| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iran supplied missile that hit UK helicopter in 2006 | |
| 2007-06-24 | |
| h/t Lucianne A ROYAL NAVY helicopter that crashed in flames in Basra last year, killing all five on board, was shot down by a sophisticated surface-to-air missile supplied to Iraqi militants by Iran, according to US officials. America knew that the Mahdi Army, the radical Shi’ite militia, had obtained the shoulder-launched missile from the Iranians but failed to tell the British because of a row between the State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the source, US intelligence sources said. The Lynx helicopter, from 847 Naval Air Squadron, based at Yeovilton, Somerset, was carrying a three-man crew plus Wing Commander John Coxen, the most senior officer to die in Iraq, and Flight Lieutenant Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, the first British servicewoman killed in action since the second world war. Witnesses told an inquest in Oxford last week that they saw a ball of yellow flame, typical of a particular type of missile, heading for the Lynx. Private Stuart Drummond said: “I thought it was a missile. The helicopter exploded. It was engulfed in flames and went down.” The families of those killed were frequently asked to leave the inquest as secret details of the missile and the failure of the helicopter’s defensive systems were discussed. The report of a board of inquiry into the incident is heavily edited and was classified Top Secret Codeword, the highest UK classification. This was because telephone intercepts, intelligence reports and pieces of the missile recovered from the scene confirmed that it came from Iran, the American sources said. Three days before the attack, State Department officials interviewed an Iraqi linked to the Mahdi Army who told them Iran had supplied the militia with the Russian surface-to-air missile. It was intended specifically for the Mahdi Army to shoot down a British helicopter, codenamed Operation Hawk-Taking. The intelligence was not passed on to the British because the CIA dismissed the Iraqi detainee as “a well-known fabricator”, the sources alleged.
Des Browne, the defence secretary, confirmed the scale of Iranian involvement in southern Iraq earlier this month. “Well over 80% of the violence is targeted against the British forces, much of it quite specifically influenced by the Iranians,” he said. “We stand between them and their ambitions to share the spoils of what is potentially one of the richest cities in the world and to show the local population that they can force us out would be quite a coup for them. It’s in their interests to have their proxies drive us out of Iraq.” British officials, who had previously hesitated to suggest that Iran supported the Taliban, said they were seeing evidence of a shift in Tehran’s position. That appeared to be confirmed by Admiral Ali Shamkhani, principal defence adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that Iran had “blocked US moves” in Iraq and Afghanistan. | |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #6 So while we all argue about who said what to who, the Iranians get a pass? |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins5285 2007-06-24 19:35 |
| #5 thanks OP, I appreciate the feedback. I'm always, I repeat, always open to your ideas and suggestions. as well as Pappy, Fred, John, and most of the Rantburgers... I am aware of the pissing contest between State and the DIA, CIA, etc... but only from reading about it, not like you a professional miner and user of Intel who has witnessed the problem up close and personal. 2 questions.. Don't you think Timesonline favors these hit pieces on anything American, American military American Intel etc? Would it be correct to say then, that the Intel about the missiles would never be given to the Brits because of the same old 'inter agency territory dispute'? Why wouldn't the CIA give the brits a 'Heads Up' but cover their ass by saying the source is a little flakey? |
| Posted by: RD 2007-06-24 18:55 |
| #4 Our Intel agencies pass on all sorts of Intel with caveats attached. RD - as someone who has worked on the inside, let me tell you that there is a deep and abiding schism between CIA and State. What it boils down to is "it wasn't our call, so it's worthless" - on both sides. It's not something new, either - it's existed at LEAST since the CIA was founded (a case can be made about the Naval code-breaking prior to and during WWII). While keeping things close-hold may be part of the problem, the turf wars are real - and as seen in this case, can be deadly deadly. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-06-24 17:13 |
| #3 doesn't this sound just like a typical Sunday agenda piece by TimesOnLine.. pfffft... Brit media is even less trustworthy than our MSM. America knew that the Mahdi Army, the radical ShiÂ’ite militia, had obtained the shoulder-launched missile from the Iranians but failed to tell the British because of a row between the State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the source, US intelligence sources said. BULL SHIT---> timesonline!, Our Intel agencies pass on all sorts of Intel with caveats attached. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-06-24 14:39 |
| #2 "failed to tell the British because of a row between the State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the source" After all the hindsight-based fault-finding with the pre-OIF intelligence, it should come as no surprise that current intelligence data is held close, and only passed on - anywhere - when it is certain (which is either never, or too late.) There is risk in acting on uncertain information - but it should be remembered that there is also risk in not acting on uncertain information. Look northeast of Iraq for a major potential example. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-06-24 14:09 |
| #1 At least we have no confirmation the Iranians are engaged in cigarette smuggling into southern Iraq. This would set a very bad example for our young people. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-06-24 02:22 |