Iran Bombing

[Captain.Sassy]

So somebody just exploded some Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders.

HuffPo says that Iran is blaming Jundallah, a Taliban linked sunni insurgent group:
"Iranian officials have accused Jundallah of receiving support from al-Qaida and the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan, though some analysts who have studied the group dispute such a link."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/iran-suicide-bomb-senior-_n_325009.html

The BBC says that Iran blamed Jundullah, and subsequently also accused the US of being involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm

The Asia Times Online differentiates the two groups as follows:
"On May 28, a suicide bomber blew himself up inside the Ameer al-Momenin mosque in Zahedan, capital of Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province, killing 25 people and injuring 130 others. Since the attack took place during a Shi'ite festival, it incensed Tehran. It was carried out by a member of Jundullah (which is a Baloch insurgent group, not to be confused with Jundallah, a pan-Pakistan offshoot of Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban faction)."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH07Df04.html

The Telegraph has suggested that the Bush administration supported JundUllah
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

(...which would apparently make the US a sponsor of terrorism, since Jundulah has engaged in civilian attacks... but whatever.)

Balochistan (the province where both Jundullah and Jundallah are active) would seem to be a strategically salient area, especially in light of the recent agreements between Pakistan and Iran on pipelines.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE09Df03.html
http://www.iags.org/n0115042.htm

China is also a beneficiary of this pipeline deal:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE27Df03.html
(some say gas pipelines are China's only strategic objective in Central Asia)

So this story about the bombing raises some interesting questions. First, was it the US sponsored terrorist organization (Jundullah) that did the bombing, or was it the Taleban backed organization (Jundallah)? How closely does Jundallah work with the Taliban? How closely does the US work with Jundullah? How closely do these two organizations work together? Should the attack on the Revolutionary Guard leaders be seen in light of Pakistan's ground offensive in Pashtunistan, or is the timing just coincidental?

Finally (and somewhat tangentially) to what extent is US grand strategy in the region built around a containment of China? Or, is the larger Sino-US geo-political rivalry (which may never fully materialize) merely a red-herring in this region?

[Thunder]

Maybe Ahmedinajad had a role, since he is a crypto-Jew.

:rolleyes:

[Eddie Dane]

Wait.

Something got blown up and they did not blame Israel?:jaw-dropp

That has to be a first.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How exactly does this relate to the balloon boy story in Colorado?

[Captain.Sassy]

Good grief guys. I'm trying to start a serious discussion here.

Anyways, I'm looking around and most sources that I see so far say Jundullah, i.e. not the taliban linked group, was behind the bombings.

Here's another article on the group's links to the US:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1247155128

[Childlike Empress]

From the article:

Jundullah (meaning 'God's Army') is a Pakistan-based terrorist group closely affiliated with the notorious al-Qaeda organization and is made up of disgruntled members of Iran's Sunni Baluch community.

A 2007 Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html) report revealed that the CIA had created Jundullah to achieve 'regime change in Iran'.

The report said it was the very same US intelligence outfit that had tried to destabilize Iran by 'supplying arms-length support' and 'money and weapons' to Jundullah.

Another report posted by ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html)also revealed that the US officials had ordered Jundullah to 'stage deadly guerrilla raids inside the Islamic Republic, kidnap Iranian officials and execute them on camera', all as part of a 'programmatic objective to overthrow the Iranian government'.

Jundullah has carried out a number of bombings and other violent attacks in Iran resulting in many casualties. Some of the attacks for which it has claimed responsibility are the killings of at least 16 Iranian police officers in a 2008 attack, nine Iranian security guards in 2005, and another 11 in a 2007 bombing.


Charming. "War on Terror" live.

[Pardalis]

And the conspiracy theories begin...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And the conspiracy theories begin...

Are you suggesting the Heene family is involved?

[Thunder]

Israel didn't leave 35,000 Jews in Iran for nothing.

[Captain.Sassy]

Pardalis:
What conspiracy theories?

You think that geopolitical posturing and strategy don't exist? You think the US has never supported irregular armed forces to weaken or destabilize an enemy? I don't know if the US specifically ordered Jundullah to carry out the attack. Probably not. However, even the US state department has admitted to working with Jundullah on some level, though they have denied funding it (according to ABC News) http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

Even without a direct chain of command with Jundullah, it could still be useful to destabilize that part of Iran through tacit support of Jundullah, if the US strategy in the region is anything like the strategy proposed by this guy from Harvard:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/09/how-to-beat-irans-pipeline-strategy/
In particular:
"The Obama administration should actively promote alternative energy corridors [to proposed Iran-Pakistan-India/China pipelines] which will prevent Iranian gas from reaching major markets while addressing Asia’s and Europe’s energy needs. One potential gas-pipeline project is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline. The project can supply Pakistan and India as much gas at a lower construction cost, while providing the impoverished Afghan government with a steady revenue stream in the form of transit fees. Most important, TAPI would allow Turkmenistan to sell its gas to India, enriching two U.S. allies (Afghanistan and Pakistan) rather than selling the same gas to Europe, enriching a U.S. enemy (Iran)."

[Thunder]

Did anyone see any large silver saucer shaped balloons flying over the area just before the bombs went off?

[Pardalis]

Everything that happens in Iran is because of the US, according to the rulers of Iran. Dissent and protests after the mock elections? The US's fault of course. Bloggers and journalists critical of the regime? US shills of course. Earthquakes? The US is behind it of course. And now terrorist attacks? You guessed it, they blame it on the US again.

Like the boy who cried wolf, maybe it's true this time, but nobody is listening anymore.

[Thunder]

Like the boy who cried wolf, maybe it's true this time, but nobody is listening anymore.

that too..is part of the plan. :)

plant some provaceteurs to constantly blaim the USA and Israel for everything and anything under the sun, so that then we actually ARE responsible for something, most folks will just disregard the accusations as more pathetic scapegoating.

hee hee....hee.

[Captain.Sassy]

Pardalis: The Iranian regime presents a certain picture of the US to its people, ergo the US is definitely not covertly involved in any way in Iran or the region?

Come on man.

Hey, I'm not even saying that I think the US was behind the bombing. But I don't dismiss it as beyond the realm of the possibilities merely because the Iranian government puts out hyperbolic and sometimes paranoid propaganda about the US.

ETA: Nobody is listening to the boy who cried wolf, but zoologists are still interested in counting the wolves.

[Captain.Sassy]

Also I don't know that I personally would call blowing up military leaders a 'terrorist attack'. Aren't military leaders OK to kill?

[Thunder]

I honestly can't imagine the USA having anything to do with this, except by a rogue nut in the CIA or something like that.

And why do I say this?

Because such attacks only feeds into the paranoia and militancy of Iranian hardliners, and convinces more Iranians that they are a nation under attack from the West and its allies.

The USA does not want the common man in Iran to be afraid of the West. This attack will not help in that goal.

[Childlike Empress]

Well, it may be stupid and counter-productive, but was that ever a reason not to do it anyway (http://www.ciponline.org/asia/articles/102007HarrisonLeMonde.htm)?

The most readily available means of [covertly harrassing the iranian regime] was to get Pakistan and Israel to arm and finance already-existing insurgent groups in the Baluch and Kurdish areas through well-established US ties with the Interservices Intelligence Directorate (ISI) and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. The ISI channelled weapons and money to an already established Iranian Baluch dissident group, Jundullah (Soldiers of God), which inflicted heavy casualties in raids on Iranian Revolutionary Guard units in Zahedan and southeastern Iran in 2006 and 2007. The US made no effort to hide its support for Jundullah. On 2 April 2007 the Voice of America interviewed its leader, Abdolmalek Rigi, introducing him as "the leader of the popular resistance movement of Iran". Several of my Baluch contacts recently provided detailed proof of Rigi's ISI ties.

[JihadJane]

Also I don't know that I personally would call blowing up military leaders a 'terrorist attack'. Aren't military leaders OK to kill?

Depends whose side they're on.

Is Iran at war?

[Captain.Sassy]

Parky:
Interesting and I think you raise a valid point. At the same time, the US strategy up until recently was very much one of 'containment'. Now Obama seems to be shifting more towards a mix of containment and engagement (congagement, as I like to call it.)

At the same time... Obama's brand of engagement is largely diplomatic. I don't think he's looking for any economic engagement of Iran. They are more in the business of economic isolation of Iran to put the pressure on them, while still maintaining a diplomatic dialogue. In terms of economic isolation, destabilizing the region between Pakistan and Iran through which any pipeline would have to run sounds like it would still be aligned with this strategy.

In related news:

Russia recently supported Pakistan's accession to the SCO and offered help with the Iran-Pakistan pipeline:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-gilani-putin-agree-to-strengthen-ties-qs-02

China and Pakistan recently had feel-good talks at the SCO meeting, where they discussed greater economic integration. At these same talks Pakistan and Iran discussed speeding up work on the Pakistan-Iran pipeline.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/business/09-trade-with-china-set-to-double-in-two-years--szh-06

And once again I don't think there is any evidence to support that the US directly ordered a bombing at the moment. If the US was involved at all it was more likely in the form of 'arms length support' of Jundullah.

Still, perhaps the recent bombing is a legacy of an earlier strategy i.e. support (tacit or otherwise) of Jundullah ? I.e. perhaps the US has withdrawn its support now. However, if the US *did* provide support to Jundullah to destabilise Baluchistan as part of its Bush-era regional strategy of Iran containment, then the most recent bombing might be a delayed effect of this earlier support (like a strategic landmine or timebomb, set in an earlier era and detonated at an inopportune moment.)

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, it may be stupid and counter-productive, but was that ever a reason not to do it anyway (http://www.ciponline.org/asia/articles/102007HarrisonLeMonde.htm)?

Good find CLE.

[Captain.Sassy]

I think the Iran Pakistan agreement to expedite the pipeline may be really important, actually. The US needs Pakistan as an ally in Pashtunistan, but at the same time Iran and Pakistan are pursuing these economic links at a time when the US is trying to economically isolate Iran.

Wotta mess.

I used to think recent US strategy in the region was just 'make as big a mess as possible so things are hard for China, and then get the f out and go nuclear/gas/coal'. I don't think this any more, but it sure was an easy paradigm through which to look at the region.

[Childlike Empress]

And once again I don't think there is any evidence to support that the US directly ordered a bombing at the moment. If the US was involved at all it was more likely in the form of 'arms length support' of Jundullah.

Still, perhaps the recent bombing is a legacy of an earlier strategy i.e. support (tacit or otherwise) of Jundullah ? I.e. perhaps the US has withdrawn its support now. However, if the US *did* provide support to Jundullah to destabilise Baluchistan as part of its Bush-era regional strategy of Iran containment, then the most recent bombing might be a delayed effect of this earlier support (like a strategic landmine or timebomb, set in an earlier era and detonated at an inopportune moment.)


I agree with all of that but have seen no evidence of a policy change under Obama. Asia Times has a couple of articles containing "Jundullah" from as late as June 2009 (http://www.google.com/search?q=jundallah+site:atimes.com) - reading.

[Captain.Sassy]

Hmm... Jundullah-ISI ties would seem to weaken the 'destabilize the region, make a pipeline harder' theory.

[Captain.Sassy]

Asia Times has a couple of articles containing "Jundullah" from as late as June 2009 (http://www.google.com/search?q=jundallah+site:atimes.com) - reading.

Let us know what you find!

I'll be back later.

[Childlike Empress]

Pepe Escobar June 2009 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KF04Df04.html):

[...] On May 28 in Zahedan, in Sistan-Balochistan province in Iran, the Pakistan-based, hardcore Sunni, ultra-anti-Shi'ite outfit Jundallah ("Soldiers of God") claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing inside the Amir al-Momenin mosque that killed 25 people and wounded 125.

The timing and the circumstances could not be more suspicious. Tehran simply cannot understand how Islamabad could not contain Jundallah after it has been offered key, on-the-ground intelligence. [...]

After the bombing, the diplomatic dance could not but step into overdrive. Islamabad insists it is aligned with Tehran in their regional brand of the war on terror. But Tehran, not beating around the bush, has now explicitly demanded Islamabad to hand over Jundallah supremo Rigi, who is based in Balochistan. Pakistan's Interior Ministry has promised, on the record, to "hunt down" Jundallah. [...]

Crucially, Islamabad's tune also has begun to change, in tandem with Tehran, drifting to the "third party" gambit - a foreign player supporting Jundallah's cross-border destabilization campaign, which sabotages any Pakistan-Iran rapprochement and of course the IP [Pipeline].

One does not need to share Tehran's national security worries to identify this foreign player: Washington, which not by accident supports a rival pipeline to IP, the ever-troubled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, the raison d'etre for the US involvement in Afghanistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said as much, "We consider Rigi's network linked with some foreign forces in Afghanistan." And he added Iran had plenty of "evidence".

Both Washington and Islamabad have tended to ignore Jundallah's anti-Iran activities. Well, not really, because under the George W Bush-era Jundallah was co-opted by US intelligence for regime change purposes in Iran. As for the Pakistani angle, will the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) finally move against Jundallah, as it seems to be moving against Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban? In principle, this should be a no-brainer; according to the Fars News Agency, the chief of the Iranian Armed Forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, informed Islamabad of Rigi's exact location.


Bolding mine. Seems to imply US support has stopped. But then the question is really why Pakistan/ISI doesn't move. Or did they hand over Rigi since then?

[Captain.Sassy]

Interesting.

This article, from an online Pakistani newspaper ("The News International- No. 1 English Newspaper from Pakistan" = valid source???) also suggests that at least some Pakistani officials suspect a 'third party' may be continuing to support Jundullah:

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=22462

"However, the diplomatic circles in Islamabad say the Iranian authorities had warned the Pakistani ambassador to Tehran on May 30 that Islamabadís failure to act against the Jundullah network in Balochistan could also jeopardise the future of the recently-signed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. They pointed out that the Pakistani and the Iranian presidents had only signed the initial agreement after 14 years of delayed negotiations and the most crucial gas sales and purchase agreement had not yet been finalised.

On the other hand, the Pakistani authorities in Islamabad do not rule out the possibility of a third player aiding and abetting the anti-Iran activities of Jundullah with a view to damage the Pak-Iran ties and sabotage the ëpeace pipeline projectí."

Also, as far as the ISI, I seem to recall some discussion as to how much autonomy they had relative to Islamabad, in particular with regards to the continued support that some elements of the ISI continued to provide to the Taliban even after Pakistan became a US ally in the GWOT. This could perhaps be relevant in the context of ISI support for Jundullah.

What motive would Pakistan have for not moving against Jundullah? I have not yet seen this spelled out.

[Captain.Sassy]

But then the question is really why Pakistan/ISI doesn't move. Or did they hand over Rigi since then?

Apparently, they handed over his brother:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/06-pakistan-iran-to-step-up-security-along-border-rs-04
(September 8th, 2009)
"Last month, a bomb explosion occurred in a mosque in Zahedan, killing 32 people and injuring scores of others. After the bomb blast, Pakistani security forces arrested Abdul Hameed Rigi, brother of Jundullah chief Abdul Malik Rigi and handed him over to Iran."

[Childlike Empress]

Funny that you bring him up. I just read an interview (http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1092.html) with him but originally decided not to post it. He was on PressTV back in June accusing his brother of being payed by the US to destabilize Iran. If the person on PressTV is the same guy who was handed over months later. :boggled:

edit2: Hm, somethings not right with the dates ... that "interview" must be the press conference after he was handed over - or what (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/)?

edit: and Rigi himself is apparently still on the run in Pakistan.

[Pardalis]

One does not need to share Tehran's national security worries to identify this foreign player: Washington, which not by accident supports a rival pipeline to IP, the ever-troubled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, the raison d'etre for the US involvement in Afghanistan.

Again with that nonexisting pipeline?

[Phrost]

Also I don't know that I personally would call blowing up military leaders a 'terrorist attack'. Aren't military leaders OK to kill?

That's why we do our jobs; so people don't go attacking innocent civilians.

[GreNME]

I'm having a hard time understanding a lot of the posts in this thread. Is the bombing in Iran a non-issue because the group responsible has had previous ties to US intelligence? Is it okay that this took place because it happened to Iran? Are there people here who would assert or agree with an assertion that Jundullah are not a terrorist organization?

Point of reference: the info that the US got about the "secret" enrichment facility in Iran supposedly came from Jundullah informants, if I recall correctly.

[Captain.Sassy]

edit2: Hm, somethings not right with the dates ... that "interview" must be the press conference after he was handed over - or what (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/)?

Hmmm... so he only makes these allegations of strong US involvement with Jundullah after he's in Iranian hands. Interesting. It doesn't necessarily mean that what he's saying is false, but it does reduce the credibility somewhat that he's making the statement while under Iranian custody.

[Captain.Sassy]

I'm having a hard time understanding a lot of the posts in this thread. Is the bombing in Iran a non-issue because the group responsible has had previous ties to US intelligence? Is it okay that this took place because it happened to Iran? Are there people here who would assert or agree with an assertion that Jundullah are not a terrorist organization?

Point of reference: the info that the US got about the "secret" enrichment facility in Iran supposedly came from Jundullah informants, if I recall correctly.

Well, I can't speak for anyone elsse, but I'm not attaching any value judgements to anything that happened here. I'm just trying to sort out what seems to have happened, and also just checking out some ideas about what various countries' strategic objectives are in the region, and what role these armed groups play in them.

Interesting note about the Jundullah informants and Qum, (snicker), do you have a link?

[Childlike Empress]

Hmmm... so he only makes these allegations of strong US involvement with Jundullah after he's in Iranian hands. Interesting. It doesn't necessarily mean that what he's saying is false, but it does reduce the credibility somewhat that he's making the statement while under Iranian custody.


Well, i decided not to post it even without knowing that he was handed over because it had a propaganda smell. But i'm not sure about the dates. According to your article and the anti-war article, he was captured in August while the PressTV article is from June (it has also "jun" in the URL, so they didn't use european dates).

But that's a side issue - the brother shouldn't be considered a credible source anyway.

[Captain.Sassy]

Again with that nonexisting pipeline?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14300

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, i decided not to post it even without knowing that he was handed over because it had a propaganda smell. But i'm not sure about the dates. According to your article and the anti-war article, he was captured in August while the PressTV article is from June (it has also "jun" in the URL, so they didn't use european dates).

But that's a side issue - the brother shouldn't be considered a credible source anyway.

It seems the Dawn.com article is the one mixing things up. Maybe it was re-posted in September or something, but the Zahedan bombing took place in may (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8072795.stm) and the handover was in June.

[Childlike Empress]

You're right, and he was already executed (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH07Df04.html) in early August. *shudders*

[GreNME]

Well, I can't speak for anyone elsse, but I'm not attaching any value judgements to anything that happened here. I'm just trying to sort out what seems to have happened, and also just checking out some ideas about what various countries' strategic objectives are in the region, and what role these armed groups play in them.

Actually, I was commenting on other posters who seemed to be expressing happiness that this has happened and dismissing the bombing as being newsworthy.

Interesting note about the Jundullah informants and Qum, (snicker), do you have a link?

That depends on what you mean by a link. Official news sources describe the CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092500289.html) as having obtained increasing levels of intelligence on the matter, with certainty having been confirmed by other intelligence agencies finding the same information. Since it's obvious that CIA operatives would be disallowed (by both US official policy and the Iranian government) from entering the nation, connections between the US agency and the Jundullah have come up before. Iran tends to regularly accuse the CIA of funding Jundullah actions (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html), which the CIA denies. However, despite that and further claims (http://newsbusters.org/node/11803) about the extent of the US relationship with the Jundullah group, the higher realistic likelihood is that any contact between the two would be reminiscent of the long-standing US tradition of "enemy of my enemy" information-trading, and while I can't find on the net a specific mention of the Jundullah group and CIA asset discoveries I do know that the CIA has a limited number of paths to exploit for gaining information about internal Iranian programs but has as a bargaining tool detailed tactical cartographic data that can be used in exchange. Knowing the Jundullah's documented activities (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jundullah) against the Iranian regime, such data would be worth more than cash or weapons to the Pakistan-based group and their leader, Abd al Malik Regi.

To be clear: no conspiracy theorizing here. There's no reputable proof that the US is funding or supporting the Jundullah behavior in Iran. That the CIA would use what information the Jundullah might offer up to share to confirm suspicions isn't even the same ballpark as being complicit in state terrorism in Iran.

[dudalb]

I am still boggled by the almost blind supportthe Islamic Fundy regime in Iran gets from the Militant Left. Wiredest alliance since Hitler and Stalin made nice back in 1939.

[GreNME]

I am still boggled by the almost blind supportthe Islamic Fundy regime in Iran gets from the Militant Left. Wiredest alliance since Hitler and Stalin made nice back in 1939.

Who in the hell are you talking about?

[Captain.Sassy]

Who in the hell are you talking about?

Ignore the knee-jerk reaction to anything less than uncritical cheerleading.

Re. Jundullah US link: Wikipedia says that ABC re-investigated the story following revelations that one of the journalists that broke the story was unreliable. They never retracted the story, however, suggesting perhaps that their subsequent investigation corroborated the original story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah#United_States

[Captain.Sassy]

"The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all

Dunno what people think of Seymour Hersh. I understand he's been criticised, but here his source is named.

[Molinaro]

Pardalis: The Iranian regime presents a certain picture of the US to its people, ergo the US is definitely not covertly involved in any way in Iran or the region?

Come on man.

Hey, I'm not even saying that I think the US was behind the bombing. But I don't dismiss it as beyond the realm of the possibilities merely because the Iranian government puts out hyperbolic and sometimes paranoid propaganda about the US.

ETA: Nobody is listening to the boy who cried wolf, but zoologists are still interested in counting the wolves.

If you don't have an evidence then why would you jump to the conclusion that they are up to something? You are demonstrating conspiracy theory thinking to a T.

[Captain.Sassy]

- The original ABC report suggested US support for Jundullah
- The subsequent ABC investigation didn't find anything that made ABC retract the first story
- Seymour Hersh quoted an ex-CIA operative who worked in South Asia and the Middle East as saying that the US supported Jundullah
- A Jundullah member publically stated (albeit from Iranian custody) that the US supported Jundullah
- the State Department has admitted to working with Jundullah though it has denied funding the organization (also see GreNME's interesting point about the CIA possibly trading geographic information for intelligence)
- Voice of America broadcast an interview with a Jundullah member which identified him as a 'freedom fighter'
- Pakistan and Iran have been talking about 'speeding up' a pipeline through the Baluchestan region
- The US is trying to (and has been trying to for some time) economically isolate Iran
- The US has not placed Jundullah on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (though they apparently considered it following the mosque bombing in May)
- Pakistani officials have been quoted as suggesting that Jundullah is receiving 'third party' assistance

So yes I'm a conspiracy nut for suggesting that the US could be or have been involved in supporting an anti-Iranian group to destabilize a strategically important region.

What sorts of things do you think the CIA does, exactly?

[Darth Rotor]

- The original ABC report suggested US support for Jundullah
And the US actively "supported" the Muj in Afghanistan twenty years ago.

So what?

The US still supports Saudi Arabia, home to reactionary Sunnis by the bushel basket. Are you implying that this attack was a an American directed hit? I don't think you are, but I am not sure. I am also pretty sure that President Obama would not be interested in such a move given his hopes of improved relationships with Iran over the next few years.

Question: What does "support" mean to you? Nice, vague, nebulous term you are using here. It can take various forms. The fun of dark side of the intelligence game includes dealing with people who you would not normally invite to tea.

The US supports, or has supported, variuos Kurdish groups. Some of these same groups then work with other Kurds who kill Turks, who are our NATO allies. The real world is messy, messy, messy.

What I think you are seeing here is the similar sort of linkage. No faction of this sort exists in isolation. Likewise, the US can't control these sorts of extranational groups, though at times the US attempts to influence them one way or another. As with the Muj, not always able to play puppet master. :p

Another point: there have been dissident groups in Iran since the Islamic Revolution. Should the US support those groups from outside Iran's borders? That's a good question, and the answer depends upon the tenor of US Iranian relationships. If, for example, President Clinton wanted to warm up US Iranian relationship ten years ago or so, would he not also then put out directions to the field to back off of, or reduce, certain flavors of support to anti regime factions in Iran?

Probably.

President Bush, the younger, had a less conciliatory approach to Iran, even though our nations found a few things to work on together in Afghanistan in the early days of that war. When a more hard line regime showed up, it perhaps made sense to increase support for anti regime dissidents in the area. Point of interest: regime change became a policy mode for that administration. Why? Global strategic sense of it was that the Bush administration was interested in seeing the Mid East transformed into an area more in step with the modern (read European/Western) world. (We can see what a smashing success that has been ... )

This particular attack: seems to be standard Sunni jihadi stuff. Makes Iran and US similar, I'd say, in terms of empathy toward one another in dealing with jihadis.

Be interesting to see how the policy makers in both countries deal with this. As for the blow hards in the media, and various conspiracy theorists, not as interested.

DR

[Eddie Dane]

Iranian Revolutionary Guards vow revenge on Britain and US

The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards today vowed to take revenge against Britain and the United States whom he claims backed the group that killed six commanders.

Linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6880877.ece)

[Praktik]

I am still boggled by the almost blind supportthe Islamic Fundy regime in Iran gets from the Militant Left. Wiredest alliance since Hitler and Stalin made nice back in 1939.

Who in the hell are you talking about?

Ya must be characters in a comic book.

[GreNME]

Re. Jundullah US link: Wikipedia says that ABC re-investigated the story following revelations that one of the journalists that broke the story was unreliable. They never retracted the story, however, suggesting perhaps that their subsequent investigation corroborated the original story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah#United_States

No, don't get the links I gave the wrong way. I'm not saying that the US gave any support in any real sense to the Jundullah group like the allegations described. As I pointed out, I don't have any direct-link web pages that describe outright whatever type of relationship that the US and the Jundullah militia have with each other. If there's anything to the links between the groups, that link would be information-based, not weapons or money.

I know the Hersch story pretty well, and as far as it's credibility I think there's probably a 50/50 chance of accuracy, depending on how close one thinks the relationship might be. My own personal opinion is that the relationship isn't likely that close.

As for what I think the CIA does, that's a whole thread in and of itself with lots of speculation along with a long history of known CIA activity. Regardless, pertinent to this subject I don't think the CIA has been too hands-on with regard to these militia groups and have instead been focused on information gathering and verification. There's likely a great deal more that the CIA is learning or has learned regarding the Iranian nuclear program, for example, that simply isn't available to the public sphere at this time because it isn't relevant to any outward US policies toward Iran (yet). Whether this includes some type of information about a weapons program I don't know, but I'm not inclined to think there's too much on that since Iran just doesn't seem that far along in production capability at this time (though I admit my information is limited). I'm sure they're keeping a close eye on the Iranian Army and the IRGC movements, at least as close an eye as they can. The CIA, as far as I know, is pretty stingy on information even with many friendly nations, so my guess is that they're not likely providing any great tactical information on Iran, though it's not hard to imagine that even small or broken information might seem incredibly helpful to a militia like the Jundullah.

Again, I'm not saying that the CIA (or the US as a whole) is supporting the Jundullah, I'm pointing out that this doesn't preclude our intelligence from being able to obtain information from them in a non-hostile manner. Pretty textbook "enemy of my enemy" stuff, but with our intelligence likely playing with their cards very close to the chest with any foreign group. Unlike conspiracy theorists, I do think our intelligence agencies are capable of learning from the past.

[Darth Rotor]

Iranian Revolutionary Guards vow revenge on Britain and US

The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards today vowed to take revenge against Britain and the United States whom he claims backed the group that killed six commanders.

Linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6880877.ece)

Well, there we go, the IRG spoke up. What about the head of government? What about the Supreme Clerical Leader? Is Iran playing good cop/bad cop here? We shall see.

The Sunni minority in Baluchistan seem to have been at this defiant act for some years. Why this particular attack is suddenly the fault of the UK or US is unclear to me. Is it possible that this outburst from the IRG being politically motivated? :eek:

DR

[GreNME]

This particular attack: seems to be standard Sunni jihadi stuff. Makes Iran and US similar, I'd say, in terms of empathy toward one another in dealing with jihadis.

That was my thought on the matter. Of course, no doubt the IRGC isn't going to see it that way.

ETA:
The Sunni minority in Baluchistan seem to have been at this defiant act for some years. Why this particular attack is suddenly the fault of the UK or US is unclear to me, other than this outburst from the IRG being politically motivated.

Nail. Head.

[Praktik]

The main issue here is the distortive effect of politics on these kinds of discussions which leads to people framing these kinds of things either in a "see - America supports 'terrorism' too!" which leads to escalations in the tone of debate until everyone's backed themselves into their respective corner and we all leave the thread once the bickering finally dies out.

Our conversations on these matters would be so much more productive if we just finally left the retarded rhetoric of politicans on the issue of "terrorism" and refused to accept their narrow (and self-serving) constructions on the issue.

Now we don't have a smoking gun here but clearly, there is circumstantial evidence that this group has been supported by US intelligence in the past. That relationship may or may not be ongoing. The nature of intelligence work is such that plausible deniability will likely make it rather difficult to get the direct link.

Let's all take a deep breath. Iran is definitely in an antagonistic relationship with America. America sees Iran as a threat and as a destabilizing force in the region. Would it really be surprising to us if we did find a direct link between American intelligence organs and this group? Wouldn't this fit a rather classic pattern that is ubiquitous across nations and decades?

The only reason people may object to this is because the rhetoric of the War on Terror basically implies that America is "against" terror so how could Amercia ever really be supportive of a group that uses this tactic?

But it has in the past. Perhaps the most obvious example would be America's involvement in central and south america arming and supporting movements opposed to leftist forces. America saw a threat to its interest in these movements and thus supported antagonists to them which sometimes engaged in atrocities as the cycle of political violence escalated. Heck, the Northern Alliance carried out some pretty gruesome acts in the early days of this millenium.

Some would call this "state sponsorship of terror". I would.

Now, is this something to be critical of? Surely. Cases can be made and are made that the American self-interest overrides the ethical matters of funding violent groups that happen to work in that interest. I don't necessarily buy these arguments but the realist in me can at least appreciate the balance of power and national interest calculations behind these kinds of decisions.

But we shouldn't pretend that only State Enemies have interests they seek to protect through sometimes unethical means.

This is something all powerful states engage in when their vital interests are perceived to be at risk.

We should all remember that terror is a tactic, and not something that only American enemies engage in.

What we really need to do is move past the backward, Manichaean language of self-interested American pols that make talking about terrorism in any kind of accurate way impossible.

[Darth Rotor]

We should all remember that terror is a tactic, and not something that only American enemies engage in.

What we really need to do is move past the backward, Manichaean language of self-interested American pols that make talking about terrorism in any kind of accurate way impossible.
Let's do some out of the box thinking for a moment. I saw a related article this morning on Americans and Westerners being recruited by Al Q and a few other Jihadi sorts of groups, which has raised some Alarms in Germany. You don't have to be Islamist to blow up buildings, see Okla City or any number of places in London that IRA blew up. (Didn't they go after Crystal Palace at one point?)

Let's go one step further into a parallel development that might follow from the opposite perspective.

What are the odds of Iranian intelligence/Al QUds/Pasdaran providing support and assistance to Neo Nazis in America? Are Neo Nazis in America likely to engage in suicide bombing? What about American militant Muslims/prison gang groups? Would there not be a commonality of interest there? Note: the Al Quds crowd were actively involved in supporting Bosnian militants in Former Yugoslavia during the nineties. Is there any reason to believe they are not trying to find discrete/covert leads into anti ________ groups in America?

DR

[Praktik]

The Sunni minority in Baluchistan seem to have been at this defiant act for some years. Why this particular attack is suddenly the fault of the UK or US is unclear to me. Is it possible that this outburst from the IRG being politically motivated? :eek:

DR

Yep. Its the same kind of thing you hear from people who lay all Hamas acts of terror at the doorstep of Mossad for "creating them" - or when truthers jump on OBL's connections to American funds and arms in Afghanistan in the 80s. Because there is some connection to America or Mossad, the responsibility for future acts on the part of these proxies is 100%, forever and in perpetuity the responsibility of America and Mossad.

We see the reverse with Iran and Hezbollah.

All of these kinds of distorted perspectives on the actions of groups like these do a disservice to actual understanding of the events and the groups behind them.

Hamas, OBL, Hezbollah - all are culturally and historically distinct, arising from the particular geography, history and social culture of the environments in which they were incubated and eventually unleashed.

To remove agency on the part of these actors, and place it all on the hands of their apparent benefactors speaks more to the distaste one may have for the benefactors, rather than representing any accurate description of the situation at hand.

All that being said, there is room to criticize support for actors like these it just should be done without removing their agency and seeing them as placeholders for the nation "behind them" that you really, really dislike.

[Praktik]

What are the odds of Iranian intelligence/Al QUds/Pasdaran providing support and assistance to Neo Nazis in America? Are Neo Nazis in America likely to engage in suicide bombing? What about American militant Muslims/prison gang groups? Would there not be a commonality of interest there? Note: the Al Quds crowd were actively involved in supporting Bosnian militants in Former Yugoslavia during the nineties. Is there any reason to believe they are not trying to find discrete/covert leads into anti ________ groups in America?

DR

The answers to these questions rest on capability - is Iranian intelligence actually able to initiate and maintain a sucessful relationship with neo-nazis?

This I highly doubt.

And this is one of the reasons I have some skepticism regarding the possible American connection to the group allegedly behind this bombing: America's intelligence in Iran sucks. Bob Baer is quoted in this thread but he is also on the record elsewhere as characterizing America's intelligence position in Iran as essentially blind.

So it may be that America doesn't even have the capacity to make the kinds of connections we're talking about here.

[Darth Rotor]

Yep. Its the same kind of thing you hear from people who lay all Hamas acts of terror at the doorstep of Mossad for "creating them" - or when truthers jump on OBL's connections to American funds and arms in Afghanistan in the 80s. Because there is some connection to America or Mossad, the responsibility for future acts on the part of these proxies is 100%, forever and in perpetuity the responsibility of America and Mossad.

We see the reverse with Iran and Hezbollah.

All of these kinds of distorted perspectives on the actions of groups like these do a disservice to actual understanding of the events and the groups behind them.

Hamas, OBL, Hezbollah - all are culturally and historically distinct, arising from the particular geography, history and social culture of the environments in which they were incubated and eventually unleashed.

To remove agency on the part of these actors, and place it all on the hands of their apparent benefactors speaks more to the distaste one may have for the benefactors, rather than representing any accurate description of the situation at hand.

All that being said, there is room to criticize support for actors like these it just should be done without removing their agency and seeing them as placeholders for the nation "behind them" that you really, really dislike.

I think it can be shown that Iran has directly supplied Hezbollah with arms greater in complexity than small arms. Really don't want to derail this thread into Hezbollah, actually, but there are some interesting linkages and parallels. Hezbollah's origin is explicitly Islamist, and had as a founding principle the formation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. It is openly and directly supported by Iran, which brings a curious irony to this latest attack:

Islamist Sunni attack in Iran,
Islamist Shia attacks in Lebanon or Israel,

each responded to in Teheran differently. (Obviously, Islamists wearing the wrong tartan! ;D ) While temporally displaced, this brings to mind "Saddam uses gas attacks on Iran" which while publicly condemned by most of the West, US included, didn't lead to much other than condemnation. Saddam attacks Kurds with gas? Didn't lead to much directly, but after Desert Storm, Kurds became beneficiaries of the Northern No Fly Zone due to being "victims" while Iran were still on the enemies list.

Interesting how that all works out.

Note about Hezbollah in Iran: Hezbollah of Iran is a movement of mosque-based groups founded to enforce the authority of the Islamic revolution in Iran

DR

[Marc39]

Hamas, OBL, Hezbollah - all are culturally and historically distinct, arising from the particular geography, history and social culture of the environments in which they were incubated and eventually unleashed.

Nonsense.

Hamas, OBL, Hizbullah et al. are radical Muslims sharing a common Islamic viewpoint of the global caliphate through jihad and, in regards to Israel, the unacceptability of a non-Muslim state among the ummah.

I recommend you read Sayyid Qutb, the ideological godfather of them all.

[Darth Rotor]

The answers to these questions rest on capability - is Iranian intelligence actually able to initiate and maintain a sucessful relationship with neo-nazis?
Why do you underestimate Iran? :confused:
And this is one of the reasons I have some skepticism regarding the possible American connection to the group allegedly behind this bombing: America's intelligence in Iran sucks. Bob Baer is quoted in this thread but he is also on the record elsewhere as characterizing America's intelligence position in Iran as essentially blind.
So it may be that America doesn't even have the capacity to make the kinds of connections we're talking about here.
IIRC, US linkage to Jundullah is based in element/movement that operates in Pakistan. This leads to the problem of filtering and judging the info that comes across the border, etc.

Hersch seemed to think US operatives were active in Southeastern Iran, which is why he wrote the piece he did. Don't know, one way or the other.

DR

[Praktik]

Nonsense.

Hamas, OBL, Hizbullah et al. are radical Muslims sharing a common Islamic viewpoint of the global caliphate through jihad and, in regards to Israel, the unacceptability of a non-Muslim state among the ummah.

I recommend you read Sayyid Qutb, the ideological godfather of them all.

lol, "they're all the same".

What a ridiculous counterpoint. It's a good thing you're not in charge of American intelligence operations: "Naw no differences between these groups they're all cookie cutter cut-outs of the same stuff".

[Marc39]

lol, "they're all the same".

What a ridiculous counterpoint. It's a good thing you're not in charge of American intelligence operations: "Naw no differences between these groups they're all cookie cutter cut-outs of the same stuff".

Ideologically, they are all the same: Islamic fundamentalism.

[Praktik]

Why do you underestimate Iran? :confused:

I haven't seen any evidence of a stateside presence from their intellegence arm. Have you?


IIRC, US linkage to Jundullah is based in element/movement that operates in Pakistan. This leads to the problem of filtering and judging the info that comes across the border, etc.

Hersch seemed to think US operatives were active in Southeastern Iran, which is why he wrote the piece he did. Don't know, one way or the other.

DR

Yes as I say I am just skeptical. Its possible there is an American presence there I'm just not sure is all, given America's track record in the region (Baer's "See No Evil" didn't give much ground for confidence in the CIA's mid-east presence but that was primarily pre 9/11 so maybe I need to get up to date).

[Praktik]

Ideologically, they are all the same: Islamic fundamentalism.

ok! No meaningful differences then. Point understood, and rejected.

[Darth Rotor]

Ideologically, they are all the same: Islamic fundamentalism.

Marc, maybe Praktik wasn't being as eloquent as usual, but you might want to consider this line of thinking: Communism and Marxism.

USSR was one flavor of communist.

Yugoslavia was another flavor.

China was another flavor.

The US dealt with each on its own terms, albeit remaining concerned about each and the relationships/advocacy of Marxist/Communist ideology globally.

DR

[Marc39]

ok! No meaningful differences then. Point understood, and rejected.

You can reject to your heart's content.

It doesn't change a thing.

[Darth Rotor]

You can reject to your heart's content.

It doesn't change a thing.
Perhaps to an Israeli nationalist, they all do amount to the same thing, given a common thread in the Jihadis being opposed to Israel, the Zionist entity, whatever.

To the rest of the world, however, the distinctions are worth noting and acting upon.

DR

[Praktik]

You can reject to your heart's content.

It doesn't change a thing.

Oh certainly! I long ago gave up any hopes of our back and forth's ever finding a middle ground. There is no expectation on my part that my posts will ever change your mind.

I do take some solace from the fact that we have finally found something to agree on.

Even if it is in the narrow confines of the "agree to disagree" principle - at least it's something, eh Marc?

[Marc39]

Perhaps to an Israeli nationalist, they all do amount to the same thing, given a common thread in the Jihadis being opposed the Israel, the Zionist entity, whatever.

To the rest of the world, however, the distinctions are worth noting and acting upon.

DR

Distinctions, for all practical purposes, without a meaningful difference.

[Marc39]

Marc, maybe Praktik wasn't being as eloquent as usual, but you might want to consider this line of thinking: Communism and Marxism.

USSR was one flavor of communist.

Yugoslavia was another flavor.

China was another flavor.

The US dealt with each on its own terms, albeit remaining concerned about each and the relationships/advocacy of Marxist/Communist ideology globally.

DR

Hamas, OBL, Hizbullah as well as Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PFLP, DFLP and other Muslim terrorist groups too numerous to mention have one common ideology: World dominion under Islam.

[Thunder]

Hamas, OBL, Hizbullah as well as Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PFLP, DFLP and other Muslim terrorist groups too numerous to mention have one common ideology: World dominion under Islam.

considering that Hamas has kept its operations solely limited to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, I find it hard to believe that World Dominion is one of their goals.

although, bigots and anti-Semites have long accused the Jews of trying to take over the world, most recently in Hungary. so such stupid accusations don't surprise me anymore.

[Darth Rotor]

I haven't seen any evidence of a stateside presence from their intellegence arm. Have you?
Let's see, a clandestine operation isn't seen, by either you or me. What a concept! That said, I don't think Neo Nazi or WN groups would consort with Iranians, for their own reasons).
Yes as I say I am just skeptical. Its possible there is an American presence there I'm just not sure is all, given America's track record in the region (Baer's "See No Evil" didn't give much ground for confidence in the CIA's mid-east presence but that was primarily pre 9/11 so maybe I need to get up to date).
If fits together in a continuum, sort of.

From an AP report:
Revolutionary Guard chief Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari vowed Monday to deliver a "crushing" response. "New evidence has been obtained proving the link between yesterday's terrorist attack and the U.S., British and Pakistani intelligence services," state TV quoted Jafari as saying.
It is believable that Pak based Jundullah and US intelligence service (and Brits) have worked together in the past, and in the present. The details of that work? Not well known to much of anyone, though Mr Baer has some great experience to help us understand that.
He said the attack was "undoubtedly" planned and ordered by the three nation's intelligence services and that a delegation would soon travel to Pakistan to present evidence.
Given UK and US current attempts to work on Iranian nuclear issue, this is an idiotic statement.
Iran has also claimed that Jundallah receives support from al-Qaida and Taliban militants who operate across the border in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, where Baluchi nationalists have been waging a militant campaign for independence from the Pakistani government.
You don't have to be allied to Al Q or Taliban to be a militant faction. The technology of the past thirty years has made doing this pretty easy, once one decides to become a militant.
Iran's Jundallah, by contrast, does not appear to seek independence, but rather improved rights for the area's Baluchi people. In 2007, the group adopted a more secular name, the Iranian Popular Resistance Movement, and said it did not depend entirely on armed struggle, but also on political and peaceful efforts to achieve Baluchi rights. The group is still widely referred to by its previous name.
Possible fig leaf, there. [/I] ("We are the nice part of the IRA ... ") but the lack of linkage has support.
Several analysts who have studied Jundallah say the group likely receives inspiration and material support from Baluchi nationalists in Pakistan. But they say there is little evidence of an operational relationship between Jundallah and militants, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, that operate across the border.
Makes sense to me. Then again, Basques worked cross border between France and Spain for decades.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Distinctions, for all practical purposes, without a meaningful difference.
To you. I find your absolutist statements less than compelling.
Hamas, OBL, Hizbullah as well as Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PFLP, DFLP and other Muslim terrorist groups too numerous to mention have one common ideology: World dominion under Islam.
Yes, but the nice thing is that they bicker with each other as well. Keep them bickering, I say, and the threat is reduced. Old strat used by the Brits for centuries in Ireland, among other places: divide and defeat. ;)

[Marc39]

To you. I find your absolutist statements less than compelling.

Yes, but the nice thing is that they bicker with each other as well. Keep them bickering, I say, and the threat is reduced. Old strat used by the Brits for centuries in Ireland, among other places: divide and defeat. ;)

They may bicker, however, in the end, Hamas, Hizbullah and the other Islamic extremist groups, most notably of all, Muslim Brotherhood, are bad guys whose collective vision is that of recapturing via jihad the once-glory of the Islamic empire.

[Captain.Sassy]

Are you implying that this attack was a an American directed hit? I don't think you are, but I am not sure.

I don't think there's evidence that this specific attack was ordered by the US and have said as much. However, the fact that the US has been cooperatively involved with Jundullah seems quite hard to dispute. The support for Jundullah may have been little more than trading for intelligence. Alternately, the support could be part of a more broader campaign of covert operations aimed at generally undermining the Iranian government or putting pressure on them:

"James Denselow, a security expert at King's College in London, says such operations constitute a secret proxy war between the United States and Iran.

"The Americans have been playing Iran at its own game," Denselow tells RFE/RL. "Iran has been sponsoring anti-U.S. groups in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. As late ago as 2005, the U.S. has been sponsoring anti-Iranian groups in Iran -- particularly in the southern provinces on the eastern side where a population that is not homogeneous or acquiescent to the rule in Tehran is able to be co-opted with money and with weapons.""
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2009/intell-090113-rferl01.htm#

Finally, support for Jundullah may have been in the more specific interest of destabilizing a strategically important area.

Whichever of these was the case, this still begs the question of whether or not this strategy is still being pursued, to wit:

I am also pretty sure that President Obama would not be interested in such a move given his hopes of improved relationships with Iran over the next few years.

Perhaps not. In fact, when the State Department talked about putting Jundullah on the terror groups list, some saw this as a conciliatory move from Obama to Iran.

At the same time, putting economic pressure on Iran by tightening sanctions wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to diplomatic engagement. US covert operations could similarly be seen as a bargaining chip in discussions with Iran:

"I think Obama will be careful about not giving away all his cards onto the table. The proxy war in southern Iran is, after all, simply another pressure point that the Americans can use to play hardball with Iran. It certainly is a lot more subtle than full-on airstrikes or an Israeli attack."
(From the article cited above)



Question: What does "support" mean to you? Nice, vague, nebulous term you are using here. It can take various forms. The fun of dark side of the intelligence game includes dealing with people who you would not normally invite to tea.

I'm sorry if my use of the term 'support' is not to your liking. If it seems vague and nebulous to you, perhaps that is because different sources describe different levels of support, while other sources just use the term 'support' (for example, the source where 'some pakistani officials' posit that a 'third party may be providing support' - not verbatim)

Various forms of support have been discussed in the thread. At a minimum, it could have involved trading certain cartographic or other information for intelligence on Al Qaeda or on Iran. At the maximum, it could have involved providing funding or arms.


The US supports, or has supported, variuos Kurdish groups. Some of these same groups then work with other Kurds who kill Turks, who are our NATO allies. The real world is messy, messy, messy.

What I think you are seeing here is the similar sort of linkage. No faction of this sort exists in isolation. Likewise, the US can't control these sorts of extranational groups, though at times the US attempts to influence them one way or another. As with the Muj, not always able to play puppet master. :p

Another point: there have been dissident groups in Iran since the Islamic Revolution. Should the US support those groups from outside Iran's borders? That's a good question, and the answer depends upon the tenor of US Iranian relationships. If, for example, President Clinton wanted to warm up US Iranian relationship ten years ago or so, would he not also then put out directions to the field to back off of, or reduce, certain flavors of support to anti regime factions in Iran?

Probably.

From your statement I take it that you agree with me that US support for Jundullah could have been part of a broader strategy of either containing or putting pressure on Iran. Is this correct?

As you say though, you can't always play 'puppet master' with these groups. Even if Obama (as you suggest would be more likely) is telling the field operatives to reduce cooperation or support of these groups, the groups could still launch an attack. This would not give evidence one way or the other of why the US supported the groups in the first place.




Be interesting to see how the policy makers in both countries deal with this. As for the blow hards in the media, and various conspiracy theorists, not as interested.

DR

Where's the 'spiracy?

[Childlike Empress]

Just heard on the radio that the killed RG leaders where fighting the drug trade at the border. Yesterday i found several references for Jundallah connections to and financing by the drug trade. Maybe an important angle, too.

It reminded me of a documentary i've seen some time ago - it was so good that i remembered enough to immediately find it. "Afghanistan's Opium Trail" (http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/feature_170308.html) by canadian CBC shows how afghani dealers try to pass the iranian border - it's the biggest obstacle for the raw opium ending up as heroin in western europe via turkey, albania and kosovo.

On the Iranian side of the border futile tactics are used to block the endless caravans through the mountains. Embankments are built, rivers diverted, pits dug - anything to render the passage impassable. "We have forced the smugglers to do without heavily motorized caravans," boasts one General in the Anti-Drugs Unit. A haul is made and prisoners are taken. Their fate is sealed: with more than five kilos of raw opium on them they will face the death sentence.

Every year a stockpile of seized opium is burnt publicly in Tehran. But the one we see here is a tiny 0.5% of the total opium that left Afghanistan last year - some of it even comes stamped with the drug baron's seal. But as yet there is no clearly defined struggle inside Afghanistan itself to stop the drugs trade. It's economy is still based entirely on drugs.


8010793559435491074

[Pardalis]

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14300

9 years later, and no American group attached to it.

[Captain.Sassy]

No, don't get the links I gave the wrong way. I'm not saying that the US gave any support in any real sense to the Jundullah group like the allegations described.

I don't think I misrepresented your statement, if I did I'm sorry. You say that the extent of CIA involvement with Jundullah is probably to get intelligence about Iran, in exchange for (essentially) maps. I've also read (somewhere in this forest of links) that the CIA was after intelligence on Al Qaeda. It's certainly a possibility that this is the full extent of the relationship between the two.

[GreNME]

I don't think I misrepresented your statement, if I did I'm sorry. You say that the extent of CIA involvement with Jundullah is probably to get intelligence about Iran, in exchange for (essentially) maps. I've also read (somewhere in this forest of links) that the CIA was after intelligence on Al Qaeda. It's certainly a possibility that this is the full extent of the relationship between the two.

You certainly didn't misrepresent what I was saying. I put those disclaimers in to stress to the CT-ers that I'm not saying what they'd like to let confirmation bias tell them I'm saying.

[Captain.Sassy]

9 years later, and no American group attached to it.

Completely irrelevant to the strategy put forward in the article:

But all’s not lost. The Obama administration should actively promote alternative energy corridors which will prevent Iranian gas from reaching major markets while addressing Asia’s and Europe’s energy needs. One potential gas-pipeline project is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline. The project can supply Pakistan and India as much gas at a lower construction cost, while providing the impoverished Afghan government with a steady revenue stream in the form of transit fees. Most important, TAPI would allow Turkmenistan to sell its gas to India, enriching two U.S. allies (Afghanistan and Pakistan) rather than selling the same gas to Europe, enriching a U.S. enemy (Iran).

[Captain.Sassy]

You certainly didn't misrepresent what I was saying. I put those disclaimers in to stress to the CT-ers that I'm not saying what they'd like to let confirmation bias tell them I'm saying.

Who in this thread is being a conspiracy theorist?

I've been trying to use reputable sources to substantiate what I'm saying. I've checked up on some of them too. Asia Times Online's Pepe Escobar seems like a reasonable journalist: apart from a slip up about the nature of the SCO what I read from him didn't raise any red flags.

However, this does bring me to an embarassing admission:

I just found out Press TV (cited in this thread by me... for shame) is an Iranian government organ.


My apologies.

[Thunder]

Who in this thread is being a conspiracy theorist?

I've been trying to use fairly

I just found out Press TV (cited in this thread by me... for shame) is an Iranian government organ.

My apologies.

dude, imagine how I felt when i discovered that Russia Today was fully funded by the Kremlin. ugg.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry if my use of the term 'support' is not to your liking. If it seems vague and nebulous to you, perhaps that is because different sources describe different levels of support, while other sources just use the term 'support' (for example, the source where 'some pakistani officials' posit that a 'third party may be providing support' - not verbatim) Various forms of support have been discussed in the thread. At a minimum, it could have involved trading certain cartographic or other information for intelligence on Al Qaeda or on Iran. At the maximum, it could have involved providing funding or arms.
Indeed, but let's go back to the problem of selling something in soundbytes. ;) Support isn't only your usage, so I was a bit off target in how I pointed to that.
From your statement I take it that you agree with me that US support for Jundullah could have been part of a broader strategy of either containing or putting pressure on Iran. Is this correct?
Sure, but it may also have been an attempt to get intel mostly, having to deal through multiple parties. Such contact has likely been going on since Reagan was in the White House. Don't know for a fact.
As you say though, you can't always play 'puppet master' with these groups. Even if Obama (as you suggest would be more likely) is telling the field operatives to reduce cooperation or support of these groups, the groups could still launch an attack. This would not give evidence one way or the other of why the US supported the groups in the first place.
Yes, that's sorta where I was headed.
Where's the 'spiracy?
The head of the Iranian RGC, for one ... :cool:

[Captain.Sassy]

I always suspected something was fishy about RT. The first I ever heard of them they were talking 'vaccine truth'.

ETA:
A link to an interesting online discussion, for anyone interested in this [bombing] story
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/10/19/iran-discussion-the-bombings-junduallah-and-the-us/

ETA:
A note on Obama's position on the covert activities in Iran:
While any suggestion of a U.S. hand in Sunday's attack may be far-fetched, Iran is basing its accusation on the covert program begun by the Bush Administration during its second term in office, that allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to efforts at destabilizing the regime from inside Iran. And while President Obama came into office promising a new era of engagment with Iran, it's not clear whether or not the covert program was ever suspended. Former Bush National Security Council officials Flynt Leverett and Hilary Mann Leverett wrote recently in the New York Times of their conversations with Iranian leaders, saying "President Obama has had several opportunities to send ... signals [of good intent] to Tehran — such as ending Bush-era covert programs against Iran — but has punted." Iran has long suspected that groups such as Jundullah are supported as part of the covert campaign, and in 2007, ABC News alleged that Jundullah had secretly received advice and encouragement from U.S. intelligence officials.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930943,00.html

[GreNME]

Who in this thread is being a conspiracy theorist?

I could speculate, but instead I'll just say that any argument accusing the US of supporting terrorism based on whatever the nature of communication between the CIA and the Jundullah actually is can probably be safely considered falling under the conspiracy theory banner. The reality is more complex and less black-and-white. Alternatively, I'm also trying to continue to maintain my position despite the accusations of "apologist" from the diametrically opposed rhetorical side of the coin (opposite of the "US sponsored terrorism" side, I mean).

However, this does bring me to an embarassing admission:

I just found out Press TV (cited in this thread by me... for shame) is an Iranian government organ.


My apologies.

Most of the Iranian news agencies are going to be administered in some part by the Iranian government. The government watchdogs all (Iranian) agencies that release news or commentary.

[Captain.Sassy]

I could speculate, but instead I'll just say that any argument accusing the US of supporting terrorism based on whatever the nature of communication between the CIA and the Jundullah actually is can probably be safely considered falling under the conspiracy theory banner.

I guess it depends on how you define 'conspiracy theory' versus 'plain old theory'. I don't think that there's anything conspiratorial about the US carrying out covert operations to support its interests in the middle east and central asia.

In the case of Jundullah, you have the ABC report saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilize Iran, you have Hersh saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilize Iran, you have Escobar saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilise the Baluchestan region, and you have US admission that they have worked with Jundullah at least to get information about Al Qaeda. This latter admission makes the journalists' allegations more credible. So you have at least three independent journalists corroborating fairly robust US support for this group, and US admission that there was at least some involvement. (Nevermind the Time article from today that suggests that US support for "efforts at destabilizing the regime from inside Iran" may be continuing under Obama.)

Supporting Jundullah fits well into a number of reasonable conceptions of US strategy in the region, past and present, as outlined by the academics' positions I've cited. Some of these rely on the belief that nations base their foreign policy some level of longer-term strategic thinking and planning, a position that is contested. However, even if one accepts that cooperation between the CIA and Jundullah is limited to the extent of what you have described (i.e. trading satellite maps of Iran for information on Iran), as you pointed out these maps would be quite useful for Jundullah. I'm not sure how you can define providing useful intelligence to terrorists as not 'supporting' them.

For me, the more interesting question isn't whether or not the US supported Jundullah, but rather what US aims were in supporting the group and whether the support is ongoing. You have made your position quite clearly, namely that the US supported Jundullah only in a limited capacity and in exchange for information. I don't discount that position. However, I don't think you can dismiss the other propositions as 'conspiracy theories' just because they imply closer cooperation with Jundullah.


ETA:
Gal Luft (author of the paper I cited outlining a proposed US pipeline strategy) on using local militias to undermine the IPI:

"US open support for opposition groups who might be willing to undermine the [IPI pipeline] project is unthinkable as any collaboration – overt or covert – would severely cripple our relations with Islamabad. "

and

At a later stage TAPI could be expanded even further to connect other fields in Central Asia to Gwadar, turning the new port into one of the world's most important energy hubs. Because TAPI is not as vulnerable to the financial or political opposition that the Iran-Pakistan pipeline could experience due to Iran’s status of pariah state, it is more likely to enjoy financial backing from international financial institutions.

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2996

So Luft and Escobar seem to strongly disagree here.

... and given Escobar's misunderstanding of the SCO, his theory now seems weaker to me...

[GreNME]

Just a few short points I'd like to address, because I don't think there's enough information on the topic for too much in-depth examination.

I guess it depends on how you define 'conspiracy theory' versus 'plain old theory'. I don't think that there's anything conspiratorial about the US carrying out covert operations to support its interests in the middle east and central asia.

I don't either, but you have to admit that the simple phrase "covert operations to support its interests" is plenty enough to get the paranoid (or the Hollywood writers) all in a tizzy. While there's been little in the way of confirmation, there's very little doubt that some level of operations have gone on in the eastern Baluchistan province or its corresponding parts of the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In the case of Jundullah, you have the ABC report saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilize Iran, you have Hersh saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilize Iran, you have Escobar saying the US was supporting Jundullah to destabilise the Baluchestan region, and you have US admission that they have worked with Jundullah at least to get information about Al Qaeda. This latter admission makes the journalists' allegations more credible. So you have at least three independent journalists corroborating fairly robust US support for this group, and US admission that there was at least some involvement. (Nevermind the Time article from today that suggests that US support for "efforts at destabilizing the regime from inside Iran" may be continuing under Obama.)

I don't think there's a need for "nevermind" with the continued work in the region. It was going on well before Bush and will likely continue after Obama.

Supporting Jundullah fits well into a number of reasonable conceptions of US strategy in the region, past and present, as outlined by the academics' positions I've cited. Some of these rely on the belief that nations base their foreign policy some level of longer-term strategic thinking and planning, a position that is contested. However, even if one accepts that cooperation between the CIA and Jundullah is limited to the extent of what you have described (i.e. trading satellite maps of Iran for information on Iran), as you pointed out these maps would be quite useful for Jundullah. I'm not sure how you can define providing useful intelligence to terrorists as not 'supporting' them.

That last sentence is the important part that I'd like to address. I'm certainly not defining "support" as narrowly as materials or money, but I equally don't go as broadly as considering sharing a few maps or satellite photos as falling under the purview of "support" as well. I'd be very surprised indeed to learn that the US intelligence agencies haven't knowingly shared such information with the understanding that it would be used as a tactical tool. However, I have a reasonable expectation that the intelligence agencies or agents on-the-ground know that there is a line that can be crossed where the wink-and-nod information sharing becomes tactical support, and I'd hope that they have the good sense not to cross it (at least the majority of the time). I'd love to be more descriptive of what I mean, but frankly there's very little if anything that is known of any type of relationship, and what we have learned from the Jundullah side has mainly been intelligence relating to interpretations of what are on the maps we'd be able to show them from surveillance imagery.

For me, the more interesting question isn't whether or not the US supported Jundullah, but rather what US aims were in supporting the group and whether the support is ongoing. You have made your position quite clearly, namely that the US supported Jundullah only in a limited capacity and in exchange for information. I don't discount that position. However, I don't think you can dismiss the other propositions as 'conspiracy theories' just because they imply closer cooperation with Jundullah.

I don't dismiss the possibility that the US has had more involvement than what I can deduce as conspiracy theory, though I do express skepticism without more concrete verification (verification that I'd not be able to get without sufficient clearance and agreed-upon non-disclosure, I'm sure). The reason I'm skeptical is because I have met people who worked in that theater in the past, and they tend to be very unwilling to share any information like Hersch and others seem to get, and typically for good (professional and/or personal) reasons. Add to that the obvious political capital a partisan could cash in on with more in-depth information, and you can imagine how even minor leaks can (and in some cases, do) get used for partisan rhetoric instead of the issue the intelligence addresses.

One of those political rhetoric examples would be the claims that US is a sponsor of terrorism, as if that disqualifies the US from opposing other terrorist groups. It's been invoked at times, primarily by conspiracy theorists but also by extreme partisans, and I'd rather not feed that flame with what I'm saying. I initially mentioned the Jundullah to point out that the situation is obviously not as clear-cut as we'd like it to be, what with the popular opinion in the US being that the Iranian government is an Evil Theocracy that should be discouraged (or opposed outright). The Iranian government can indeed be considered close to an enemy, if not an enemy outright, but cheering for their state enemies considering the possible connections isn't what I consider a valid stance, let alone the ethical problem I'd have with cheering the Jundullah behavior.

[Darth Rotor]

There is a temptation to point to the Pasdaran and grimly note that they have just received a taste of their own medicine. Problem is, where does one go from there? I don't think everyone who died in that blast was Rev Guards. (Last butcher's bill from that blast was 47, not sure if more died than that).

One can get all philosophical and muse that "you reap what you sow" but again, that advances nothing.

Will this particular event set back US/Iran relations? It might. The ripples in the pond when you toss in a rock go surprisingly far.

Is the assertion that US has spent hundreds (???) of millions in covert assistance to parties and factions in Southeastern Iran well founded, exaggerated, or undersold?

For that matter, were the Azeris approachable in the Northwest? ;) Last I checked, when Azeris and Armenians were scrapping over Ngorno Karabach, American and NATO involvement was ticklishly tied to our friendship with Turkey. (Did a minute bit of staff work on that matter over a decade ago, out of touch with it now).

This part of the world isn't simple, it's old and complicated. Tampering has risks. This attack, though perhaps not directly linked to a particular element of a general move contra Iraq, may cause considerable friction. Law of unintended outcomes? Maybe.

Given the Islamic Republic's thirty year rhetoric of the US as "The Great Satan," that crap of 444 days of kidnapper thuggery, and the Rev Guards deliberate screwing about in Europe (Bosnia) my dark side sentiment is:

That's what you get for playing with the varsity, younglings. You want to play with the big boys? There is a price to be paid.

Yes, that is cynical as hell, I confess.

DR
You salted, and cynical, sith

[dudalb]

After years of supporting Hezbollah, the Iranian Government got a taste of their own medicine. Don't count on any tears from me.

[GreNME]

After years of supporting Hezbollah, the Iranian Government got a taste of their own medicine. Don't count on any tears from me.

And the fact that these a-holes are barely a step removed from the bastards that are currently blowing up our people in the next country over (pick one) currently?

[Childlike Empress]

Fascinating analysis (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20031212&articleId=15858):

Destabilizing Baluchistan, Fracturing Pakistan
The Triangle of Jundallah, the Taliban, and Sipah-e-Sahaba

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, November 2, 2009

[Captain.Sassy]

/\/\/\
Be very careful with stuff coming from Global Research. The joint is full of crackpots. Not that everything they say will necessarily be wrong, but I would just pay very close attention to their sources and be on guard for unsubstantiated conjecture.

[WildCat]

/\/\/\
Be very careful with stuff coming from Global Research. The joint is full of crackpots. Not that everything they say will necessarily be wrong, but I would just pay very close attention to their sources and be on guard for unsubstantiated conjecture.
Childlike Empress is also a 9/11 truther. Filtering out garbage sources isn't in his repertoire.

[Childlike Empress]

WildCat also wishes for a new american century. She knows that the article isn't garbage.

[Darth Rotor]

WildCat also wishes for a new american century. She knows that the article isn't garbage.
Pathetic.

[Childlike Empress]

Like the original it was parodizing.

[Oliver]

-deleted-

[WildCat]

Like the original it was parodizing.
You link to a 9/11 truth site (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18) (along with all kinds of other woo) in the Politics section and don't expect people to call you out on it?

[Childlike Empress]

The Iranians catched Rigi (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LB26Ak01.html).

[...] The operation had all the ingredients of a thriller. From available details, Iranian intelligence, which has been stalking Rigi for months, grabbed him while he was on a flight from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Kyrgyzstan. The aircraft was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, in southern Iran, where Rigi and an accomplice were forcibly deplaned. [...]

Rigi apparently had a meeting with his US mentors in an American base just a day before his journey to the UAE. It seems he was traveling with a fake Afghan passport provided by the Americans. A lot of highly embarrassing details are trickling in already that will be eagerly lapped up by the so-called "Arab street" and which will make the entire American position on the situation around Iran look rather weak.

The American doublespeak on terrorism comes out all too starkly. The big question is whether Pakistan played a helpful role in Rigi's capture. Iranian officials flatly insist that Rigi's capture was "fully carried out" by Iranian agencies, including its "management, operation and planning" and the credit goes "solely to our country's security and task forces".[...]

On balance, Islamabad seems to have implied that it did cooperate with Tehran on Rigi's capture. The Pakistani ambassador in Tehran, Mohammad Baksh Abbasi, took the unusual step of "underlining Islamabad's support" for Rigi's arrest. Abbasi held a press conference to affirm, "Rigi's arrest showed that there is no place for Iran's enemies in Pakistan." [...]

[Pardalis]

I wonder if there will be an uproar and people asking for him to be treated fairly and not be tortured.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/tumbleweed.gif

[Praktik]

I wonder if there will be an uproar and people asking for him to be treated fairly and not be tortured.


How far we've come - think anyone in 1994 would have expected here in N.A. that people demanding that prisoners/detainees not be tortured would be the subject of mocking derision from a pro-torture demographic?

[Pardalis]

I just hope for his sake that he's not gay as well as a terrorist.

[Childlike Empress]

How far we've come - think anyone in 1994 would have expected here in N.A. that people demanding that prisoners/detainees not be tortured would be the subject of mocking derision from a pro-torture demographic?


Yep. Completely degenerated. Disgusting.

[Pardalis]

Harsh words, maybe you should save those for the actual terrorists?

[Praktik]

oops