Iran Bombing

[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:

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 (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.

[...] 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.

 

[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.