UPDATE: The title of this article is being recanted by me, the author, as it is misleading. I made a mistake, and apologize to the readers for that mistake.
Here's what happened:
Admiral Mullen made a somewhat confusing statement during the US Senate Armed Services Committee on September 22nd. To most of the news agencies who reported the story, their understanding of the statement was that the Admiral was referencing the Haqqani terrorist network, not Iran. The bulk of the conversation that day also focused on the Haqqani network. Here is the exchange between Senator Ayotte and Admiral Mullen:
Sen. AYOTTE: I wanted to ask you about Iran and, in particular, Iran's influence on Iraq right now. Admiral Mullen, how would you describe Iran's surrogate activities in southern Iraq? And is Iran providing weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq, who are in turn attacking our troops? And how much is Iran contributing to increased violence in Iraq?
ADM. MULLEN: I think over the summer there was a significant spike into what the secretary said earlier with respect to Iran supporting two Shia extremist groups, AAH and KH. And they have control of that -- very clear. Because we went by several channels, but politically to Iraq; Iraq went to Iran, and it stopped. So it is -- there's no question that Iran can control this, and it's a very dangerous potential. And they're shipping EFPs and IRAMs in particular, and the IRAMs are getting bigger and bigger. And so there is a -- there is a great downside potential for destabilizing particularly southern Iraq.
That, actually, I think Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi leadership is concerned about. So in that regard, it is in one - on the one hand, up to them. It's very clear that they - if they want to do it, they can do it. They are - they have been warned about continuing it, and consistent with what the secretary has said about the Haqqani Network, you know, that if they keep killing our troops, that will not be something we will just sit idly by and watch.
Prior to my writing this article, every top-level Google result for the specific quote that Mullen said resulted in a story about Pakistan, specifically about the Haqqani network, and made no mention of Iran. Every credible news agency I had found that covered the story said that Mullen was speaking of the Haqqani network. I did not feel the need to verify that information by finding the original quote, which was a major mistake, and I apologize. Unlike all of the major media organizations that covered this story, I always link to my sources. This time, I linked to the Dawn News, but I easily could have linked to AFP, or dozens of other agencies that carried the story. I was misled, so you were misled.
Unfortunately, this problem will now overshadow my larger point made in the rest of the article, that Fox is trying to manipulate this story in order to drum up fear, without providing adequate evidence. The quote in question was not really made about "Iran," but about Shia extremist groups that have been waging an insurgency for a long time. No hard evidence is given that Iran had supplied weapons to the extremists. And no evidence is given to support the idea that Iran will supply weapons to Shia groups once the U.S. soldiers withdraw from Iraq.
I write these articles to keep the media in check and to dig for the truth, and I thank the reader who pointed out my mistake. At the end of the day somebody has to keep the media honest, and Fox News, the AFP, and I all need to do a better job.
On Monday, Fox News posted an article with the very provocative title: "After Deadly Attacks in Iraq, Iran Lays Low While U.S. Plans Withdrawal:
An Iranian militia on July 12 attempted to fire 41 Iranian-made rockets at a U.S. military post in eastern Iraq near the border with Iran. Seventeen of the 107 mm rockets were confiscated by U.S. and Iraqi forces before they could be launched, but the rest missed the U.S. base known as COS Garry Owen in Maysan province just north of Basra and instead hit the base for the Iraqi 10th Army division, killing several Iraqi women and children.
U.S. defense officials familiar with the incident tell Fox News that in response an angry Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki issued a communiqué warning his Iranian counterparts that should such destabilizing operations continue he would be forced to ask U.S. forces to remain in Iraq past December 31, the current deadline for all U.S. forces to leave.
The article then explains how attacks have decreased since the incident, thus the supposed "laying low" of Iran as it awaits the departure of American troops.
So Fox takes an event which may or may not have occurred -- somehow, an AP profile of COS Garry Owen in September failed to note any Iranian attacks during the summer --- combines it with a non-event since then, and concludes: 1) the warning of continued US presence in Iraq keeps Tehran quiet but 2) once that presence goes, the Iranian menace will re-appear.
So a bit of clever manipulation by the Fox folks, but something did not sit quite right. The glaring problem with the article came in the last paragraph:
In June of this year, 9 U.S. soldiers were killed as a result of Iranian rockets. U.S. troops were attacked 6 times this year by militias firing Iranian rockets, twice as many times as the year before. Admiral Mike Mullen before retiring as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs last week warned, "If they [Iran] keep killing our troops that will not be something that we will sit idly by and watch." Now it seems that Iran's leadership has made a new calculation that it may be more beneficial to slow the attacks until the government of Iraq finalizes its request for how many U.S. troops it will ask to remain.
I knew I had heard this warning from Admiral Mullen this week. So I did some research. Mullen said those very words, but the quote had absolutely nothing to do with Iran:
The admiral's tough language follows a series of stern warnings from top US officials on Pakistan's failure to crack down on the Haqqani network, raising the possibility of unilateral US action.
"If they keep killing our troops that would not be something we would just sit idly by and watch," Mullen said of the Haqqani insurgents.
So now they are outright lying about the statements of retiring Admirals in order to beat the war drum. Just another epic media fail.
This article originally appeared on EA WorldView, where James Miller and others provide daily coverage of Iran and the Arab Spring.
Follow James Miller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JMiller_EA
And, like with the US arms, arms smugglers and dealers obtain some Iranian arms from the countries they've been shipped to, obtain some of those arms by false legal trades, and obtain some through corruption and 'wink-and-nod' dealings inside the source country.
But though Fox (and others) makes a big deal when the arms used to attack the American forces occupying Iraq turn out to have been made in Iran, I have yet to see the statistics for how many attacks (or discovered arms caches) involve American made arms.
Perhaps that is because those statistics would undermine the 'the attacks in Iraq are by Iranian proxies' meme, and instead make the American public look on the American arms manufacturers as the source of the weapons that kill American soldiers.
Also, I've seen no evidence that suggests there are a large amount of US made weapons in the hands of dissidents in Iraq. The US exports a lot of bad things to the Middle East (tear gas, censorship technology) but I'm not sure this holds water. I'd be curious to know if you have any more info on the subject, though, than I do.
The bottom line, however, is that the Iranian threat (while still a threat) is far over-inflated, both by Fox here and beyond.
I don't have any direct info (my contacts are Canadian military) but the massive dominance as a source of arms that America has, combined with the understanding that the illicit arms trade reflects that dominance, the probability that there isn't a large amount of US made weapons in the hands of dissidents in Iraq (especially seeing as the main sources for arms in Iraq for decades was Fance and America) is vanishingly small. The physical proximity of Iran will skew the numbers somewhat, but not enough to overcome the dominance of American arms on the global market.
"I think over the summer there was a significant spike, what the Secretary said earlier, with respect to Iran supporting two Shia extremist groups, AH and KH. And they have control of that, very clear, because we went by several channels, but politically to Iraq. Iraq went to Iran and it stopped. So it is— there’s no question that Iran can control this, and it’s a very dangerous potential. And they’re shipping EFPs and IRAMs in particular, and the IRAMs are getting bigger and bigger. So there is a great down side potential for destabilizing, particularly southern Iraq, that actually I think Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi leadership is concerned about. So in that regard, it is on the one hand up to them. It’s very clear that if they want to do it they can do it. They are—they have been warned about continuing it and, consistent with what the Secretary has said about the Haqqani network, that if they keep killing our troops that will not be something we will just sit idly by and watch."
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2011/09%20September/11-70%20-%209-22-11.pdf
When he mentions Haqqani, he's referring back to comments made by Panetta concerning their assault on US troops and saying just as with Haqqani’s, Iran's attacks will not be tolerated.
Thank you for providing the clarification. Let me re-re clarify.
You are correct (though Fox did not correctly quote Mullen, which is why I could not find the quote.) In fact, Mullen, in a different quote, spoke specifically about the Haqqani network, in an interview, and said the quote that I put in my post. In other words, when Fox News tried to post the quote, they posted THE WRONG QUOTE that had similar wording.
This is a problem that was further compounded by the fact that Fox News does not know what week it is. This was published Monday, Mullen's comments that Fox is quoting were given on September 22, two weeks ago, and last week he gave the similar quote but about specifically Haqqani, with no mention of Iran. This problem is further further complicated because Fox News, like so many others, never links to source material (as I do) when it is available online, and Fox never gave the specifics of when the quote was given. So Fox's sloppiness makes it nearly impossible to factcheck their claims. I apologize for not catching this detail.
But Fox News is still massively distorting the heart of the article. The Iranian regime has deep contacts within the Malaki government. The idea that without US presence in Iraq, Iran would run amok and destroy the countryside is ridiculous. Fox has consistently distorted their coverage of, well, everything, including Iran, blowing out of proportion the threat that Iran posses.
“Admiral Mike Mullen before retiring as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs last week warned…”
Last week refers to Mike Mullen’s retirement on Friday September 30. The meeting happened before his retirement.
Concerning the slight alteration to the quote, they’ve added a “that” and missed a “just.” MSNBC made a similar mistake with same quote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44632341/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-says-wont-ignore-iran-backed-attacks-iraq/#.To8uWpsr2so
I quite frankly don’t understand how you couldn’t find the SASC quote because of this minor change. I found it in 15 seconds. I cannot find a similar quote that refers to the Haqqani Network. If you’re going to continue this hatchet job on Fox, I think it’s incumbent upon you to produce it.
The last sentence of the story: "Now it seems that Iran’s leadership has made a new calculation that it may be more beneficial to slow the attacks until the government of Iraq finalizes its request for how many U.S. troops it will ask to remain." That insinuates, as does the title of the article, that Iran will strike again after US troops withdraw. Really? US troop withdrawal is the goal in and of itself.
Thanks for pushing back, but I fear it's like trying to push back the tide.
The book of Genesis records the creation of the Jewish state through the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Genesis 15, 26:2-3, and 35:12. The Jewish people as a nation have a 4000 year old history and an eternal existence as a nation, Isaiah 66:22. If Ahmadinejad was speaking of the modern day state of Israel, he is wrong again. The present Jewish state is a result of the fulfillment of God's prophetic promises being fulfilled. The ancient Jewish prophet Ezekiel wrote 2500 years ago that the Lord would regather His scattered people and restore them as a nation, Ezekiel 37:7-11. In fact, Ezekiel wrote that the Lord would make the modern day state of Israel greater than the one of their forefathers, Ezekiel 36:10-11.
Ahmadinejad's words are incorrect. The prophetic Word of God is absolute. Bible prophecy is and will be fulfilled.
Ezekiel 1:1 "While I was in the mist of the exiled People by the river che'bar" This first verse tell us that ezekiel was in exile in babylon (modern day Iraq).
Ezekiel 37:7-11 indicates a figurative condition of Israel by ezekiel's vision of a valley of dry bones. Miraculously the bones (Israel) begin to have flesh, breath, and live again. This would indicate that God will restore them as a nation when Israel is set free after their exile.. But this not a modern day (post 71CE) restore. This restore as mentioned in ezekiel, indicates a rebuliding of the temple after a literal 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11, Daniel 9:2) of exile, is finished. For some this was either 607 BCE or 586/587 BCE whichever you prefer. Continued.......
Israel was released from bondage by cyrus ll. If they remain faithful to God and keep his commandments, he would protect them. But keeping to their old ways, they begin to turn back to their wicked ways and follow false god's and pollute their worship. So in 70CE, the Temple was destroyed for the last time, to never be rebuilt here on earth luke 21:20-25. Jesus said at Matt 24:2 "Do you not behold all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down". Jesus was talking about the literal Jewish Temple. See also John 21:5-6 (Not the Temple of his body as mentioned in John 2:19). The status of Israel being the only nation that walked with the true God, had come to and end. Matt 21:43 This is why I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken from you (Israel as a nation) and be given to a nation ( all people that accepts jesus as their savior) producing it's (the kingdom) fruits. Therefore Israel today does not represent God nor his kingdom as a exclusive people or nation like in the past. Rather all nations of people that accepts Gods son Jesus can be accepted by him. Daniel 2:44 God will set up a kingdom (jesus will be king) and it will CRUSH and put and end to ALL OTHER KINGDOMS. This includes modern day Israel