U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran: report
Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:24pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.
The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers on a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.
"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."
Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.
Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.
These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.
The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told CNN's "Late Edition" he had not read the article, but denied the allegations of cross-border operations.
"I'll tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else," he said in an interview from Baghdad on Sunday.
The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the New Yorker article said, citing current and former officials.
Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.
Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.
The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.
None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.
The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.
(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert in Washington; writing by Chris Michaud; editing by Eric Beech and David Wiessler)
Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 232021.ece
Drumbeats for war 5:00AM Monday June 30, 2008
By Catherine Field
Israel is rumoured to be getting ready to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Photo / AP
PARIS - European nations are watching with a mixture of bemusement and disquiet as talk grows of a United States or Israeli strike against Iran to derail its nuclear weapons programme.
The media-channelled drumbeat of an operation to wreck Iran's nuclear sites is being dismissed in European capitals mostly as a bluff - but with the caveat that if a strike does take place, the repercussions could resound catastrophically for years to come.
Markus Kaim, an analyst with a Berlin think-tank, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said a "small window" remained open for diplomacy before Iran crossed the nuclear threshold, which according to a US intelligence assessment could be in 2010 or 2011.
"It would be a disaster if America now pursued a military option," said Kaim. For the time being, "The people in Washington dreaming about the military option" remain in the minority.
"After Iraq, after the difficulties in Afghanistan and the divide in transatlantic relations, are these people really prepared to risk another foreign policy disaster? It is one thing to talk about a military strike, another to talk about [its impact on] the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and the overall regional security in the Middle East."
Speculation of a strike has risen after Iran responded defiantly to a new United Nations Security Council resolution and to measures unveiled last week by the European Union aimed at reining in its uranium enrichment programme.
The EU measures include a freeze on the assets of the largest Iranian bank, Melli, which is accused of providing services to the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia are offering the prospect of negotiations provided the enrichment activities are halted.
Iran would get help to develop nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them, and could also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts. Iran has yet to respond to this offer.
The New York Times reported that more than 100 Israeli warplanes took part in a rehearsal in June that appeared aimed for a possible long-distance operation against Iran, and some US commentators have mulled whether President George W. Bush would mount a strike, or support an Israeli one, before he leaves office.
A French intelligence source said he did not believe that, at this point, the Israelis were serious about doing such an operation by themselves as they lacked the firepower. It was far more in Israel's interest to have the Americans do the job, he said.
Iran is believed to have three main nuclear facilities, but other sites are scattered around the country and could be underground, which would require "thousands" of cruise missiles and bunker bombs, the source said.
If a strike did go ahead, "It may delay Iranian nuclear programme by only two or three years" and at the cost of retaliation against the oil market, strengthening the mullahs and bolstering the standing of extremists throughout the Muslim world, he said.
"It would be a huge mistake."
Robin Shepherd, an analyst at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London, said the Iranian crisis posed a particular challenge for Europe as it seeks to "portray itself as a serious partner to the US" in the Iranian crisis.
Europe needs Iranian oil and some European countries do very well from trading with Iran. This means European willingness to tighten the sanctions screw has limits.
But, Shepherd said, in the event of a military strike, European unity could crumble. Some countries would accuse the US and Israel of setting a match to the powder keg, while others would "privately celebrate" that someone had taken a stand.
"Europeans still cling to the belief that diplomacy alone will work with Iran."
[font=Georgia]Israel seems to be acting a bit weird to, making deals with Hezbollah and opening the Gaza border. Why would Israel be doing this if Iran is moving missles toward Israel. It is the Media show, Israel is showing the world how peaceful they are just before attacking Iran, Clever!![/font]
Israel in no position to attack Iran: minister Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:23pm EDT
By Hashem Kalantari
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's foreign minister said on Sunday he did not believe Israel was in a position to attack his country over its nuclear programme, while an Iranian general announced plans to prepare 320,000 graves for enemy soldiers.
The comments were the latest in an escalating war of words between the arch-foes that have helped fuel speculation of a possible Israeli attack on Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, helping push oil prices to record highs.
Speculation has risen since a U.S. newspaper reported this month that Israel had practiced a strike against the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities, which the West suspects form part of a covert weapons programme. Iran denies the charge.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Israel was still dealing with the consequences of its 2006 war with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and was also suffering a "crisis of deepening illegitimacy" in the Middle East region.
"That's why we do not see the Zionist regime in a situation in which they would want to engage in such adventurism," he said when asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack.
"They know full well what the consequences of such an act would be," Mottaki told reporters.
He was speaking a day after the head of the elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying Iran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf oil route if Iran was attacked and warned regional states of reprisals if they took part.
Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran is one factor pushing up oil prices. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday.
GRAVES
Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity. Western nations and Israel fear Iran is seeking to build nuclear bombs. Israel is believed to be the only Middle Eastern state with nuclear arms.
Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.
Analysts say any U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would be limited to air strikes, rather than a full-scale attack requiring U.S. ground forces, who are tied down in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They say Iran could use unconventional tactics, such as deploying small craft to attack ships, or using allies in the area to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests.
Iran's Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said reports of a possible strike were part of the "psychological warfare" waged by the West against Iran, aimed at diverting attention from "domestic failures" in the United States and Israel.
Mirfeysal Baqerzadeh, a Revolutionary Guards brigadier-general, said that in order to "respect the enemies' dead soldiers" there were plans for volunteers to dig 320,000 graves for them in border areas.
This would enable Iran to bury "all of them at the same time," Fars News Agency quoted him as saying. However, in an emergency situation, they would be buried in mass graves.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
Damn just when I needed a break WWIII starts. Ok here's what I got, it's quite clear that Georgia started this conflict even though i'm sure U.S media will blame Russia as the aggressor. Georgia is a U.S ally and is trying to clame South Ossetia back by force. South Ossetia is run by separatists who want to join their ethnic kin in North Ossetia, across the border in Russia. Russia has come to South Ossetia aid and now there is all out war. Now I kept asking myself why would a small force(Georgia) start a suicide mission when it's clear Russia would destroy them. Well it seems to me that the Georgian President is being used as a puppet because he can't be this stupid. Puppet for what and for whom you ask, good question. I think the U.S is encouraging Georgia to do this for two reasons.
1) to make it look like Russia is starting a conflict with one of America's allies, then they will use the media machine to blame big bad Russia as a bully for picking on such a small country. This will give America an excuse to retaliate against Russia, exactly what they wanted.
2) to distract the world from the coming war with Iran. As this report shows this has started aswell. (Thursday, August 7, 2008) Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -iran.html
If there's anything i'm missing please add, as i'm pretty tired right now.
Well I kinda figured U.S media would blame Russia.
US faults Russia for rising violence in Georgia http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/au ... n-georgia/ WASHINGTON (AP) - Russia's use of overwhelming military force against Georgia, including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles, is disproportionate to any threat from the former Soviet state and could escalate tensions in the volatile region, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.
The Bush administration official, who briefed reporters on condition his name not be used because of the sensitive nature of the situation, said Russia has attacked areas in Georgia that are far away from the separatist province of South Ossetia, where the fighting has centered. The official also said the Russian military is striking civilian targets.
"They have employed strategic bombers _ the most potent air weaponry that is in the Russian arsenal .... They actually launched ballistic missile attacks on Georgian territory," the official said. He also said Russia has sent more than 1,000 paratroopers and armor into the region.
Russian bombing has also taken place in Abkhazia, a separate breakaway region of Georgia, far from South Ossetia, the official said.
"This is a dangerous escalation in the crisis," the official said. Russia's military response "marks a severe escalation and is being conducted in areas far, far from the South Ossetia zone of conflict, which is where the Russian side has said it needed to protect its citizens and peacekeepers. So the response has been far disproportionate to whatever threat Russia had been citing."
The U.S. official also scolded Moscow for stymieing attempts at mediation and refusing a cease-fire offer from Georgia.
"The Georgians have offered a cease-fire. The response by the Russians has been to step up the attacks, continue bombing civilians with strategic air assets and then to reject the notion of any international mediation at all _ it's very difficult for us to understand that," the official said. "It is simply not acceptable that anyone would reject an offer of a cease-fire and a plea for international mediation."
The official criticized Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for suggesting Georgia was conducting "genocide" in South Ossetia.
"Those are some pretty powerful words that are really not helping us to end the violence and bring together a new process that can resolve the conflict," the official said. "The line we're hearing right now (from Russia) is quite tough."
President Bush, in Beijing for the Olympics, spoke with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Saturday.
"The violence is endangering regional peace, civilian lives have been lost and others are endangered. We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for an end to the Russian bombings," a grim Bush told reporters. He did not take any questions.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked with several European counterparts and planned to meet with the Russia's acting ambassador.
Families and dependents of U.S. Embassy personnel in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, were expected to receive permission to evacuate.
The U.S. official suggested Russia was looking for a way to draw Georgia into a conflict because Moscow wants to keep Georgia out of NATO.
Georgia, which borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the breakup of the Soviet Union. Georgia angered Russia by seeking NATO membership _ a bid Moscow regards as part of a Western effort to weaken its influence in the region.
Russia wants to "keep Georgia kind of weak and off balance and to make it hard for Georgia to join NATO," the official said.
However, he said the United States and its NATO allies will not be drawn militarily into the Russian-Georgian conflict.
"This is a very localized conflict ... There is not a danger of a regional conflict at all in our minds," the official said.
Georgia has about 2,000 troops in Iraq and is the third-largest contributor to coalition forces after the U.S. and Britain. The Georgian government has called home those troops, and efforts are under way now to determine how the U.S. will transport those troops to Georgia, the official said.
The US administration urged for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia. In the meantime, Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.
“The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State released no comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it,” the official said.
In the meantime, it became known that the Georgian troops conducted volley-fire cleansings of several South Ossetian settlements, where people’s houses were simply leveled.
“The number of victims with women, children and elderly people among them, can be counted in hundreds and even thousands,” a source from South Ossetian government in the capital of Tskhinvali said.
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia question its consistency as a state and as a responsible member of the international community, Interfax reports.
"Civilians, including women, children and elderly people, are dying in South Ossetia. In addition to that, Georgia conducts ethnic scouring in South Ossetian villages. The situation in South Ossetia continues to worsen every hour. Georgia uses military hardware and heavy arms against people. They shell residential quarters of Tskhinvali [the capital] and other settlements. They bomb the humanitarian convoys. The number of refugees continues to rise – the people try to save their lives, the lives of their children and relatives. A humanitarian catastrophe is gathering pace,” Russia’s Foreign Minister said.
The minister added that the Georgian administration ignored the appeal from the UN General Assembly to observe the Olympic truce during the Beijing Olympics.
[font=Georgia]Well now all the McBama sheeple will definitely be blaming Russia and will likley support the U.S to get involved.[/font]
[font=Georgia]McCain said, "Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border."
Obama said, "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire,"[/font]
[font=Georgia]Someone should inform McBama that Russia crossed the border because innocent civilians including Russian civilians were being killed by Georgian aggression, and the South Ossetian's are very grateful Russia came to their aid.[/font]
HONOLULU, Aug 9 (Reuters) - U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain stepped up their criticism of Russia's military activity in Georgia on Saturday, calling for Moscow to withdraw its forces and the international community to facilitate peace talks.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has made foreign policy and national security the centerpiece of his campaign, said he spoke to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Saturday, their second conversation since the crisis erupted.
Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, said he had also spoken to Saakashvili and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Russia and Georgia came into direct conflict after Tbilisi launched an offensive to regain control over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
McCain, an outspoken critic of Moscow, said it was clear the situation in Georgia was dire. "Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border," he said in a statement.
"I again call on the government of Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Georgia."
Obama called for direct talks among all sides and said the United States, the U.N. Security Council and other parties should try to help bring about a peaceful resolution.
"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire," Obama said in a statement.
"Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."
McCain has long criticized Russia, particularly for what he sees as its backsliding on democratic reforms and human rights. "For many years, I have warned against Russian actions that undermine the sovereignty of its neighbors," he said. "Unfortunately, we have seen in recent days Russia demonstrate that these concerns were well-founded."
Obama has stepped up his criticism of Russia since the crisis started. He called for an international peacekeeping force and said Russia could not be a neutral mediator for political disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- both pro-Russian separatist regions backed by Moscow.
"The current escalation of military conflict resulted in part from the lack of a neutral and effective peacekeeping force operating under an appropriate UN mandate," Obama said. "Russia cannot play a constructive role as peacekeeper."
President George W. Bush has urged Moscow to stop bombing immediately, saying it marked a dangerous escalation.
Georgia is a close ally of the United States and has relied on military aid and training from Washington, which has pushed hard for Georgia to become a member of NATO despite strong opposition from Russia.
McCain said NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia "may have been viewed as a green light for aggression in the region."
In New York, several hundred Georgians gathered across the street from United Nations headquarters to hold a candlelight protest against Russia's actions. They held Georgian flags and posters with slogans such as "Putin killer," referring to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
In Washington, the U.S. State Department said it had authorized the departure from Georgia of family members of certain staff and repeated a warning to Americans to defer travel to the country. (Writing by Jeff Mason and Patsy Wilson; editing by Chris Wilson)
As usual, the BBC is twisting and distorting the news coming out of the Georgia region. We keep being told that around 1500 have been killed in Georgia, the inference being that this has resulted from Russian bombing.
Not so, the casualties are in Ossetia.
While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any newsreel coming out of Ossetia showing the destruction caused by the Georgian shelling of the breakaway republic.
All we are getting is one-sided reports of the destruction being caused by the Russians.
Unlike News 24 which is its international news carrier, the BBC website does make some mention of Ossetian casualties:
"We left our town because the situation there is worse than anything I've seen in 18 years of conflict. Houses are being hit by rockets and heavy artillery, aircraft are bombing the roads."
Since yesterday, Russia Today was reporting the complete destruction of Ossetia's capital by Georgian shelling. Again, the destruction of the Ossetian capital was never reported by the BBC.
Last Friday, RIA Novosti reported that Ossetia was claiming over 1000 dead:
"Over 1,000 civilians have been killed as the result of an attack by Georgia on the capital of its breakaway republic of South Ossetia, the North Ossetian nationalities minister said Friday.
According to the South Ossetian information and press committee, the number of fatalities is estimated, according to preliminary information, at over 1,000," Teimuraz Kasayev said."
Sometime after mid-day today I tried unsuccessfully to access the Russia Today website for further information. Whether this is because of heavy traffic or because the website is being blocked by someone it is difficult to tell. I experienced the very same problem trying to access the RIA Novosti website.
Meanwhile, a BBC News 24 reporter, Lyse Doucet, tried to suggest that Russia had attacked Abkhazia by sending troops into that breakaway republic! That was soon put into doubt by another BBC reporter from Moscow who speculated that the sending of Russian troops into Abkhazia was not an attack but intended to protect its citizens and holiday-makers there.
On Saturday, China's Xinhua news service reported, "Abkhazia launches operation to force Georgian troops out" and "Georgia defeats Abkhazia's attacks". And previous news from Russia Today had announced Abkhazia's attack on Georgia. So was the BBC's Doucet confused or deliberately confusing the facts?
What is clear, however, is that the BBC is giving carte blanche to the Georgian point-of-view to be aired on its services while nothing whatsoever is being heard from the Ossetian side. The BBC's repetitive playing of a statement by George Bush, given several days ago, without balancing these against statements from the Russian side indicates where the BBC is coming from.
The contrast between the brazenly pro-US, pro-Georgian views being put out on BBC News 24 and the BBC website is to be noted whilst a more balanced assessment has been published by Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb. He, like me, believes that the BBC is deliberately confusing the issue. I'm sure we'll get much more of that from the BBC:
"Incidentally, just so that this point isn't lost in the deliberately confusing reportage. Yes, Russian jets are attacking Georgian targets and killing civilians. Yes, the reported civilian casualties "on both sides" is reported to be over 2,000. What is quite often not stated or just gently skated over in the reporting, so laden with images of Georgian dead and wounded, is that the estimate of 2,000 civilian deaths comes from the Russian government and it applies overwhelmingly to the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia on Friday.
In fact, this is the basis for Vladimir Putin's claims of a "genocide" against South Osettians by the Georgians (is he deliberately referencing the ICTY judgment about Srebrenica here?). The Georgian side, by contrast, claims 129 deaths of both soldiers and civilians. So, if Russian figures are good enough to reference, why is the source of the figures and their context obscured? Why is being made to look as if Russian forces are behind most of those alleged deaths? Doesn't this just amount to a whitewash of the actions of the Georgian army in South Ossetia? And why not mention 30,000 refugees too?" http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/ ... bably.html
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
