Looking at reports of the US briefing, reported by the WaPo and CNN, I'm struck and annoyed that the American briefers expect anonymity, while charging Iranian officials with inappropriate actions. CNN spoke of a "senior defense official, a senior defense analyst and an explosives expert, all of whom asked to remain unnamed."

Yet CNN quotes them as claiming, "The U.S. military said the munitions are being provided to Shiite groups in Iraq by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds force, which answers directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

Other than political cover, what's the reason for anonymity? Especially with respect to the "analyst" and the "expert", why can't people familiar with such judge their credibility? [As an aside, I had a friend who was, indeed, an explosives expert on the UN inspection teams in Iraq. I often wonder if he wore his T-shirt, which, has on the back, "I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up." That adds to his credibility.]

I don't doubt that explosively formed penetrator munitions came from Iran, but I'd like to see more provenance that the Supreme Leader approved. Again from CNN, "Also, the U.S. military says 81 mm mortar shells used in deadly attacks in Iraq can also be directly traced to Iran." Yes, but the insurgents have also used US 81mm mortar shells.

Again CNN: "However, the U.S. military officials disputed that, saying the kind of mortars and sniper rifles provided are not used for self-defense." Well, mortars, I'd tend to agree, unless you are in fairly conventional combat. Sniper rifles are dual-purpose: taking out leaders of opposition forces, selectively, can take the spirit out of an opponent.