More war: Bush authorizes more covert action against Iran

[Watser?]

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

...

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah.

The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.leak (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html)

The whole thing is of course tied in on the general change in course (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12322) to 'opposing Iran, Syria, and their Shia allies at any cost, even if it meant backing hardline Sunni jihadists'. As a result, Hersh implies, the Bush administration is no longer acting rationally in its policy. "We're in the business of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia. ... "We're in the business of creating ... sectarian violence." And he describes the scheme of funding Fatah al-Islam as "a covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a bigger, broader program of doing everything we could to stop the spread of the Shia world, and it just simply -- it bit us in the rear."

Prepare for more rear-biting...

[fragment]

These guys? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah) Which wiki say are affiliated with al-Qaeda? Can you say "blowback"?

Has divide and rule ever actually worked for anyone in the middle east?

[Watser?]

It worked wonders for the Israelis who supported Hamas when it first appeared as an alternative for Fatah/the PLO. Now they hardly have any problems with Fatah anymore.

[maddog]

I heard something about this story yesterday, came into the middle of hte broadcast so I don't know who they were interviewing, but whoever it was was trying to JUSTIFY MORE "regime change" and "destabilization" !!!! Haven't they learned ANYTHING!!!???? Jeepers creepers, I can't WAIT for the installation of a new chief executive. (I can't say "administration," b/c Mr. Bush and his crew are not at all interested in any actual governance; I can't say "president" b/c Mr. Bush was not elected, either time.)

Get me outta here, my nightmare just keeps getting worse and worse.

#1166

[fragment]

It worked wonders for the Israelis who supported Hamas when it first appeared as an alternative for Fatah/the PLO. Now they hardly have any problems with Fatah anymore.
Short-term goal. I was wondering more about long-term objectives.

[Watser?]

I was being sarcastic actually...

They now have a problem with Hamas.

They also invaded Lebanon to get rid of the PLO fighters there, but got Hezbollah in return. Divide and rule is just not worth the blowback...

[fragment]

Ah right.

* fragment books in his sarcasm meter for re-calibration

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, maddog! It's good to see your text.

And I couldn't agree more...well, they stole the 2004 election fair and square.

As for the next administration doing much better, I'm not very optimistic. All administrations in the recent past, Repugnantcan and Dummycrats, have been rolling over to please the international corporate interests, primarily the ones associated with the US military-industrial complex. The Clinton administration tried to do it with economic imperialism, using the WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and a shipload of bullshit "free market' propaganda to gut the economies of the former "developing nations", which, as a result, are no longer "developing". Dumya just turned it into raw militarily driven, two-faced imperial subjegation. "Don't like what we're doin'? Tough shit. Sit down and shut up, or you're next."

It should be worth remembering that the Romans spent over five hundred years trying to subjegate that part of the world, when the Parthians and Persians controlled it. Although they successfully besieged Ctesiphon, the Persian capital, they could never hold it for long. The Parthians/Persians successfully defeated the Roman legions several times. They took three standards as booty and, later on, even captured an emperor (Valerian). When Parthian rule collapsed in the third century, it was quickly replaced by Persian leadership, both being Iranian peoples speaking a version of Farsi.

[Watser?]

There's also this (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_Cheney_aide_clearing_path_to_0524.html): A report published today reveals a growing game of tug-of-war between President Bush and his No. 2 regarding the US approach towards Iran.

Vice President Dick Cheney believes the US should not be pursuing a diplomatic path with Iran, and a senior aide to the vice president has been meeting with national security think tanks and consultants in Washington to "help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran," Steve Clemons reported Thursday on his blog, The Washington Note.

And this (http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2007/05/war-scenario.html): Whatever the detailed history of the Fatah al-Islam incidents, the main result strategically will probably be to provide cover for US arming of the Lebanese army with modern weaponry, not to confront groups like Fatah al-Islam, but rather to provide deterrence against Hizbullah, on the assumption that a US attack on Iran would trigger attempts at retaliation from Hizbullah and elsewhere. This is the view of Abdulbari Atwan, writing in Al-Quds al-Arabi this morning, under the title "Nahr al Barid: Prelude to a hot summer".

And he notes this coincides with US funding of the anti-Hamas elements in Palestine. Both suggest US moves to create a military situation in the region that would deter or minimize retaliation, from either Hizbullah or Hamas, in the event of a US attack on Iran.

These remarks come at the end of a lengthy op-ed piece that lists eight other events that Atwan thinks show a pattern of preparation for war with Iran: (1) Nine additional warships joining the two aircraft-carrier groups in the Gulf, bringing the total US deployment to 17,000 military personnel and over 140 fighter planes. (2) A recent statement by the IAEA that Iran is still ignoring UN demands to stop uranium enrichment. (3) State Dept official Nicholas Burns making hard-line statements against any Iranian uranium enrichment at all (contrary to a compromise proposal by Baradei), echoing the hawkish remarks on the subject by Cheney from the deck of one of the aircraft carriers on his recent trip. (4) Bush signing the recent "Finding" authorizing covert activities against Iran, including stirring up the ethnic populations. (5) Bush administration leading of a document accusing Iran of conspiring with Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq. (6) Sarkozy joining the hard-line Bush position on Iran. (7) Detailed war preparations including US provision of Patriot missiles to Israel, assurances by Cheney to Gulf leaders that the Bushehr reactor on the Gulf coast will not be hit, and so on. (8) Rising trend in the price of oil and gold, and falling trend in stock prices.

Atwan says if you study the pattern you will see that this is very similar to the way things evolved just before the 1991 and 2003 attacks on Iraq.

He acknowledges that there is another point of view that can't be rejected out of hand, namely that the two sides are merely taking up bargaining positions ahead of an expected agreement that would permit the US an honorable withdrawal from Iraq, in echange for Iranian influence in Iraq and regionally.

[Sock Puppet]

When Bush is the stronger advocate for a diplomatic solution, you know we're thoroughly and completely fucked.

[Watser?]

:sadnod:

Here's more on those supposed ties (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2581257.ece) between Iran and the Iraqi insurgency: The Bush administration may be highlighting accusations that the Iranian government is behind attacks in Iraq in order to strengthen its hand in preparing for military strikes on Iran, according to a leading British think-tank.

In a report sifting the evidence produced by US authorities against Iran, the independent think-tank Basic cast doubt on the strength of the intelligence, saying that proved links between the Tehran regime and militia inside Iraq remained "sketchy".

Given the close ties between Shia Muslim Iran and Iraq, which has a dominant Shia population in the south, the report warned of the dangers of conflating "legitimate acts of foreign relations and cross-border movements of people" with the alleged Iranian involvement in violence.

The UK and US governments have frequently accused Iran of aiding militant groups in Iraq who are attacking coalition forces. However, the report said that "despite efforts by the Bush administration to confirm the strength of evidence presented, doubt still surrounds the case against Iran, particularly with regard to the degree of direct involvement of the Iranian leadership.

"Whatever the true extent and nature of Iranian military action in Iraq, few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency," said the report.

[California Tanker]

In the meantime, the head of the IAEA has this week knocked a couple of years off his opinion as to how long it will be for Iran to have a bomb capability. Now down to three.

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

a bomb

How many bombs will we have in three years?

[Watser?]

I think I'll fell a lot safer once the Iranians have that bomb

It sure worked for North Korea

But then they have considerably less oil

[TomJoe]

Cheney doesn't have much to lose, since I doubt his heart will hold out that much longer. I'm not surprised he wants the entire world to go up in a big mushroom cloud. It took over 200 years for the US budget to reach 2 trillion dollars. It took 5 years of Bush agendas to tack on an additional trillion. How about we tell the world to go fuck itself (because we're done doing it for them), withdraw our military and shave at least half a trillion off the budget (read: cut military war spending) and funnel the other half trillion into research. Just think of how quickly we could get off foreign oil if we pumped a few billion dollars into research every year. I bet we could pretty damn quickly.