A Daily Briefing on Iran: Britain accuses Iran of supplying bombs to militias

Tom Regan, The Christian Science Monitor: Iranians deny accusation, but British officials say it is related to Iran's nuclear ambitions. READ MORE

Prime Minister Tony Blair told a London news conference Thursday that "evidence" ties Iran to bombings in Iraq, but that Britain doesn't have "definite proof." Blair's statement came the morning after a senior British official told several British media outlets that Iran – specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guards – was supplying Shiite militias in southern Iraq with "sophisticated roadside bombs" that have led to the deaths of eight British soldiers since May. Reuters reports that the allegations were made under condition of anonymity. The official told Reuters that the attacks are being carried out by a splinter group from the militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The attackers "were using technically advanced equipment that had previously been used by Lebanese Hezbollah, and they are linked with Iran. Therefore there was some indication that Iran was linked to those attacks," he said. Attacks in Iraq were carried out using armour-piercing explosives and infrared control mechanisms "which basically you would need specific expertise to use" and were similar to devices used by Hezbollah, the official said.
The same official said Iran is also helping some Sunni insurgent groups in an effort to "destabilize" Iraq. The Daily Star of Lebanon reports that one official suggested the Iranians could be "trying to warn Britain off" its demands that Iran abandon its nuclear program. "It would be entirely natural that they would want to send a message, 'Don't mess with us."'

Iran denied the British accusations Thursday. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi told state news agency IRNA that "Britain was the cause of continued insecurity and instability in Iraq, now London was trying to blame others for the crisis." He said that Iran's policy toward Iraq was "positive and constructive.'

The Guardian reports that there is a deep difference of opinion in British intelligence and military circles about how heavily the Iranian government is involved.
British military sources insisted last night there was no hard evidence that the explosives technology came from Iran. Defence sources suggested that blaming the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] for supplying the explosives technology was going too far. Other military officials said there was "so much expertise in Iraq" the bombs could have been made by former members of Saddam Hussein's security forces.
In an analysis piece for the BBC, World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds writes that the British accusation against Iran came after "months of frustration." He noted that the unnamed British official who was responsible for the accusation had, until Wednesday, been much more circumspect. "And having just come from a meeting with the prime minister, he was not speaking by accident," Reynolds continues.
So what has changed from before? What has changed, I think, is that relations between Iran and Britain have become so low that the British felt they had nothing to lose.

And relations are so low because of the failure of the European effort to get Iran to give up its efforts to master the nuclear fuel technology. Indeed, Britain feels it has something to gain by making this charge known and hoping that Iran will itself take action in order that wider relations might be improved.
Iranian officials said Wednesday that threats by the US and Britain against Iran's nuclar program "have left no room for constructive talks." President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state TV that Iran has found new negotiating partners in Europe other than the trio of Britain, France, and Germany.

But Reuters reports that talks between Europe and Iran could resume soon, provided the Europeans were willing to discuss a South African compromise. Under the compromise, South Africa would provide Iran with uranium, which Tehran would convert into uranium gas at its Isfahan nucledar plant before returning it to South Africa.
One Western diplomat close to the [International Atomic Energy Agency] said the agency could make sure that Tehran won't divert the processed uranium gas to any secret enrichment facilities, thereby ensuring the world that there was no proliferation risk involved. It would be "face-saving" because the Iranians would be allowed to run the Isfahan plant, diplomats said.
But Reuters reports that European diplomats were not enthusiastic about the idea because it would be seen as "a major victory for Iran and a defeat for the Europeans."