Gates reverses himself - sort of - on Iran-Taliban link

One can only wonder what kinds of enhanced techniques were employed on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to make him get with the program on the administration's claim that the Iranian government is arming the Taliban.

On June 4, just ten days ago, Gates asserted that weapons were entering Afghanistan from Iran, but that there was "no evidence" that the Iranian government had anything to do with it.

That was, however, before the administration sent Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns out to claim that the Iranian government is indeed arming its mortal enemy, the Taliban.

Now, Gates has modified his previous position in an apparent effort to support Burns' absurd-on-its-face allegation that the fundamentalist Shia who govern Iran are providing weapons to the fundamentalist Sunnis of the Taliban. The catch is that he appears to be doing it through gritted teeth.

The flow of weapons from Iran to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan has reached such large quantities as to suggest that the shipments are taking place with the knowledge of the government in Tehran, the Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates said that he had seen a new intelligence analysis over the last couple of weeks "that makes it pretty clear there's a fairly substantial flow of weapons" from Iran across its border to assist insurgents in Afghanistan.

"I haven't seen any intelligence specifically to this effect," Gates added, "but I would say, given the quantities that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it's associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government."

Gates hasn't seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but he would say that the Iranian government is involved? So, he's just guessing, then?

Even with regard to whatever "new intelligence" there might be, Gates sounds less than confident.

Gates declined to describe in detail the recent intelligence analysis, but he said the new information came from "the weapons themselves and the explosives and so on that have been seized."

The weapons themselves and so on? What does that even mean? Those are not the words of a high government official who believes what he is saying, and if Gates doesn't believe it, why should we?

Reporter Thom Shanker notes the difference in tone between Gates' most recent statements and Burns' ironclad assurance of Tehran's involvemen, but he fails to mention Gates' previous statement that there is no evidence linking the Iranian government to the Taliban. This omission denies the reader the ability to place these claims in the proper context: that the Bush administration is in all likelihood exaggerating, and possibly fabricating evidence to build a fraudulent case for war.

It wouldn't be the first time.