Donald Sensing covered this at the time at the end of "Killing is the Sine Qua Non of War." Over in Iraq, Bill Roggio was the first person the break the story about the likelihood of Iran's role in the kidnapping and murder of 5 American soldiers in Karbala Provincial center - a contention the Pentagon's report agrees with. Meanwhile, American helicopters are going down to SA-7 variants over Sunni areas - a missile manufactured under license by Iran, one not possessed by Saudi Arabia, and a weapon not previously used very much in the conflict. As all this happens, the people now running this war show us that stuck on stupid hardly begins to describe them...
"A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.... the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.
Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it."
I see. The Iranians run weapons to the Sunnis and Shi'ites, send personnel in country, and make every effort to kill US soldiers. But American leadership wouldn't want to expose this because (A) the guy who keeps threatening to incinerate Israel and destroy America might react badly, and (B) people would ask us why we aren't doing anything about it, like f'rinstance why we've been releasing Iranians when we capture them in Iraq, so they can go kill more American soldiers. That might make us look bad, or force us to make hard decisions. Better to keep quiet.
Betrayal is not too strong a word to describe this.
The duties of loyalty to country, and faithful service under command, are reciprocal duties that flow downward as well as upward. The news report doesn't specify whether the problem here is one of wankers wearing stars on their shoulders, or wankers of the civilian political variety. In either case, however, the approach and rationale are nothing short of contemptible, and amount to an ongoing hunting season on US troops. One with official acquiescence by a US government that would rather cover for the Iranian government and its pet terrorists (and, of course, themselves) - rather than level with the people they supposedly work for, and back the soldiers they command, and let elected officials and the American people come to conclusions re: next steps in an atmosphere of open public debate.
Secretary of Defense Gates, whose public position is that the US should cooperate with Iran, needs to decide whether his report and ego take precedence, or whether the welfare of the troops he oversees and a commitment to the truth are his priority.
He is not the only one for whom this a moment of truth.
If the cover-up approach demonstrated to date remains the chosen course of the so-called "realists" in command in Washington, and if the ridiculous concerns expressed are all it takes to back them off, then it's time to admit that the war in Iraq is hopeless. An administration that quails and quakes at such trivial things, and refuses to back its troops in the field by taking on their murderers, cannot possibly oversee a winning war strategy in Iraq. Or elsewhere, for that matter.
Indeed, if that's the M.O. of the war's leadership, it begins to border on immoral to send more Americans as targets for a foe the "realist" political leadership will not confront - because at that point I'm afraid Kerry's line about asking people to be the last one to die for a mistake becomes correct.
It's that serious.
The campaign in Iraq can survive many things, and still reach a conclusion that furthers our goals in the war. It can survive setbacks, bloodshed, and the difficulties of standing up any kind of functioning state out of the ashes of Saddam's murderous, incompetent tyranny. It can even survive rather large shifts in strategy. What it cannot survive, however, is betrayal of those on the sharp end of the spear for the convenience of military egos and/or Washington elites.
I have looked for alternative explanations of these actions - and I have found none. Is there a leader in the house? Because if not, we really are headed toward an immoral war in Iraq.
Joe --
This is inevitable since the American people voted for Dems in the Midterms. Voting Dem meant surrender in Iraq. Dems and the Media are pushing for surrender as fast and as hard as possible.
Of COURSE Iran has backed us off, and of COURSE Bush Admin people are afraid to release the info (and note how the Media is not pressing on this). [The history of the US being intimidated by Iran from 1979 to today, from Carter to Reagan to Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 is for the same reason, the American People FEAR WAR WITH IRAN terribly. Or rather more accurately, the opinion leaders fear War with Iran terribly and will always force surrender]
Bush will simply be blasted for "lying us into war with Iran." Already the Media and Dems and paleocons are painting Iran as a bunch of peaceful kite-flyers who we are "waging a war of aggression upon."
ONLY (and it's marginal even then) if an American City is nuked will Americans support military force anywhere. Polls consistently show the American People want to run away from Iraq and admit defeat and surrender there. Largely IMHO because the Media and Dems have pushed defeat as both inevitable (we can't "win against the unstoppable jihad") and also irrelevant (losing in Iraq and Afghanistan is seen as costless).
This is not all or even mostly Bush's fault. The opposition and media have seized on the enemy's cause and made it their own. To wit: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Teddy Kennedy, and Jay Rockefeller have all complained that GWB is "rushing the nation into war" and that "we should talk to Iran." Kennedy and Rockefeller have even supported Iran's "right" to nuclear weapons and dismissed any threat they might pose.
Imagine if GWB DID release the information and "leveled" with the American people.
They simply would shut their eyes and put their fingers in their ears shouting "lalalalala not listening!"
Because Dems and the Media have made the message that GWB "lied us into war" with the largely peaceful Muslim world that is "bravely resisting our imperialistic oil grab." When the Media posts stories that "9/11 wasn't that bad" and "we deserved it" you know we are back in a pre-9/11 world. Heck most Dems would welcome Israel's nuking along with the Paleocons.
The Left and Paleo-right both argue that if Iran just achieves another Holocaust Muslim "anger" will subside and "America's evil empire" will disappear along with the "evil jews" who "manipulate Americans" ... Pat Buchanon and Cindy Sheehan both agree on that. The Press and Dems both agree on this more less as well.
Bush DARE NOT speak the truth. Because the Public is akin to the British Public in 1938 seeking "peace in our time."
Bush is not a dictator. If important sectors, Congress, the Media, Dems etc wish to prevent War with Iran then that's what will happen. I'm sure Arkin and Company will as the Priests tell the Warriors to do as they are told.
When I read about Gates being nominated it gave me pause. Gates is a talker and some of his recent statements regarding Iraq reflect what he wants more than Adminstration policy. If he is a team player, then he is not playing on the Administrations side.
You can argue whether Bush is right or wrong, but if you are working for the Man you should put forth the man's policies. Gates sounds more like he is working for that independant arm of government the State Department, than representing the Adminstrations policies.
Generally, I think Bush is being ill served by his advisors. Who is at the top of information pile now, it sounds like the Arabist/Persianists (Yes I know Persianists is probably not a real word) at State.
Jim Rockford (#1),
Let's grant that everything you say re: the Democratic Party and Media are true. The Executive Branch is still collaborating in a betrayal of its fighting soldiers by not pushing this. So, in all likelihood, are key members of the bureaucracy. Where, I'd very much like to know. But no matter what, Gates is SecDef. W is Commander in Chief. The buck stops. That's their job - I'd argue, their #1 job.
It would be one thing if they released the information and the Lib-left axis shilled for the Iranians. It's another thing when the Executive Branch itself betrays those under its command by refusing to even begin the debate and present the evidence they hold - not on legitimate grounds, but on grounds of ego and political cowardice.
And no, they don't get excused for that, even if many democrats and media figures are rooting for the other side and working for American defeat.
Davod (#2) writes:
You may be right. Who appointed them? Who is responsible for them as their superior?
That isn't even the main point, though yes, he does have a duty to represent the policies of the administration he serves. He also, in his job, has a very large moral responsibility to America's soldiers. One he is failing, badly, by not speaking up about this. One W. also has, as their Commander-in-Chief.
I'll add that the generals in theater also have this responsibility - and can express their displease by refusing to serve under a leadership that betrays their troops. Failure to do so, or to take a public stand while in uniform re: issues of war and peace that one seriously disagrees with, is also a moral issue.
It's a lot to ask, putting one's career on the line. Then again, it's a lot to ask of their troops, putting their lives on the line. After one retires is too late.
RE: Gates.
Grand Ayatollah Sistani had his guys translate the Iraq Study Report by Baker/Gates upon its release. Those 2 are mostly remembered by the Shi'ites as the guys who orchestrated their abandonment and mass death in 1991 (as SecState and CIA head). Then Sistani et. al. made 500 copies, and distributed them to key Shi'ites throughout Iraq.
The message was clear: these guys betrayed us once, and are about to do it again. We're on our own, and should plan and act accordingly. Everything we've seen since says this message was received loud and clear.
Great nomination, W.
Joe, is there an alternative explanation, short of betrayal?
I can think of one: lack of strategy compounded by tactical exposure.
I'm wondering if the strategic goals have been thought out with respect to possible conflict with Iran. "The enemy gets a vote too". If the evidence was announced, Iran will recognize it as a casus belli and may interpret it as a declaration of war. Are we ready with a strategy?
And are we tactically covered? Iran has demonstrated capabilities (infiltration and murder, shooting down helicopters), and worse, they may also be demonstrating some restraint in using those capabilities. Are the forces in Iraq tactically ready to respond to a substantial increase in these kinds of attacks from Iran's forces and proxies in Iraq?
Even if this explanation hews close to the truth, there are time limits. Going on without a strategy one way or another amounts to political cowardice.
lewy : The way I see it, Iran has more to lose by starting a hot war right now than we have to lose by them starting it. They can not defeat us conventionally. Therefore, we'd like them to try. They're already fighting us via proxies. Do they really have much reserve capacity to ratchet it up? If they do, then we're in trouble down the track, one way or another. Overall, I'd say the more they feel the need to act, the more likely they are to make mistakes, and I think they will very rapidly lose sympathy if they react badly to such evidence.
Of course, that's just my opinion, you are right that it is a valid reason why somebody might do this, if they thought otherwise. But overall, I'm flabbergasted. I've defended most of the actions the US military and political leadership have taken up to this point, but with this sort of revelation, even I am starting to lose faith. This is looking more and more like Vietnam, where the politicians ran the war, and the list of targets which were off limits was larger than the list of valid targets. That's a surefire way to lose.
Either this changes now, or we (the west) are at the beginning of a long road of setbacks.
Either this changes now, or we (the west) are at the beginning of a long road of setbacks.
I'm with you on that.
I'm basically with lewy14 on this, Joe. When I consider prospective alternative explanations, I come up with only a couple of credible ones. It's possible that, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, there's no evidence other than inference that the Iranians are supporting the insurgents and terrorists.
There's another rather disquieting explanation. Could it be that the weapons are being sold to the insurgents by members of the Iranian military without the approval of the government? That's pretty to close to what the Iranians have said in other situations.
The reason that it's disquieting, of course, is, if the Iranian military has no control over who gets what, the Iranian military has no control over who gets what. That makes it all the more urgent that nuclear weapons not be added to their arsenal.
Another possibility and my current guess is that there's a single-minded determination to serialize the conflict. That's basically what I understand lewy14 to be saying.
If you throw loose the bonds of reason, of course, there are lots more explanations. Active treason. Stupidity. Patrician arrogance. A magic spell has been cast over Americans in Iraq and in Washington that prevents them from seeing the truth. Whatever suits the narrative you fancy.
If we're just waiting for a better tactical position, then expect this to change at the height of the surge. I, for the life of me, do not understand what's going on with Bush. Prosecution of the Iraq War has been auto pilot since Condi got swallowed by the State Dept. beast. I'm not holding my breath that this administration will do what it takes to secure Iraq.
Isn't it more probable that the release of info is being put on hold to compel Iran to stop it? Critical information often has its most value before its publicized than after.
Lately it seems to me the opposite has been true, PD. If it's now serious enough to act on now, why act on a year from now? The 24 hour news cycle extended to international relations.
It all depends on what is meant by "hold." If its like holding indictments on the Khobar Towers bombing to allow relations with Iran to improve, then "hold" is synonymous with "burry." If it means a recognition that information is power and that power is going to be used, then I think its too early to judge.
Joe --
From my perspective the Admin and GWB, down to the Generals, have calculated that it's better to have some ability to fight, than to release the information and be promptly impeached.
Of course they will be impeached anyway; it's only a matter of time before that happens and Pelosi takes office in place of Bush and Cheney. And that the war is stopped by cutting off funds and a hurried withdrawal under Al Qaeada's truce terms is undertaken.
[Al Qaeda already made their demands, no helicopters, weapons left in place, one month only in roads they control. Doubtless some Dems in Congress are going to push for that. The Sun has a piece on the Cross-town rival NYT pushing down the memory hole the new leader of the Sunni insurgency, being Osama's lead guy]
Not only has Iran publicly threatened the US again with terror attacks inside the US (Edwards has responded by saying we must "talk" with Iran) but Murtha has threatened the Pentagon over Nancy's plane, noting that she and he control their budget and will "punish" his words the Pentagon for leaking info on her plane requests.
[Iran's Amb. to Syria once again said that Israel will be wiped off the map quite soon, and predicted a "world without America" as well soon after]
When hacks like Murtha and Pelosi feel free to openly threaten the Pentagon in a weird mirror image of Iran, something is seriously wrong.
1. Bush has no power and is merely counting the days until Dems impeach him and replace him with Pelosi, conduct a "purge" of anyone who advocates using military force at any time in the Military or out of it.
2. The Pentagon, and down to Command staff, have been successfully intimidated with the threat of firings, prosecutions (already there are hearings planned on "atrocities" committed by US troops) and so on. A purge is coming, everyone knows this, and is responding just the way Dems planned.
3. Of course the enemy gets a vote too, and will doubtless seize upon this to nuke a US city, making Wretchard's Third Conjecture come prophetically true.
IMHO GWB is now fighting solely to avoid impeachment, just like Clinton, and has likely been told by Pelosi and Dems that he dare not release information on Iran and force the issue into public discussion for fear of impeachment. Of course the Dems will break their word and impeach him anyway, but there you have it.
Failure to fight a conventional, limited war will lead to US cities being nuked. Once that happens only wiping out whole nations will deter further attacks.
Dave #8:
Understand who Qods Force is - it's Iran's special forces. If they're responsible for kidnapping and murdering American soldiers in Iraq, there's no rational explanation of lack of control here. You can do stuff like that - but it's an unquestionable deliberate act of war.
Though weak controls within Iran's fragmented power structure is a generally-unacknowledged risk factor in Iran's other activities.
Lewy (#15), as for whether American forces are tactically ready to respond to that in Iraq - they had better be, because all the signs are pointing to a significant escalation. I will draw your attention back to my broader point, however - if they aren't acting because they aren't ready to handle it, with a surge on, after several years of Iranian involvement... you'd pretty much have to say "no confidence" in the war's leadership if you're right. Especially when they won't take evidence in hand to the people to help them understand the situation.
Which leaves us with a verdict of "betrayal," and/or "no confidence," (which, in terms of their effect on the campaign, amount to the same consequences) or "change your behaviour."
Bush has no power and is merely counting the days until Dems impeach him and replace him with Pelosi, conduct a "purge" of anyone who advocates using military force at any time in the Military or out of it.
I think you're confused about the word "impeach". Clinton was, in fact, impeached. He was not, however, removed, because he wasn't convicted of the charges. Bush may very well be impeached (I make no bets either way), but there's not a snowball's chance in hell of him being convicted and removed from office. It take 60 votes in the Senate to convict, and the Republicans would sooner burn the building down than vote to approve. Unless, of course, something really drastic were to be unveiled regarding Bush. Then they'd just force him to resign (see Nixon). But that's all speculation.
Oops. Got it slightly wrong.
The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present." (Article I, section 3)
www.senate.gov
Joe,
The problems in Afghanistan and Iraq are symptoms of the same illness. We cannot retreat without serious setbacks, and we appear to be unable to go forward for a number of reasons. We’re stuck allowing the enemy to define the terms of the battle, which is a sure way to lose on all accounts.
Afghanistan will never stabilize until northern Pakistan is subdued. However, as long as Pakistan remains an “ally” with regard to the war against Islamism, we’ll never risk destabilizing a nuclear armed country. This is especially important as destabilizing Pakistan will cost Musharraf the presidency and Pakistan will turn into a hostile Islamic state. We’re stuck in a local minima; either direction we go has more negatives than positives for the immediate future.
Iraq will never stabilize until Iran and Syria stop funding various terrorists and militias. No matter how you spin it, they have no reason to stop until we give them one – a destabilized Iraq and bloodied America is in their best interest, period. However, Bush has no national credibility thanks to four years of hostile media propaganda. At this point, even if he listed Iran’s known involvement, it’s most likely to be dismissed as the next “WMD” scandal. Short of an overt attack on US interests (such as the sinking of a ship), he will not get the political leeway to do anything meaningful to either Iran or Syria. Whatever their qualities, Iran’s leadership is not stupid enough to give Bush the leeway he needs to go after them. Again, we're stuck in a local minima.
Given the current circumstances, here’s what I see happening in the immediate future. The US and Iran will strike a backdoor agreement for US withdrawal by some date before the next presidential election. As Iranian and Syrian forces hold, the situation in Iraq will measurably improve to the point where Bush can pull most US forces out of the area and claim success for the surge. Once US forces are gone, Iran will begin to assert control over the Shiite areas and the national government again. With troops out of Iraq, the anti-war hysteria will switch toward removing US “imperialistic” troops from Afghanistan. We’ll get a repeat of the 2006 elections, only during a presidential year when the focus will be on the administrations “failures” in Afghanistan. Game over.
Here's a thought experiment for you: rewrite the above with the Iranians in the role of rebuilding Iraq and the Americans as bringing violence and destruction.
How many Iraqis prefer an Iranian presence in Iraq to an American presence? Well, let's try to guess.
And, right, it's Iran that's meddling in Iraq. We've meddled there to the extent of invasion, war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Goose, gander. Just another one of the prices we pay for discarding old-fashioned, quaint ideas about casus belli, back when we thought we were going to be the only badass mofo goose in town.
What exactly is this "victory" that we're all waiting for and yelling at the media, the Dhimmicrats, and the JAGS for sabotaging? Is it watching the Shia-dominated Iraq government help us pressure Iran? We'll be waiting a long time for that.
Joe:
It just doesn't seem reasonable to me that the Bush Administration is cowed by the recent Democrat "victory" into soft-pedaling the Iranian and Syrian roles, so I don't buy that argument. The Bush folks don't have much to lose, and possibly something to gain, by emphasizing the Iranian meddling. (And yes, Andrew, intervention by a totalist regime in the politics of a fledgling democracy counts as malicious meddling, though to be expected. It's in our interest to resist Iranian influence and intentions, until there's some regime change in that nation. I'll make thinks easy for you: we're the good guys, and the totalitarians are the bad guys. (Yes, I know we sometimes are compelled to make deals with authoritarians. It's not a neat world, but it's not an upside down world in the sense you claim, either.)
Of course this leaves open the question of just exactly what this administration is doing. It makes some sense that this action could be a result of an internal conflict between realists and neocons, a conflict that has been going on for some time. Some realist got control of the brief and established this policy as a demonstration of influence. The other possibility (wishful thinking, probably) is that the Bush folks are deliberately sewing the impression of disarray and weakness in order to catch the Mullahs unawares. I don't really believe this, but it's a possibility.
I don't really know what they intend, and I've about given up trying to sort it out. I don't credit them with being very competent, however. I can't make sense of a number of other things they've done, either. For instance, if they knew that Joe Wilson had given another account of his visit to Niger in his CIA debriefing, concluding virtually the opposite of what his NYT piece said, why didn't they just point that out? And why do they not care to make the point now?
I think the administration is probably in disarray, but don't think it has much to do with the Democrat victory. They've been above their depth for quite awhile.
I think the administration is probably in disarray, but don't think it has much to do with the Democrat victory. They've been above their depth for quite awhile.
No argument here.
I never thought I'd see the day when the U.S. military was actively involved in a foreign war, yet their presence had been rendered all but superfluous. The Sunni-Shi'a civil strife was probably bound to happen no matter what the Bush administration did, but I don't see how this troop surge is going to help matters. Has the U.S. been reduced to staying in Iraq just to play referee to this tribal death match? That's not the kind of role I had in mind for America four years ago, and it's certainly not the kind of role I'm keen on seeing American soldiers die for now.
Demosophist: Iran is a partially democratic state. Indeed, in the formalist sense, probably more so than any of our allies in the region except Israel.
As for Iraq as a fledgling democracy, well, I'd say a jay replaced that egg in the nest.
Sure it is, Andrew. Thus, if Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could strike names like Pelosi or Clinton or Obama from the ticket, leaving a list of "approved" candidates I'm sure you'd charitable enough to label the result "partially democratic". But the truth is "mostly totalitarian" is more accurate.
Not sure what your standard is regarding Iraq's status vis democracy and liberalism, but it says volumes that you're unwilling to be as charitable toward a system that doesn't pre-screen candidate as one that does, simply because the latter is more anti-American. This is one of the little pieces of sophistry that have come to virtually define the modern left.
But, Demosophist, our ally Saudi Arabia has no serious elections at all, and the Egyptian elections are more fraudulent than the Iranian. If Iran gets an F, our largest allies get F-minus. I'll concede that Qatar is more democratic than Iran, but after our bungling, I'm not sure that Qatar is an ally.
Can anyone tell me where and when those carrier battle groups are supposed to arrive? The ones mentioned during the early January change-in-Iraq-strategy speech?
Maybe, just maybe, all this agonizing over whether to ramp up versus ramp down, stabilize the region, or nuke the region, stems from a simple mistaken assumption - that the U.S. is at war. The Bush administration is at war: just ask the troops, or an Iraqi civilian, or even Valerie Plane [all's fair in love and war]. But a state of war is supposed to engage and galvanize the entire populace. It is legitimately invoked as a desperate last step in a conflict - 'kill or be killed' with a distinct preference for the former. Looks to me more like the last big U.S. concern was the super bowl, the next - maybe Anna Nicole's legacy. Somehow the populace just ain't in this thing. My guess is that the Iraq conflict either never really made it to the necessary 'kill or be killed' standard, or the emergence of contrary evidence has caused it to slip back from same. Either way the American people are no more at 'war' with Iraq/terorism than they are at war with poverty or illegal drugs. At best it is now a police action, and there are very few policing activities worth the current level of bloodshed. If a war happens in a forest that's too far away... does anyone hear it?
But a state of war is supposed to engage and galvanize the entire populace.
Wherever did that idea come from? That's the definition of total war which is actually a fairly recent, european invention. Most wars in history really only concerned those doing the fighting, the relevant elites, and whatever poor saps ended up being on the land being fought over.
I thought the whole point of this exercise, whether you agree with it or not, was to avoid a total war in the middle east.
Which actually looks like a complete failure. Unless something changes radically, I don't see how we won't end up with a nuclear war fairly soon. Israel can't possibly allow the openly hostile Iranians a working nuke. The Iranians know this, so it's really only a question of who'll get in the first shot, since, in this case, it's entirely possible for one side to win a nuclear war. We're not talking the US and USSR here, where both sides had so much strategic depth it didn't matter how well the first strike went, you couldn't possibly prevent them from obliterating you in turn. Israel can be eliminated completely with, what 2 or 3 good hits? Iran would take more, but Israel could probably eliminate the Iranian military and government (and therefore the threat) with maybe a dozen strikes or so?
Bush's coddling of Iran is purely inexplicable. Whatever the outcome in Iraq, even if we do end up with a stable democracy, it looks like the overall purpose of Iraq, to end the proliferation of WMD to unstable 3rd world nations, and try to introduce freedom and democracy to those same tyrannies, is pretty much dead.
Which is really bad, because no matter how bad you think this is, it's going to get a whole lot worse...
Treefrog,
You are probably right about 'total war' being a fairly recent variant on the theme, but so too is this democratic/republican approach to governance. Kings, Czars, Emperors, probably didn't feel the need to consult their subjects on much of anything. Furthermore, I think you may have just described the Iraq war to a tee: " Most wars in history really only concerned those doing the fighting, the relevant elites, and whatever poor saps ended up being on the land being fought over." Not sure I could have said it better myself.
A pedantic point: the SA-7 and its variants (ie, the Strela family of missiles) was actually fairly prevalent in Iraq post-war. In November of 2004, the NYT reported approximately 4,000 of the old Iraq armed forces' SA-7/-14s were unaccounted for. Also, I'm not aware of Iran making licensed (as opposed to unlicensed) copies of the Strela, although they certainly possessed them in numbers; Pakistan and Egypt did have licensed production facilities, though, for what it's worth.
In any case, it doesn't matter, as any uptick in helicopter kills by shoulder-launched missile isn't going to be accomplished by getting an increased quantity of SA-7/14s into the battlespace, as they were marginal missiles to start with, and are fairly susceptible to standard USAF helo countermeasures suites. If missiles are confirmed to be the culprit here, it will certainly be because of the introduction of the newer Igla-family missiles (SA-16/-18), which ARE being produced, under license or otherwise, in Iran, Pakistan, China, and Russia. Iglas have been around in large quantities since the 1980s, so they would hardly be impossible for Iraqi insurgents to obtain without a third-party state involvement, though (FWIW, the Syrian military has them too, of course).
I would also think it rather unlikely that Iran would provide missiles to any Iraqi resistance group whose provenance could be fairly easily traced from the debris to their own factories. Much more likely that they'd pass on missiles they'd obtained that had been produced in other countries, to preserve their deniability. I'm sure if the U.S. forces possessed any missile debris that could definitively be traced to an Iranian arms factory, we'd have heard about it by now.