Should We Declare War On Ourselves, Too?

In an anonymous briefing the other day, military officials asserted that Iranian-made high-tech explosives (EFPs) were being provided to "extremists" in Iraq at the behest of the Iranian government. Anonymous officials have also claimed that these explosives were responsible for roughly 25% of U.S. casualties in Iraq over the last few months.

As a Glenn Greenwald points out in some detail, General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disputes the claim that there is any clear evidence of Iranian governmental involvement.

But it's not just the evidence that's lacking here; it's the logic. The military power point presentation asserts that Iran is providing "EFPs to Iraqi extremist groups." That's cryptic as hell. What do they mean when they say "extremist groups"? Surely they don't mean al Qaeda or Baathist insurgents, right? After all, those groups are in the business of killing Iraqi Shiites allied with Iran. As Juan Cole points out, there is simply no way that 25% of U.S. casualties have come at the hands of Shiite militias:

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently.

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault.

And here's the kicker:

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran.

That's an important point because the entire right wing blogosphere is going crazy today over reports that some Austrian-made rifles have apparently found their way into Iraq via Iran. Captain Ed breathlessly writes:

Pardon the pun, but this is literally the smoking gun. We can trace these weapons from its manufacturer directly to the Iranian government.

But what exactly does that prove? Last month, The Guardian reported the following:

Until the last few months, the insurgency got by with weapons and ammunition looted from former Iraqi army depots. But now that Sunnis were besieged in their neighbourhoods and fighting daily clashes with the better-equipped Shia ministry of interior forces, they needed new sources of weapons and money.

He told me that one of his main suppliers had been an interpreter working for the US army in Baghdad. "He had a deal with an American officer. We bought brand new AKs and ammunition from them." He claimed the American officer, whom he had never met but he believed was a captain serving at Baghdad airport, had even helped to divert a truckload of weapons as soon as it was driven over the border from Jordan.

These days Rami gets most of his supplies from the new American-equipped Iraqi army. "We buy ammunition from officers in charge of warehouses, a small box of AK-47 bullets is $450 (£230). If the guy sells a thousand boxes he can become rich and leave the country." But as the security situation deteriorates, Rami finds it increasingly difficult to travel across Baghdad. "Now I have to pay a Shia taxi driver to bring the ammo to me. He gets $50 for each shipment."

The box of 700 bullets that Rami buys for $450 today would have cost between $150 and $175 a year ago. The price of a Kalashnikov has risen from $300 to $400 in the same period.

Even if the part about the American officer is untrue (and I sure hope it is), two things are pretty clear: 1) the insurgency is getting much of its weaponry from the American-supplied Iraqi army and 2) there is a bustling black market for weapons in Iraq.

By Captain Ed's logic, shouldn't we declare war on ourselves? After all, American weapons are winding up in the hands of insurgents. Why are these not also "smoking guns"? And more importantly, doesn't this cast at least a little doubt on the White House's claims about Iran? Iran has no motive for supplying Sunni insurgents--who are responsible for the vast majority of U.S. casualties and are slaughtering Shiites by the hundreds--with weapons. If anyone is being intentionally supplied with weaponry and training, it is most likely the various Shiite paramilitary groups, and it is being done for the purpose of equipping them to fight the Sunnis, not the United States. To the extent Iranian-made weapons are falling into the hands of Sunni insurgents, isn't it far more likely that opportunistic Iranians and Iraqi Shiites are selling these weapons on the black market? That's exactly the kind of trade The Guardian reported was rampant in Iraq.

If the military wants to make the case that Iran is actively supplying America's enemies in Iraq, they need to provide more than pictures of confiscated weapons. They need to provide some sort of narrative that makes logical sense. They also need to be far more specific about their allegations. Who exactly are the Iranians giving these weapons to? Why are they doing it? Until the Bush administration answers these basic questions, and does so on the record, their claims should not be taken seriously.