Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 28, 2007

IRGC NOT a Designated Terrorist Organization

There is a some talk in the blogsphere about the alleged designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Something is wrong about this. The designation has not happened.

Col. Lang writes about: Amendment No. 3017 - A step toward war with Iran

It was a good idea to take the two offending paragraphs out of the draft resolution but the designation of the RIC, a major agency of the Iranian government as a terrorist and therefore criminal organization is clearly a step on the road to war.

Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment:

Designating the RIG a terrorist organization does open a back door way for the president to say he has authorization to use force against Iran. But the president himself already made this designation, via the State Department.

Via email I argued with Josh. He answered:

I could certainly be wrong.  But it’s my understanding this State DID make this designation.

Both seem to be sure that "the designation" already happened. I find not proof for this and I wonder why.

On August 15 WaPo explained:

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding.
The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment says (no direct link possible - see page S11911 of the congressional record):

It is the sense of the Senate--
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224

Section 219 is about Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and the consequences of a designation are only relevant to immigration and money handling in the U.S.

The sanctions under Executive Order 13224 are also only economical. Specific entities and persons targeted in such sanctions are noted in the annex (pdf) (some ridiculous 100 pages of names) of the order and in the Treasury's 'Specially Designated Nationals List'. The Treasury's change log of that list already includes some Myanmar leaders which were designated yesterday but it does NOT include the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or its leaders.

There are also no press releases at the State website about designating the Revolutionary Guard. In a WaPo op-ed today Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, arguing against such a designation, remarks:

The Bush administration, following its own pronouncements as well as House and Senate legislation, is expected to decide soon whether to classify Iran's most formidable military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a terrorist organization.

So lets add this together:

  • The Bush administration has NOT designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
  • Such a designation was said to be done before the UN General Assembly, but did not happen.
  • The designation would likely be under EO 13224 and Section 219 of the Immigration Act.
  • Both of these allow only for monetary and immigration restrictions.

Which leads me to some questions:

  1. Why has the Bush administration not acted on the issue?
  2. Was this a headfake to get the Senate consent on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment?
  3. What mislead Josh Marshall and Col. Lang on this?
  4. Is this a pure psyops campaign?
  5. Your thoughts on this?

Posted by b on September 28, 2007 at 16:40 UTC | Permalink


The Bushies were waiting for Congress to give them cover. Glenn Greenwald has a big post up about how the military is pushing back against the Neo-Cons regarding Iran.

The brass need pushing and this helps to do it. I'm sure, now that Congress has laid the predicate, that State will act. I'm with Col. Lang and Sen. Webb on this one. It was too transparent what Joe was up to, with all the war language that got deleted. But the declaration of the IRGC as terrorists will get him his war anyway.

Posted by: John Shreffler | Sep 28 2007 17:22 utc | 1

Makes sense to me: if we don't engage the IRGC in Iran, we will some day have to fight them on our doorstep. The War on Terror is about Making America Safe.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 28 2007 17:26 utc | 2

Jim Lobe in ATOL: Anti-Iran hawks win partial victory

Last month, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration had decided in principle to designate the IRGC, which, in addition to its military role, controls a number of large businesses that could be subject to sanctions, a terrorist group, but had yet to determine whether it would name the entire organization or only its elite unit, the Quds Force. That no announcement has yet been made is indicative of the continuing infighting around Bush.
As introduced, the amendment, which according to several Capitol Hill sources was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran.
the fact that the amendment was approved by a significant margin - and with the support of key Democrats, including Clinton and Majority Leader Harry Reid - is certain to be used by hawks within the administration as an indication of bipartisan support for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.

Posted by: b | Sep 28 2007 17:59 utc | 3

this amounts to the war hawks pyching themselves up (and anyone else who cares to join the frenzy) even more for war with Iran. It does not do anything to change the military situation on the ground. Its also yet another distraction as there will be no war against Iran this year or next year.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 28 2007 18:38 utc | 4


you mean the warmongers are just lyin' about like cows in a field chewing their Quds?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 28 2007 19:08 utc | 5

Excellent point, b! The press still prefers to tell the truth, in principle, even while obscuring it.
Also, check out Bhadrakumar's latest at the ATimes.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Sep 28 2007 19:08 utc | 6

Billmon sighting at Greenwald!

Posted by: Dick Durata | Sep 28 2007 20:16 utc | 7

If I remember correctly around the time of the threatened declaration the occupying forces in Iraq were rounding up Iranian visitors willy nilly. I always felt that this declaration was just another pinch of bulldust designed to keep the amerikan population cranked, provide a little cover when international bodies asked questions about tromping over diplomatic immunity etc, and to have the Iranians 'quake in their boots'.
They succeeded at the first, partially the second and failed miserably at the third.

Since actually putting this garbage up at the UN would have made them a laughing stock (post Powell's performance delegates like a bit of real evidence to support outlandish accusations) and making the domestic declaration would have been self-defeating as it would have been too much like the first round of sanctions all piss and wind eliciting an upturned middle finger from the Iranians. Some amerikans may have come to from their somnambulance and asked why the 'terrarists' appeared untroubled by this 'crafty piece of work' and blown the effort thus far gained by the hot air.

So the accusation was made and everyone moved on. It won't be the last that'll be heard of it. The war mongers will be aiming at some stage in a future administration when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will be declared a terrarist organisation at which time most amerikans won't murmur as they thought that was already the case. The time will be picked so that the UN has to go along.

There is no way that these assholes are going to give up. Stalin and Churchill promised them Iran at Yalta and they want what mommy and daddy promised. The idea that the world has moved on since then won't ever be acknowledged. Silly really anyone can see they are never going to get the place back. Maybe it's just too big an item on the 'assets in reserve register'. Officially acknowledging that the Iranian oil supply doesn't belong to amerika might send Bernanke's number crunchers into a terminal spin.

I always thought they just made it up as they went along same as the corporations seem to but maybe there is some sort of underlying rationale that sets an algorithm to determine the 'real' value of the dollar (as opposed to it's market value). There's got to be some reason why the rational rethugs go along with the irrational ones on these spurts of madness. Going after Iran would be the maddest spurt yet.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 28 2007 20:53 utc | 8

@Dick Durata

Wow, that Asia Times link really sheds light on the big picture. Thanks!!

I especially took note of the following:

In focus is Turkmenistan, the energy-rich gas powerhouse of Central Asia. These have been manic weeks in Ashgabat. The melodrama is acute. But then the inscrutable space between victory and the chimera of victory has always been very narrow in Central Asia.

September 1 was the cutoff date that the Kremlin penciled in for the signing of agreements relating to the Russian-Kazakh-Turkmen gas deal that Putin had wrapped up during his sensational Central Asia summit on May 12. But September is drawing to a close, and not only have the agreements not been signed, the main protagonist, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimukhamedov, is unavailable in Ashgabat. He has proceeded on an extended visit to the United States, accompanied by bigwigs in the Turkmen oil and gas industry. It suddenly dawns that in one big throw of the dice, the US and the European Union are desperately playing themselves back into the game, which Moscow thought it had all but secured.

Ah, so that is why he had the red carpet reception from Bollinger.... Bollinger certainly knows how to play by the Rules... B hits the nail right on the head, astute as ever.

Posted by: Bea | Sep 28 2007 20:58 utc | 9


something like that. And they better remember --"dont bite more (Quds) than you can chew".

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 28 2007 22:12 utc | 10

Very good catch. I don't think it's "pure psyops". It's another small but essential part of the slow buildup.

As is this, from the Arab Monitor:

Closed-door meetings with US Secretary of State on military upgrading of Gulf region

New York, 27 September - After holding closed-door meetings with member states of the European Union on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice convened the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council plus close allies Jordan and Egypt.

The meeting was finalized at forging awareness of "Iranian attempts to dominate the region", as an unnamed senior State Department official told reporters, setting the stage for the allocation of a 20-billion dollar armaments package the US intend to sell the eight Arab states.

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 28 2007 22:55 utc | 11

Glenn Greenwald Salon piece

It's interesting enough that I think it should have a working hyperlink. :-)

Posted by: Loveandlight | Sep 29 2007 4:42 utc | 12

"(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224;"

That is from the transcript of part "(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--", from S.Amdt. 3017: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.

The US Senate said that the US, SHOULD, designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. That implys that the IRGC has not yet been so designated.

Posted by: Mark Gaughan | Sep 29 2007 14:07 utc | 13

"Kucinich 'seriously thinking' about forcing the vote on Cheney impeachment."

Scroll down for interview.

Posted by: beq | Sep 29 2007 15:22 utc | 14

Whilst option 4 is definitely a contributory factor in this, there should be an option 6 which references internal Bush administration/US political elite battles over Iran policy, which is currently stuck in limbo.

Part of the "subterranean" struggle going on between Centcom and the political masters has been Fallon's attempt to set up a marine incident liaison system with his Iranian counterparts - and this would, of necessity, mean formal communications between US naval forces in the Gulf and their IRGC counterparts ( in reality, there is a fair degree of communication on a practical level between the US navy and their Iranian counterparts in the Persian Gulf region already); obviously, if the IRGC are designated a terrorist entity, then this cannot happen.

It seems to me that Fallon, and I would presume that both the JCS and Gates are complicit in this, is trying to build a "firewall" to prevent the political "conflict" from degenerating into a military conflict by default or by accident.

Posted by: dan | Sep 29 2007 15:47 utc | 15

Iranian Parliament DOES Vote to Designate CIA, US Army Terrorist Groups

Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution to label the CIA and the U.S. Army terrorist organizations.

The move is seen as a diplomatic tit-for-tat after the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The hard-line dominated parliament said the two were terrorists, because they were involved in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, used depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq, supported the killings of Palestinians by Israel, bombed and killed Iraqi civilians and tortured terror suspects in prisons.

The resolution, which is seen as a diplomatic offensive against the U.S., urges Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations. It also paves the way for the resolution to become legislation that - if ratified by the country's hard-line constitutional watchdog - would become law. The government is expected to remain silent over the parliament resolution and wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision.

Now, will the lilly-livered media in the US report on this or not?

Posted by: Bea | Sep 29 2007 19:50 utc | 16


I agree with your comment that Fallon wants a "firewall" in place, in order to mitigate unintened hostilities. And this may have been prompted by certain undisclosed events in the gulf.

And if this is the case, it suggests that the Iranians rather than "backing-off" from the USA military presence, may be "pushing-back" in certain ways. What this may mean is that the USA may have in actuality been presented with opportunities to escalate, but declined.

hence if Fallons declaration of peace is shared by the JCS & the SecDef, war is not imminent.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 29 2007 22:15 utc | 17


What does all this remind you of?

Little Kid #1: "You're a poopyhead!"

LK #2: "No, you're a poopyhead!

LK #1: "You're a bigger poopyhead!

LK #2: "I'm telling!"

Posted by: Loveandlight | Sep 30 2007 4:24 utc | 18

jony @ 17

I am a little concerned at the willingness some express to think it is a good thing for the military to refuse to follow direction from civilian leadership. This is a very dangerous thing and will lead to a military dictatorship.

some may argue that it has already happened but I don't think so. at this point in time I do not think the PTB are ready for that. they have the best of all worlds by having complete control without it being obvious. what could be better than that?

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 30 2007 10:45 utc | 19

dan of steele@19

having done a quick reality check on the matter, its definitely a potential danger we have to keep an eye on, even in this most unusual of times.

also, General Pace recently re-affirmed ,I>"the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."

maybe this is one of those realms in which theres enough room for both heroism & foul-play, posssibly even by the very same military individual or group.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 30 2007 13:42 utc | 20

In one of the many articles in early September on the ramped-up hostilities against Iran, it was stated that some in the administration want to designated only the Quds Force as a terrorist organization (this was painted as the "moderate" position vs. so designating the whole IRGC). I think it was an article in the Wash. Post that focused on infighting within the administration. Will look up later tonight when I have time.

Only the State Dept. can make the designation. Certainly the Senate action has strengthened the hand of the hard-liners, particularly as it names the whole IRGC rather than the Quds Force. But there has been no designation so far -- Josh Marshall is just confused. Pat Lang was, I think, speaking sloppily rather than confused about the current status of the designation.

The new Sy Hersh article in the New Yorker about the revised Pentagon targeting on Iran -- IRGC bases and facilities rather than nuclear-related installations etc. -- provides more perspective about the possible ramifications of a State Dept. terrorist designation. In addition to the monetary and diplomatic consequences of such a designation, I think this administration would also cite it as justification for holding the Iranians abducted in Iraq in undisclosed locations and/or incommunicado.

This site had very little sympathy for Haleh Esfandiari's situation during her house arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment in Iran. But I note that she is the only person with any platform in the U.S. media who has even acknowledged the situation of the Iranians abducted in Iraq by the U.S. military, much less called for their release.

Posted by: Nell | Sep 30 2007 21:43 utc | 21

I overstated Esfandiri's reference to the captive Iranians. Still, as I said, more attention to the existence of these prisoners than you will find from any reporter, pundit, or politician in Washington. From her recent piece on the front page of the Sunday 'Outlook' (opinion) section of the Post:

My mother came to visit me during my third month of captivity. I hadn't wanted her to see me in prison or to see how much weight I had lost. But the visit did us both much good. I couldn't help thinking about the Irbil five -- Iranian officials arrested by U.S. forces in Irbil, Iraq, in January and, I was told, denied any family visits. The subject of humanitarian gestures such as family visits had come up repeatedly during my exchanges with my interrogators.

Contrast this with the 'journalism' of the Post's Robin Wright, who in article after article about the Iranian-Americans held and recently released in Iran fails to mention even once the men snatched from Irbil, or the man recently taken from Suleimaniyah by U.S. forces. Barnett Rubin said in comments at his blog that the Irbil captives have been seen by officials of the Iranian government, but didn't respond when I asked him for his source.

Posted by: Nell | Sep 30 2007 21:52 utc | 22

I think it's perfectly constitutional and appropriate for the brass to bring their concerns to Congress, which is the part of the government that is supposed to have the power to declare war. As a commenter at Greenwald's said, that's what Casey did recently when he asked to appear to give testimony about the readiness or lack of it of the Army.

Webb's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman resolution (and that of the fellow Armed Services Committee members who voted with him) was both substantive and procedural: They want there to be committee hearings so that Fallon and others can challenge the propaganda the Bush administration has been pushing about Iranian government support for militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And if it comforts you at all, dan of steele, Hersh's reading is that the brass's support for a revised, IRGC-targeted attack on Iran is growing.

I'd welcome top-level resignations in protest of orders to attack Iran if the crazies win the argument in the administration -- mainly because at this point that's the only plausible source of popular and Congressional resistance to such a cataclysm.

Posted by: Nell | Sep 30 2007 22:06 utc | 23

And if it comforts you at all, dan of steele, Hersh's reading is that the brass's support for a revised, IRGC-targeted attack on Iran is growing

oh yeah, I feel much better now.

nice roundup on Blackwater you have there at your place Nell, those boys have been pretty busy making a nuisance of themselves.

Posted by: dan of steele | Sep 30 2007 22:53 utc | 24

Hi Nell, one of the things that caught my eye in Hersh's piece was,

There were four possible responses to this Iranian activity, the European official said: to do nothing (“There would be no retaliation to the Iranians for their attacks; this would be sending the wrong signal”); to publicize the Iranian actions (“There is one great difficulty with this option—the widespread lack of faith in American intelligence assessments”); to attack the Iranians operating inside Iraq (“We’ve been taking action since last December, and it does have an effect”); or, finally, to attack inside Iran.

I can't help but wonder why exactly this European is speaking in the first person plural...

The Iranian captives - I'm pretty sure I read about an official visit some months ago, probably on the Voices of Iraq newssite.

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 30 2007 23:52 utc | 25

US trains Gulf air forces for war with Iran

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada.

Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets.

Posted by: Alamet | Sep 30 2007 23:55 utc | 26

From Hersh's piece:

The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Interesting that yesterday Petraeus seemed somewhat reluctant to agree with that. The LA Times wrote: Iran in deal to cut Iraq arms flow
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has secured a pledge from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to help cut off weapons, funding and other support to extremist militiamen in Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Saturday.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said there were signs of a slight drop in the types of attacks associated with Shiite militants since the deal was reached in August, and he raised the possibility that U.S. and Iraqi officials might be able to do something in return. But he said it was too early to tell whether there had been a real reduction in cross-border support.

Posted by: b | Oct 1 2007 8:34 utc | 27

Financial Times: Iran ready to work with US on Iraq

Iran is ready to help the US stabilise Iraq if Washington presents a timetable for a withdrawal of its troops, Tehran’s top security official said on Sunday.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, which answers to Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, rejected Washington’s accusations that Tehran is providing weapons to Iraqi militias, insisting the trouble with Iraq was that the US administration was pursuing a “dead-end strategy”.
Mr Larijani, however, dismissed US accusations as “lies”. He said Iran had asked for names of Revolutionary Guard personnel that the US said were involved in helping Iraqi groups but that it had received no response.

He said Iran was the only country in the region to have supported the Iraqi government and the democratic process, while the US’s allies – by which he meant Arab governments – provided no assistance and worked against Washington.

He also claimed Tehran had information that US officials were holding talks with Izzat al-Douri, the former Ba’athist senior official who is said to be leading parts of the Sunni insurgency. “This is a disaster for the Iraqi people,” he said.

At a time of growing suspicion that either the US or Israel will resort to military strikes to prevent Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, Mr Larijani said Washington’s failures in Iraq should be a warning against embarking on a new “adventure”.

Posted by: b | Oct 1 2007 10:51 utc | 28

26 @Alamet: That 'we' is an interesting phrasing. If it were a Brit, I guess it's technically true since the abduction/arrests were made under color of the "coalition" forces (as if any of them, including Britain, would get any say at all in the subsequent handling of the prisoners). But 'European' isn't a term I'd think Hersh would use for Brits. What Euro countries still in Iraq? I thought Spain and Italy were fully out. Maybe this is the French, who clearly perceive themselves to be part of an anti-Iranian team now. Hadn't known of any military cooperation in the Iraq theater, though of course they're in Afghanistan.

Keep me posted via comments here or on my blog of any news you see on the captive Iranians. Thanks for the link on the training of UAE and Jordanian air force. And thanks to all here for all the useful info and links.

Posted by: Nell | Oct 1 2007 16:08 utc | 29

No wonder Josh Marshall and others are confused. This from Sen. Clinton: "Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization."

Since the overall point of her statement is that "this isn't a war declaration, it's to increase diplomatic pressure", and since the U.S. Congress does not have the power to put organizations onto the State Dept. list of designated terrorists even in binding legislation, it appears that people in Washington are using 'designate' as shorthand for 'labeling'.

Vile on so many levels....

Posted by: Nell | Oct 1 2007 16:23 utc | 30

US Special Ops forces in Iran would be the mirror of IRGC, as described by US, wouldn't they?

Why does one never hear in any media of all the US, British, & Israeli Spec Ops forces who have been busy since 2003 inside and along borders of Iran? Two key activities: 1) targetted attacks on military and political objectives; 2) training, arming, and stirring up trouble among the ethnic minorities who live along those borders.

An exhibit from the Congressional Research Service Report. Of course, Spec Ops are nowhere mentioned, but the fact that ethnic uprisings have increased in the past few years in Iran and the western-based supporters, acknowledged in the CRS report, are no accident.

As Sunni-Shiite tensions have worsened in the region, a minority of this group [(some 3 million, predominantly Shiite, Arabs, whose presence in Iran stretches back 12 centuries)], emboldened by Iraqi Arabs across the border, have pressed for greater autonomy in recent years. In the southern oil-rich province of Khuzestan, clashes erupted in March 2006 between police and pro-independence ethnic Arab Iranians,
resulting in three deaths and over 250 arrests (the protests were reportedly organized by a London-based group called The Popular Democratic Front of Ahwazi Arabs).
In April 2005, rumors spread that the authorities in Tehran planned to disperse Arabs in the area leading to protests that turned violent, according to Human Rights Watch.

The report has a useful map at the end, showing the location where large minority ethnic groups live in Iran.

Posted by: small coke | Oct 1 2007 17:05 utc | 31

Neil @29 - I am sure hersh refers to a Brit there. Earlier in the piece he writes:

A European official who has access to current intelligence told me that “there is a firm belief inside the American and U.K. intelligence community that Iran is supporting many of the groups in southern Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of British and American soldiers.
Only a Brit would have access to US and UK intelligence community.

It the same thing when you read about some "European official" talking against the IAEA stand on Iran. In 99% likelyhood that is a Brit.

Posted by: b | Oct 1 2007 17:24 utc | 32

read the sad, the very sad statement in the sydney morning herald - where australia (in its role no doubt of deputy sherrif) has "expressed an interest" in the invasion of iran

they are so craven - it is compelling, their cowardice before empire

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 1 2007 17:42 utc | 33

The comments to this entry are closed.