By: VLU

VLU — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:53:52 +0000

Perhaps you’re expecting a level of proof or evidence that is unrealistic. Given 1) Iran’s past terroristic activities, 2) its current rhetoric and belligerence, 3) its capability of delivering on at least some of its threats, and 4) at least reasonable connections to Iran (not just weapons smuggling, but a Qud officer in Erbil), the conclusions that Iran is involved somehow seems obvious. What to do about it is the real question.
That a holocaust denier denies involvement in Iraq almost persuades me of the opposite by itself.

By: Iang

Iang — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:13:24 +0000

I don’t think the machining required for creating EFPs is likely out of the reach of any country. Especially, it is the machine tools themselves which are hard and expensive, but the use of those tools isn’t so much of an issue. On the whole, whether Iran *export* or evidences such seems to be a bad argument. If they’re busy on nukes, then they can do mortar rounds.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if the lettering on mortar rounds is in English. Military equipment in the small-arms category operates to the same sorts of interoperability rules as software, so the books, instructions, procedures and so forth all have an influence on standards; most armies seems to have standardised on 81mm mortars for example.
I think it is likely that the US will be able to prove Iran is supplying arms … but still no-one will believe them :)

Comments on: When I Hear “Precise Machining,” Iran Springs to Mind

By: VLU

By: Iang