TALK ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM: Black Ops against Iran?

TALK ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM
[ Add YOUR reply to this message | TALK ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM ]

Scroll down to join the conversation - Thanks for visiting!

Welcome to this forum, DEDICATED SOLELY to the discussion of topics related to "The War on Terrorism"

Click here for the Terms of Service for this discussion forum

Click here for the disclaimers of this discussion forum

Click here to customize your message using HTML

Click here to "spell check" your message

Black Ops against Iran?

Posted by Jason Little on 5/23/2007, 13:24:39
90.196.76.184

This is from the Many Angry Gerbils site (links in the proper article):
Many Angry Gerbils
Black Ops against Iran?
Well, if anonymous sources are good enough for Simon Tisdall they're good enough for me. According to ABC News's The Blotter, the White House has officially approved covert Black-Ops in Iran:
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.
Actually, I'm not being entirely fair. Some of The Blotter's sources do actually give their names. One former senior CIA official, Bruce Riedel, claims that, if true, such actions would be 'consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime'. In fact, the former White House (counter)terrorism expert Richard Clarke, who now provides objective and balanced services as an ABC consultant, observes that there are 'some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing...'.
Of course, whether the US has any right whatsoever to conduct any actions, 'non-lethal' or not, in Iran is not mentioned. Nor is the more specific hypocrisy of the US doing this at the same time it berates Iran for its alleged involvement in Iraq, which, if true, would arguably be more justified. Indeed, The Blotter even mentions that the plan has been 'blessed' by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams, who himself faced criminal charges in 1991 for his efforts to destabilize that erstwhile threat to the safety of the world, Nicaragua.
None of this is new. Seymour Hersh reported as far back as January 2005 that the US was conducting covert operations in Iran – allegations rebutted (with some expertise) by the White House as being 'based on rumour, innuendo and conspiracy theories'. Earlier this month, in the Atlantic Monthly, David Samuels wrote that the US, in concert with several Gulf States (notably Saudi Arabia), is engaged in a $300 campaign to destabilize Iran, possibly including clandestine attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure.
Furthermore, this also echoes US policy towards Iraq. In June 2002, Bush openly signed an order authorising the CIA to engage in operations to capture Saddam Hussein or, because assassination is illegal, kill him 'in self-defence'. If you recall, this campaign of terrorism and intimidation was signed off by the President at the same time the US was screaming about the threat to world peace posed by Iraq. All that appears to have changed is who we're supposed to be scared of this week.
Returning to The Blotter, they suggest that this new strategy is being treated as an alternative to a full scale military attack. 'Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike,' claims Riedel, 'but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides.' I wonder if one of those downsides was General William Fallon?
It may currently be an alternative to a military strike but it may also be a precursor to one as it was with Iraq. Allowing ABC to report the campaign, even as an allegation, may itself be an attempt to pressurize Iran - and a much cheaper one than sending carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. Whatever the case, the perils of such provocative and aggressive actions, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations observes, are clear:
'And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow'