Exclusive: Iraq signs deal to buy arms, ammunition from Iran - document

[okaawhatever]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Iran has signed a deal to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, according to documents seen by Reuters - a move that would break a U.N. embargo on weapons sales by Tehran.

The agreement was reached at the end of November, the documents showed, just weeks after Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki returned from Washington, where he lobbied the Obama administration for extra weapons to fight al Qaeda-linked militants.

Some in Washington are nervous about providing sensitive U.S. military equipment to a country they worry is becoming too close to Iran. Several Iraqi lawmakers said Maliki had made the deal because he was fed up with delays to U.S. arms deliveries.

A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister would not confirm or deny the sale, but said such a deal would be understandable given Iraq's current security troubles.
"We are launching a war against terrorism and we want to win this war. Nothing prevents us from buying arms and ammunition from any party and it's only ammunition helping us to fight terrorists," said the spokesman, Ali Mussawi.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-iraq-iran-arms-idUSBREA1N10D20140224

[Sunlei]

1. wonder if their gun seller 'wholesaler is russia, china or cheney?

or an association of those 3.

[TwilightGardener]

2. It took L'il Georgie and 5-Deferments to finally drive Iraq and Iran into

each others' arms, from having been sworn enemies. Strengthening Iran's hand--yeah, team!

[okaawhatever]

4. Well now that they're both Shi'ite governments they'll be BFF's. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. That seems to be the litmus test

Whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria.

[hollowdweller]

3. Always thought the ultimate Iraq strategy

Would have to been to pull out as soon as Saddam was deposed and let Iran get involved in the quagmire.

But seriously, look at terror in the middle east. 90% of it is sunni terrorists killing shiites.

Iran and Iraq are natural allies because the same terrorists would like to see them dead.

Really we suck up to Saudi Arabia and some of them because of the oil but as far as terrorisim we really have more common enemies with Iran and Iraq than Saudi Arabia. I think it's just the Israel lobby that keeps us and them enemies.

[7962]

5. Thanks George! Jackass. nt

[billh58]

7. Why don't they just

buy their arms and ammunition through Facebook like everyone else?

[happyslug]

8. From the Articles, the items being purchased:

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 09:11 PM - Edit history (4)

* Ammunition for light and medium weapons: $75 million

* Ammunition for tanks artillery and mortars: $57.178 million

* Light and medium weapons and mortar launchers: $25.436 million

* Artillery ammunition type 155 mm: $16.375 million

* Day and night vision goggles and mortar guiding devices: $7.320 million

* Protective equipment against chemical agents: $6.676 million

* Communications equipment: $3.795 million

* M12 USA ammunition 20 X 102 mm: $3 million

As to light and Medium weapon ammunition, Iran can produce, 7.62x51mm (NATO), 7.62x39 (Russian), 7.62x54 (Russian), 5.56x45 (American M16 and M4 Ammunition), 12.7x99 (US 50 caliber Ammunition), 12.7 x 109 (Russian .50 Caliber ammunition), M40 106MM Anti-tank rounds, Russian Rocket propelled grenades and grenade launchers (RPGs, not only RPG-7 but also the RPG-29s, the latest version of the RPG-7 type anti-tank rocket).

Iran has reversed engineered and put into production the US TOW and Dragon Anti-Tank launchers and missiles. These may not be up to the latest US version, but good enough for Iraq. Iran is producing the Russian 9K115-2 Metis-M Company level Anti-Tank Missie (Russia's equivalent to the Dragon).

Any and all of the above could be viewed as "Light to Medium" weapons, and as you can see Iran can supply them,

As to Artillery, Tank and Mortars ammunition, those are simple to make once you have the factory set up, and the US set such factories up for the Shah starting in the 1950s. Thus easy for Iran to supply such ammunition,

As to Night version goggles, I have my questions, Russian had been capable of doing what is called First Generation night version goggles since the early 1970s. They are behind US and Western Europe in regard to the latest nigh vision equipment, but like most such technology, as it gets more advance and thus more expensive, the return on investments falls. i.e. the big improvement was generation one to two to three, subsequent improvements are NOT that great, significant but not that great.

The big change over the last 30 years has been thermal night vision goggles, big change in the 1980s, and shown they worth during the first Gulf War in 1991. At that time it was believed the US was way ahead of Russia in that technology, but it is believe Russia has exceeded what the US had in 1991. On the other hand what the Russians have is believed to be inferior to what the US Military has access to. The real issue is the difference minor or decisive. In 1991 in the Gulf War the difference was decisive, in 2002/2003 invasion if Iraq, Russian appears NOT to have supplied any such equipment to the Iraqis, but appears to have done so to Hezbollah during the Israeli Invasion if Lebanon a few years later. In that later invasion the difference appears to have been minor when it came to night vision equipment.

Please note in the early days of the Yom Kipper War of 1973, The Israeli forces had a rough time with Syrian tanks. The Russians had given Syria they latest Night Vision equipment, while Israel had none on their tanks. If it was NOT for some lack of willingness to attack on part of the Syrian Generals in charge (some of which were executed after the war for their lack of decisiveness) and the massive shipment of Anti Tank Weapons with Night Vision equipment (that had been reserved for South Vietnam, and the lack of such equipment would lead to the fall of Vietnam in 1975) that reversed this almost decisive advantage of the Syrians over the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), Israel may have cease to exist in 1973. I mention it for it show that decisive advantage is generally to the side the exploits a technology first, not the side the exploits it the most. Thus night vision Equipment was decisive in 1973 and 1991, it was NOT decisive in 2003 for even the low grade night vision equipment of Saddam was sufficient to permit them to keep US forces out from between the rivers of Iraq till the US bypass the whole River system and took Baghdad. In 2003 it was the ability to push through the desert that was decisive, and even then only in regards to removing Saddam from power. I will NOT go into my details for this paper is on the decisive nature of new weapons NOT the war in Iraq as a whole.

To make a long story short, the night vision equipment being supplied is probably Russian or Chinese and inferior to what the US could supply, but not that inferior to put Iraq at a disadvantage Against Saudi Arabia, the country most likely to attack Iraq, Iran has no reason to do so, Iran is slowly taking over Iraq without invading. Kuwait is to weak. Turkey has other concerns.

Protective equipment is big, if you are afraid someone will use chemicals on you. Chemicals are most effective against people unprepared for such attacks, thus since WWI has only been used against people supporting a rebellion (as Italy did in Ethiopia in 1936, and Saddam did against Iranian and his own population in the 1980s, it is now known Iran never used chemicals in that war, the times when Iran was accused, it is know Saddam ordered those Chemical Attacks). Israel has always given its Jewish Population Gas masks when they was a possibility of a gas attack (which Israel did during the First Gulf War), on the other hand Israel refused to give Gas Masks to the Palestinians living under their occupation. Iraq wants to protect its soldiers and its civilians from any gas attacks and any gas mask is better then none, thus the speed to buy such masks. Gas Masks also have life expectancy. Most countries try to keep the masks they have up to date from most chemicals which requires replacing filters every so often, even if the mask is NOT used.

The M12 20x102mm ammunition is for US made 20 mm guns, used in US Aircraft as an cannon against both aircraft and ground targets, also used in US Navy and US Army 20 mm Vulcan Air Defense Gatling guns.

Iran Makes 155mm rounds for its 155mm US made towed and self propelled howitzers. Iran has 180 American Made M109 Self Propelled M109s and has produced a copy of it themselves.

Thus all of the items, with the exception of Night Vision equipment (Thermal Night Vision being an exception) is within the capacity of Iran. Iran may even be able to produce night vision goggles but I doubt Thermal Night Vision equipment. Chemical masks and Chemical medication if exposed to chemicals is very old technology, most known by WWII and in common knowledge of most countries by the 1970s. Thus Iranian chemical protection equipment should be as good as US made equipment.

Military Equipment world wide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

Equipment of the Iranian Army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army#Other_equipment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army

[okaawhatever]

9. Thanks for adding more info. nt

[happyslug]

11. I notice I needed to do some editing

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Iran Reversed Engineered not Reserve English when it come to TOW missiles (That is the problem with spell checks, they will change incorrectly spelled words to a correctly spelled but wrong word).

I also added comments as to the IDF and Syria and night vision equipment in 1973, another example of a decisive weapon (Through in that case, the advantage was undone by bad leadership AND rapid upgrading from the US).

[okaawhatever]

12. Thanks for the update. I never read much about the Yom Kippur War, I guess I should as it would

probably help me understand the region better.

[happyslug]

13. Don't worry, much of that war is still classifed, one writer says Sadat planned to lose the war

The comment is made in the following article, I take no position as to its accuracy, but it does fit known facts, including Sadat's hold on Egypt was NOT that strong in 1973, but that he "Won" the war strengthen his hands within Egyptian Military:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/

[bemildred]

10. And once again we accomplish the exact opposite of what we set out to do.

And very expensively too.

[happyslug]

14. What preventing Iran from taking over all of Iraq?

You have to understand, right now the big fight in the Middle East is NOT Israel vs anyone, but Saudi Arabia vs Iran. This fight has been going on ever since the fall of the Shah. Kuwait, an ally of the House of Saud, help finance Saddam's attack in Iran. When he ran into trouble and Iran turned the tables on him, Saddam had to fight for his life and that was financed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Best seen in what the US did when the oil tankers were hit. It was clear it was Iraq War planes that attacked those tankers, but the US ships sent into the Persian Gulf was to protect Kuwaiti and Arabian Oil Tankers from Iranian attacks, even through the only side doing the attacks was Iraq. i.e don't attack the oil tankers Iran, even through Iraq is attacking them. Also don't defend them, for to defend means to attack Iraq planes that are within US Air defense areas,

Now, after several years where it became clear Iran had been fought to a standstill by the House of Saud buying every Chinese Tanks and armor weapon Saddam could use and buying the planes Iraq was using (with reports that the planes were being flown by French Pilots for Iraq), Iran agree to a peace treaty reinstating the borders that existed before the War (Remember the war was started by Iraq to transfer those areas around the Gulf From Iran to Iraqi control).

At the end of the War, Iraq was broke and decided it was time correct the border dispute with Kuwait. The border dispute involved who controlled what part of an oil field between the two nations. Saddam had just expanded his army, so he decided to force the issue and he invaded Kuwait which lead to the First US-Iraq war.

Saddam had made a mistake, his job was to keep his Shiites down and his oil flowing. NOT to take over Kuwait of make any threat to Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud opposed Saddam taking Kuwait and then the House of Saud complained it was worried about an invasion itself. Saddam could NOT do such an invasion, he had the tanks but not the support trucks to go much further then he did. Thus there was never a threat to Saudi Arabia (Something Bin Laden did not understand when he proposed how he would defend Arabia from an Iraq invasion and his proposal was rejected in favor of a US force to retake Kuwait),

What Saddam (and bin Laden) did not understand was that what the House of Saud feared is unity of the Shiites of Kuwait with the Shiites of South Eastern Iraq with the Shiites of North Western Arabia. All three areas looked to Iraq for supported and has done so since the time of the first Persian Empire around 500 BC. Religion follows trade routes and thus why all three areas are Shiites. These same trade routes made the whole area pro-Iranian, something the House of Saud opposed.

Thus the House of Saud, demanded US protection and the US responded like a pet dog to its master. Think about it, if Saddam took over Kuwait, what could he have done? That was doing an oil glut, oil prices would reach its lowest price in EVER real terms in the late 1990s. Thus the US could have purchased the oil, like the US purchased Iraq oil in the 1990s. Kuwait being part of Iraq had no affect on the US, but it did affect the House of Saud, who has kept all of those small Arab countries in the Persian Gulf loyal to Arabia, even when the majority of the people in those countries preferred Iran.

Thus the US went to war in 1990 against Saddam to further Saudi agenda's not any US agenda. The War ended as it did, for the same reason, an independent Shiite state of southeastern Iraq was a House of Saud nightmare, and since the US could NOT put it down (to controversial) it was arranged to have a peace treaty and the Saddam's Iraq army put down those Shiites.

The subsequet embargo on Iraq, was to get one of Saddam's general to overthrow him but he had enough control that was impossible (It was claimed at the time that the reason Iraq was able to put down the revolt of the Shiites is because the US left Iraq to fly their helicopters for Iraqi generals told the US, they needed the helicopters to topple Saddam. At the same I believed that story, but today I do not, for the simple reason you do not need Helicopters to overthrow a dictator, all you need is troops, which can get to the capital by truck. Not the reason the Helicopters were permitted to fly was they were needed to put down the Shiite Revolt that follows the three day Iraq ground war. The US also ended the war that early, for to go on to Baghdad meant removing the only force capable of putting down the Shiites of south east Iraq. i.e. the Iraqi Army. Thus any move to Baghdad in 1990 was against House of Saud long term plans and thus not done.

The Sanctions that followed the First Gulf War, was intended for the Iraqi Military to overthrow Saddam without giving power to the Shiites.

Then three things happened, first Yeltsin was replaced by Putin. This ended the decline of Russia for Putin straighten out the economy including making war on the oligarchs that had stolen much of the assets of Russia during the 1990s. The US hated this, for it meant it may have to deal with a Russia, much weaker then the Soviet Union had been in the mid 1980s, but fairly united with most of its internal problems behind it (Pensions were increased, welfare was increased, while taxes were kept down do to much lower military spending).

Now the second thing is related to the rise of Russia since 2000, the price of oil has kept going up and up as demanded exceeded supply for the first time since the 1970s. This increased the flow of money into Russia (the #2 net oil exporter) and into Iraq (and Saudi Arabia, the #1 net oil exporter).

List of NET oil Exporters:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?topL=exp

Thus you had overall increase in wealth among the Countries of the Persian Gulf. Now you must remember the down ward price in oil ended in 1997, but it remain low, but that did not lead to anyone overthrowing Saddam. Worse, it appears that the Shiites of Southeastern Iraq was being assisted by Iran. Not assisted it military means, but by making sure the people in the area had food and medication. This strengthen the hold of Iran had over that part of Iraq.

Now Saddam was still in control of Iraq in 2001, but hold was weakening, especially among the Shiites.. I suspect that Saudi Arabia intelligence reports indicated that South Eastern Iraq would revolt again if Saddam was attacked again or in any way threatened. An independent Shiite South east Iraq was and is completely unacceptable to Arabia so they talked George Bush into launching that attack. Bush after he became President was looking for a reason to attack Iraq, he even tried to connect Saddam with 9-11 (and most people laugh at him for doing so). Thus the attack in Iraq was to prevent an independent Shiite South east Iraq, that was the goal of the House of Saud.

Now, once in Iraq, Bush proceeded to try to make sure they be no Shiite Majority government and did all he could to avid elections, when that failed do to Shiite resistance, Bush permitted elections then did his best to make sure the Shiites did not get 50 % of the counted votes (it was believed at the time the Shiites did get over 50%, but since the US was counting the votes it stayed just short of 50%, which was hard for the Sunnis were boycotting the elections.

Now in the subsequent elections, the Shiites had come out on top and undid every effort to give up their control of the oil of Iraq. The US withdrew after deciding that a united but weak Iraq was the best they could do. The House of Saud seems to being funding the Sunnis opposition against the Shiites, to keep the Shiites from forming an alliance with Iran.

Notice the US role in Iraq was as the hired gun of the House of Saud, but a hired gun that had its own limitations when it came to the use of force. Thus when the cost of keeping US forces in Iraq exceeded the benefit of such troops to the House of Saud that war ended.

As to Afghanistan, yes Pakistan is a supporting of the Taliban, but so was the House of Saud. 9-11 had to be responded to, thus the invasion. The problem them became the two sides left after the US had driven the Taliban from power. The Northern Alliance, who had been supported by Russia, thus the US did not really want to have to much say, and the Hazara, who being Shiites allied with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

The US stayed in Afghanistan for the House of Saud do not want either of those two groups to take over Afghanistan and the US officially do not want the Taliban back in charge. The problem for the US is how to withdraw from Afghanistan without looking like the US was driven out by the Taliban. The Taliban can NOT drive out the US Troops, but the US has NOT sent in enough troops to truly occupy the country. Worse, given the lack of roads, the US may have maxed out the troops it can keep in Afghanistan. It is a classic stalemate and some sort of deal has to be made. What the US is looking for is something on the line the Present President (or his successor) stays in as President, but the Taliban ends up running the Country, but under a different name. Such a deal would look like the US "Won" for the Taliban would be no more and that would satisfy the US, but the Taliban would know who did win and act accordingly but under a new name.

The use of Drones, is one way to achieve this. By killing mid level leaders of the Taliban that oppose some sort of deal, that permit lower level people who do want a deal to replace them. Operation Phoenix in Vietnam worked on the same principal. The US special Forces would knock off local leaders that either supported the Viet Cong or were neutral, in the hopes when it came time for the people of that village to pick a new leader it would be someone friendly to the US back government of South Vietnam. Notice the tactic is different, but the underlying thought process is the same (and tells you something about the difference in terrain AND make up of the people, it appears to be impossible to get snipers close enough to knock off these local leaders in Afghanistan, which was the tactic used in Vietnam when it came to eliminating village leaders we did not like.

Sorry, our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is to keep out source of oil happy, i.e Saudi Arabia and once you understand that, both wars make perfect sense.