Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

July 2, 2008
The Silent War on Iran

The accounts Andrew Cockburn’s reporting and Seymour Hersh’s on Bush’s finding for a silent war on Iran differ. While Hersh asserts that the U.S. forces would only use ‘defensive lethal force’ Cockburn wrote:

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials.

We may now be able to judge who is right in this:

An Iranian navy commander leading a unit that arrested 15 UK sailors in the Persian Gulf last year has survived an assassination attempt.
…
Two groups of unidentified assailants, a group on a motorbike and the other in a car, opened fire on the vehicle of the Iranian commander.

Amangah pulled his car over, took shelter, and managed to escape unhurt.

The man, decorated for his raid on British sailors in disputed waters, is certainly a target the Bush administration would really like to hit.

There is also new trouble coming from the allegedly U.S. funded Jundullah group, a Baloch militant Sunni group that attacks Iran from its area in southwest Pakistan. Two weeks ago the group abducted 16 Iranian policemen and according to Al-Arabia killed four of them.

Also two weeks ago, coming from north Iraq, the Kurdish anti-Iranian group PJAK ambushed and killed 3 Iranian policemen.

One wonders how long Iran will take such casualties before it decides to silently hit back at the force behind these. Especially a successful hit on a high ranking Iranian politician or military leader might easily lead to some serious casualties in the upper ranks of the U.S. officer corps stationed in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

One wonders how these officers feel about Bush’s not so silent war against Iran.

Posted by b on July 2, 2008 at 12:53 UTC | Permalink
Comments

two months ago a bomb exploded in a mosque in southern city of Shiraz resulting many dead and Injuries. Iranian Government claimed they had evidence US and their proxcies were behing terror act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_e7HkdfTw

Posted by: loyal | Jul 2 2008 13:06 utc | 1

More ominously, sixteen American contractors dressed in Polish Army uniforms were arrested early this morning in the vicinity of a small radio station on the Iraq-Iran border.
While reports are still sketchy, they were apparently staging to storm the station, kill everyone inside, and broadcast a taped message about Poland’s plans to conquer and enslave all of Western Europe.
As village police detained and disarmed the contractors, the bewildered sergeant leading the Polish commandos said only, “It worked in ’39 and it will work this time!”
When police began cuffing his men, and loading them into a waiting van, the sergeant began shouting, “This is a Halliburton contract! You can’t touch us!”
Both Halliburton and its subsidiary, the State Department, disavow any knowledge of the matter, saying only that it is “clearly the work of rogue elements, a few bad apples, a bit of undigested potato, pip pip.”
In other news, the Polish Parliament today began discussions on the feasibility of enslaving all of Western Europe. Or Hamburg, anyway.

Posted by: Antifa | Jul 2 2008 13:57 utc | 2

While Hersh asserts that the U.S. forces would only use ‘defensive lethal force’
not sure if i agree that is his assertion or simply his description of how this is set out in a finding. in fact he does say defensive-lethal language

Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran…..The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
….
As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.
…
The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.
The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.

this doesn’t sound to me like hersh is asserting all these activities are ‘defensive’ .

Posted by: annie | Jul 2 2008 17:17 utc | 3

Well annie – Hersh didn’t suggest anything other than defensive. I wonder how much he used to spread ‘defensive’
From Ignatius’ column today:

The danger of these cross-border activities was explained to me by one intelligence source. He said the Iranians had recently captured several dissident Iranian operatives who had been recruited by U.S. military officers inside Iraq and then sent into Iran. The Iranians, whose intelligence network inside Iraq is pervasive, surveilled the meeting, then followed the agents across the border and seized them.

dissident Iranian operatives in Iraq = MEK

Posted by: b | Jul 2 2008 19:18 utc | 4

Iran has unfettered access right to their puppeteer’s puppet in Iraq. Persian carpets, huh, weave polyester in China ($$ to China), what a sinkhole US of A is in, that is why they’ll/attempt to throw the “big” dice before the end of August.
God’s promised land will prevail.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2 2008 20:56 utc | 5

i guess i read it differently than you. i think he very much ‘suggests’ it could be other than defensive by writing about specifically evasive manueverings regarding what the white house will and will not disclose to congress regarding what they they designate to be potential defensive lethal action wrt the pursuit of “high-value targets”
he states the legislators were ‘unconvinced’ by hayden’s explanations of ‘ambiguous terms’ to describe ‘lethal force’. one could assume the only reason congress is interested in ‘defensive-lethal language’ (notice he didn’t say action, he says ‘language’ what does that tell you)) is to ‘protect’ the cia but i don’t exactly see it that way.
One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that”no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders.” means just that. it means congress has not authorized even to perform ‘defensive’ lethal action. now why do you think that is??? because congress doesn’t trust cheney w/these clandestine operations they have been pressured to fund, the ones which disclosure and oversite of activities are withheld from them due to bs executive privilege.
furthermore, to me, this seems to be an important part of hersh’s report. one in which necessarily required some whistleblower to confide in him.
as i read it, the first paragraph of my blockquote maps on, in reverse this scenario:
the ptb urged the cia to inserted language in the findings of ‘defensive action’ for the purpose of funds being approved by congress for operations BOTH of a military and intelligence nature. however, unlike cia operations that need to be depicted in findings to congress, cheneyco says congress is not privy to clandestine military activities in iran therefore are not privy to what these alledged ‘defensive actions’ may be wrt ‘high value targets’.
this says to me congress doesn’t trust what kind of operations may be carried out.
otherwise what exactly is it The legislators were far from convinced. about?????
let’s review what hayden says of the ‘defensive action’ in the finding that failed to convince them…
Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.
to me, this calls into question exactly what kind of operations are going on, and highlights the distrust of congress to the allegations of claims of ‘defense’ hayden and the WH are making. otherwise, what is the point of the opening and what is it that congress remains ‘unconvinced’ about? it says right in his report the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding…Administration.. conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
i don’t think hersh is in the least implying the U.S. forces would only use ‘defensive lethal force’ , i think he is implying just the opposite and asserting members of congress are leaking just this sort of info to him.

Posted by: annie | Jul 2 2008 21:04 utc | 6

i meant, or asserting congress is leaking their fears or suspicions of this to him.

Posted by: annie | Jul 2 2008 21:08 utc | 7

Perhaps it’s just me, but using the ‘defensive’ when applied to American assets operating inside another country is a little absurd. Uncle Dick sure does like to make shit up.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | Jul 4 2008 5:21 utc | 8

Back to Main