Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by OldCorpse, May 23, 2007.

  1. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #1
    Here we go again! Things are getting exciting with Iran! I guess for Bush our plate is not full enough with Iraq, time for some "destabilizing of a foreign government", because you know, the Middle East is too stable right now. I'm sure we'll be greeted with flowers and eternal gratitude of the Iranian people, just like they loved it when we imposed the Shah on them.

    And people wonder why other nations feel the need to arm with nasty weapons, when we are just being our lovable selves and are only looking to overthrow their governments. Hmm. They don't try to subvert our government, why do we feel the need to do it to them?

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

    "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

    May 22, 2007 6:29 PM
    Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

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



    "The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community."


    "I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    "And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said."



    "The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

    Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges."



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


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

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

    The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran."
     
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    We're definitely gearing up the conflict. Bringing, in addition to the two carrier groups, the USS Bonhomme Richard in the region for saber rattling, uh, I mean war games is pretty clear.

    http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070523/...7d221beda2a;_ylt=AiupEXYMekD5paicbwnsWvcDW7oF

    The Bonhomme Richard, by the way, is an amphibious assault ship, supported by two landing ships with 2000+ marines aboard each. That's about 6,000 marines, including those on the Richard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship
     
  3. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  4. OldCorpse thread starter macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #4
    Sorry, miloblithe, I didn't see your post before I made the other thread about the naval buildup.

    I'm still hoping no lives will be lost in this madness.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    I'm sure I don't understand why everyone gets so excited about the movement of carrier groups. Positioning naval forces is an age-old method of showing muscle without necessarily having to use it. The U.S. has positioned carrier groups in the China Sea quite frequently, when the PRC and Taiwan get up to their periodic snarling matches. It doesn't mean the U.S. is about to attack China.
     
  6. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #6
    I think we could all agree that China and Iran are hardly on the same political/economic footing. In regards to China, the US ship positioning is clearly a gentle warning, in regards to Iran, I've no doubt that it carries a much stronger warning, with a soupçon of imminent threat thrown in.
     
  7. OldCorpse thread starter macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #7
    I guess what I find exciting is the fact that this is the largest such buildup since the war in Iraq, and it coincides with renewed vigor of covert actions against the Iranian government. Throw into the mix Bush getting his evangelical guys to prepare their roboton followers for a lot of talking about how bad and dangerous Iran is. Maybe all of this is just coincidence, but it's interesting to note. Strategically it makes no sense AT ALL to attack Iran militarily, so I hope this all amounts to nothing. Then again, it made no sense to attack Iraq in 2003 either.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    We're discussing the same topic in two threads simultaneously now, but I'll take the opportunity to mention again here that this is a classic example of gunboat diplomacy, a maneuver with an at least 300-year history. I hope this doesn't turn into another session of questioning about whether I trust the Bush administration. I don't, and never have. But the fact is, this appears to be one big and rather unconvincing gesture of gunboat diplomacy, as the U.S. is in no position to move militarily against Iran. As much as anything else this seems to be a response to the incident with the British sailors.
     
  9. OldCorpse thread starter macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #9
    Nah, I know you don't trust 'em.

    You know, I would have agreed with you with much greater enthusiasm, had I not gone through this excercise with Iraq in 2003. I remember sitting around with friends and discussing the buildup to the war, back at the end of 2002. I was enumerating all the reasons it would be totally idiotic to attack Iraq, and everyone was nodding in agreement, and the general consensus seemed to be "it's obviously designed to pressure Saddam". Then 2003 rolled around and I started getting very worried - the buildup wasn't letting up and the propaganda machine was full on as if we really were going to have a war - I thought, if this is an act, it's a darn convincing one, but hey, Bush can't be that stupid to actually attack Iraq... then he went ahead and did it.

    All I'm saying is that the rational brain says you are right, but remember, you are dealing with an administration that is disconnected from reality - and yes, we can bring up all kinds of arguments against it (not to mention we simply don't have the military staying power at the moment to truly take on Iran in a war!), but since when did rational arguments carry any weight with this crew?

    I'm staying optimistic, though somewhat worried.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Let's just say, I believe this administration has been hamstrung by their own recklessness and incompetence, to the extent that their military options are now slim and none. Moving big ships around is force projection on the cheap.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    I wonder what the neo-con rhetoric would be if Iran was found to be covertly attempting to overthrow our government? Would anyone here deny that we would be justified in attacking Iranian interests in that case?
     

Share This Page