Iran Bombing

[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.

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" 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.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[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 ...