The NYT has a fascinating article (militarily and politically) on the use of EFPs against our troops in Iran. These lethal armor-piercing weapons seem most probably to have come from Iran. Even some of the anti-war Democrats agree, including Senator Reed of Rhode Island:
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who opposed Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan, said he believed that the Bush administration was using the E.F.P. issue to distract attention from the difficulties in Iraq. But he said he was persuaded that the weapons were coming from Iran, in part from extensive talks with American and British commanders during trips to Iraq.
“They want to keep us under pressure in Iraq without causing a major power reaction by us or a major meltdown within Iraq, which puts a failing state on their borders,” Mr. Reed said of the Iranians.
I see.
Well, Senator Reed, I have a question: You no doubt recall that Iran was at war with Iraq for most of the 1980s. In fact, according to Wikipedia, “Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in 1982, but Iran’s insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. ” Is that that consistent with fearing a “failed state” on your border or is that more likely consistent with wanting to take over that state on your border?
I don’t expect Senator Reed to answer that question. [Perhaps he could ask Cong. Silvestri?-ed. Yes, perhaps.] But I would have liked the NYT to have asked something similar. It is logical, after all. But they choose to wrap up their article with this predictable quote:
“The fact that Iran may be supplying lethal equipment is all the more reason to deal with them,” Lee H. Hamilton, a co-chairman of the panel, said in an interview. “We do think it fortifies the case for engaging Iran.”
Ah, yes. Of course.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member