community had to come out with that phoney assessment that Iran no longer posed a threat to make sure the Dybya didn't go off the reservation. Obama seems pro Iranian and anti Israeli so there will be a big show about a deal with Iran, but the Iranians will not slow their drive for a bomb one iota. It is 'game on' folks.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Typical of b."insane" nobama to send two women to bargain with a bunch of people who view women as property!
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I'd be quite happy to have a negotiating team (and cabinet, for that matter) of M. Thatcher, J. Kirkpatrick and C. Rosett.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Iranian lies. What about Obama's lies? He says the Iranian negotiations are to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I suspect it's to stop Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities - until it firmly has its bomb making facilities in place, which should happen sometime near the ed of the talks.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama will be out of the picture in two and a half years ... but Iran will be the gift that keeps on giving. Both of the last two American Presidents ignored the Iranians - GWB because he was too busy trying to clean up his mess in Iraq, which coincidentally freed Iran to do their worst throughout the Middle East ... and Obama who decided that his number one objective in foreign policy was to befriend the Iranians and declare victory in Iran, just as GWB declared victory in Iraq. Both were and will be pyhrric victories.

Iran is our blood enemy in the ME ... unless and until American voters elect a President who will make it his number one foreign policy tactical objective to undermine and defeat the Iranian mullahs, there will be no possibility of any peace or stability in the ME.

If we want to defeat the Jihadists, there is only one pathway to do so, and it runs right through Tehran.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Iran is our blood enemy...". When we invaded Iraq in 2002/2003 (I forget exactly when), I was dating a man from Iran (a Persian Jew who came here when the Shah's government was collapsing). He said, "we invaded the wrong country, it should have been Iran". I wasn't sure what he meant at the time, but now it's no doubt he was right.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually it runs through the Ummah. Iran is only a part of the Shia faction of the Ummah and is only partly responsible.

To defeat the Jihadis you have to kill their paymasters. Now who is paying the way?

And the light goes on. Hope and Change...
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Bush already. He's busy painting. You're terribly even-handed.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can't forget GWB when his apologists on the far right are still arguing today that his decision to invade Iraq was correct and was not the disaster for America that we all know it to have been ... and that we need to do it all over again now to take out ISIS .. and who are the ones determined to have US soldiers stationed in Iraq effectively forever ... mainly to serve as live training aids for the Jihadists who are shielded, trained, and funded by the Iranian mullahs.

Arguments over the efficacy and morality of the Civil War are one thing (even though they still continue today) ... arguing over what to do in the Middle East today is entirely another matter ... refusal to admit errors in the recent past only guarantees more failure to come.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
amazing you libs continue to attribute so much to Boooosh, when the descision had already been made by Dims and signed off by Clinton.

Hillary blowing all negotiations and Obama getting kicked out put the final touch on it, creating a very nice vacume.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Iraq invasion as GWB's war - he will forever own it.

I am a lifelong conservative Republican and military veteran - being against stupid self-destructive invasions does not make one a lib - it only makes one not a recalcitrant, stupid ideolgue.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nobody is saying 'to do it all over again.' Some are saying to bomb and give logistical support to local enemies of ISIS.

The other problem with your argument is that Iraq only finally fell apart during the Obama Administration, as the players on the ground were told over and over again by the current President that he would be getting the heck out of there. The withdrawal made a big contribution...
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, some ARE saying reinvade and put American soldiers in as combat troops to defeat ISIS and force Iraq to remain a single state - per the usual suspects, Dick Cheney, Senators McCain and Graham, and various neocons like the guys over at Weekly Standard are all in that group. They refuse to admit any error and believe more of the same is just what the doctor ordered.

Iraq fell apart the instant GWB invaded and destroyed the only force that held a naturally unstable Iraq together - that would have been Saddam Hussein. Bad guy, sure, but he made Iraq the unitary state possible. Without him, and without another bad guy strong man like him to take his place, the only thing that held Iraq together was 175,000 troops from the Surge .. and the minute we started drawing down (which was inevitable - America would impeach any President who refused to leave Iraq after all the useless carnage and waste of American lives) - it was like shutting off the engines on a flying airplane - an immediate descent is the only possible outcome.
20 weeks ago
20 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All