Apropos of the last post, could these accusations be the germ of an attack on Iran?
Moreover, even if Iran is interfering, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Iraqis would be happy little democratts if Iran were taken out of the picture. If there is foreign interference, it would presumably serve to shore up anti-coalition activities by local malcontents, rather than creating discord where there would otherwise be harmony.
Put another way, Iran wouldn't be able to interfere to any great extent if there were not local Iraqis who were dissatisfied with the coalition (in this case, specifically UK) presence. So taking Iran out of the picture will not necessarily solve the problems in Basra.
In short, beware of anyone who states that we can end the war by expanding it. For that is what these accusations against Iran (or Syria, in other cases) amount to: first, it's an attempt to spin things so that we can explain the insurgency and the terrorist attacks while still maintaining that we are beloved liberators and denying the embryonic civil war (the Iraqis love us. It's those damn Syrian Baathists and Iranian mullahs doing all that attacking! Secondly, it is preparing us to accept an attack on Iran or Syria without worrying about our overstretched military (but once we accomplish regime change in Syria and/or Iran, Iraq will quiet down, so we won't need more troops - in fact, if we accomplish regime change by covert means, which is certain to work, because my secret Iranian/Syrian sources say that the people will revolt if the US gives them support, we'll need fewer troops)!
My advice is to look at all such reports with a jaundiced eye and several grains of salt.
That is all.