Daily Kos

Arabs and Israelis: Together at Last (Iran War Diaries)

by Florida Democrat

Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:43:37 AM PDT

Rice and her colleagues in the administration decided to embark on a daring and risky third course: a coordinated campaign, directed with the help of the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates...

According to a new article by Atlantic Monthly, BushCo is engineering this covert war with Saudi Cash.

The bill for the covert part of this activity, which has involved funding sectarian political movements and paramilitary groups in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, is said to amount to more than $300 million. It is being paid by Saudi Arabia and other concerned Gulf states, for whom the combination of a hasty American withdrawal from Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran means trouble.

Who says these guys can't build coalitions?

The stage, is unfortunately, set for much more intervention and entanglement not less. This is the direction they will go no matter what happens on the ground in Iraq.

Bush is ready to destroy Iran and the US along with it.

Samuels suggests that Iran has already faced a variety of internal attacks as a consequence of this covert program.

"They pointed to an upsurge in antigovernment guerrilla activity inside Iran, including a bomb in Zahedan, the economic center of the province of Baluchistan, that killed 11 soldiers in the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on February 14; the mysterious death of the Iranian scientist Ardashir Hosseinpour, who worked on uranium enrichment at the Isfahan nuclear facility; and the defection of a high-ranking Iranian general named Ali Asgari, a former deputy minister of defense who was also the Revolutionary Guard officer responsible for training and supplying Hezbollah during its war against the Israelis in southern Lebanon in the 1980s," Samuels notes.

Do we really expect for Iranians to stay silent when this happens?

More than that, Samuels warns that these covert actions may soon target Iran's petroleum sector.

"People focus altogether on the nuclear facilities and how difficult they would be to take out," he quotes former Secretary of State George Shultz as saying. "But it’s not difficult for somebody to sabotage those refineries."

No. I don't think so. This irresponsible ideologically-driven adventurism can only get us into another conflict that could make Iraq look like Grenada.

Meanwhile, the dems are caving in on even a time-table on Iraq. Troop withdrawal is nothing compared to the Neocon machinations on Iran.
EARTH TO DEMOCRATS: WAKE UP AND STOP THIS NONSENSE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

As a respected friend always says:

Intervention is the problem, not the solution.

Tags: iran, israel, saudi arabia, George W. Bush, Iran war, Ali Asgari, Ardashir hosseinipour (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 49 comments

  •  What's the new date, again? nt (0+ / 0-)

    by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:51:10 AM PDT

    •  June 17 (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      zemblan

      2004.

      No wait, May 12, 2005.

      No, that's not it. October 15, 2005.

      Or is it January 23, 2006?

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:55:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds Like We're Already At War With Iran (n/t) (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes, corvo

        "When you're a worker it rains stones seven days a week." - Jimmy in Ken Loach's 'Raining Stones'

        by Near Vanna on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:59:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am one of the sharpest critics ... (10+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Florida Democrat, weasel, Rusty Pipes, jrooth, anonymousredvest18, podster, sofia, hypersphere01, Diaries, paxmonger

        ...of those who predict definite dates for a U.S. assault on Iran and have been for years, whether the predictor had the credentials of a Scott Ritter or the agenda of a Wayne Madsen.

        But Florida Dem does nothing of the sort here. He merely lays out what I think is incontrovertible. The Bush Administration already has some kind of black ops going on in Iran - our own people or hired help - and they would love an excuse to "do something" military (see reports of Washington's contacts with 10 Downing in the immediate aftermath of the abduction of the British sailors and marines).

        I think there is a middle ground between saying that the U.S. (and or Israel) will attack on such-and-such a day and saying that forces at the very top of the Bush Administration would like to give Iran a very big smack and may yet do so before they leave office.

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:12:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well we already have "black ops" all over (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Keith Moon

          Depending on your definition of black ops.  There are certainly non-diplomats on diplomatic passports to everywhere we have an embassy.  And in Iran, well, we probably have people embedded somehow or other all over the country.

          Is there anything wrong with that?  I, for one, was thrilled when we nabbed that General a couple months abck.

          by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:18:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "black ops" (12+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, Florida Democrat, weasel, Rusty Pipes, dss, corvo, anonymousredvest18, sofia, callmecassandra, suicide blonde, Diaries, paxmonger

            how would you feel if you found out other countries where running "black ops" in america?  what if they were abducting Americans to send to jail w/death penalty and no trial?

            Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

            by hypersphere01 on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:26:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I am talking about bombings ... (7+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            weasel, Rusty Pipes, anonymousredvest18, sofia, unfounded, Diaries, paxmonger

            ...and other sabotage, not CIA "cultural attachés." Everybody knows that embassies and consulates are spy nests. It's expected. But when you start grabbing people, killing people, arming opposition groups, then you cross a line. How well would it go over if Iranian groups (or their hirelings) were striking pipelines and power-plants and occasional police stations in America?

            I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

            by Meteor Blades on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:28:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I'd respond (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Keith Moon

              "How well would it go over if Iranian groups or their hirelings were active all over the whole region of the middle east?"

              I probably disagree with arming opposition groups in Iran, but on the other hand, I don't feel too bad for them, considering their regional record of arming foreign groups over the last year or two.

              by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:31:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Iran has a short history of support ... (7+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                weasel, Rusty Pipes, dss, anonymousredvest18, sofia, howardx, paxmonger

                ...for such groups outside its borders. Britain, the U.S. (and, to a lesser extent, Russia) have a long, long history of meddling in Persian/Iranian affairs. I am no fan of the ayatollahs, no fan of Ahmadinejad, and no fan of the Jew-baiting rhetoric regularly pouring out of much of the Iranian media. But the U.S. has layers of blood on its hands regarding Iran, and I think it behooves us to do what we can to stop Bush from adding a fresh one.

                I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

                by Meteor Blades on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:38:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're right that it's a short history (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Keith Moon

                  But it's also most of the history of the current regime.

                  I'm not saying this makes them fundamentally rotten as a nation, but I have zero sympathy for the leaders.

                  Also, the examples noted above include one (1) bombing that was executed by a local resistance group that it hasn't been proven we're tied to.  As far as the cloak and dagger with the general and the top nuclear scientist, as I said above, I approve.  If it delays Iran getting nuclear arms, it makes the world safer, not just from Iranian aggression but from American responses.

                  As far as arming local groups, well..  I'm against it in principle but after thinking about it, a couple very quiet and small infusions of aid as a response to Iranian moves elsewhere are ok to set up deterrant value.  Unfortunately.  That one's all in the execution though, and we don't know the details to judge.  Probably, Bush and his clowns are screwing it up to some extent.

                  by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:44:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Iranian "aggression"? (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    weasel

                    I am not keen on ANYbody having nuclear weapons. But the U.S. has a terrible record in nonproliferation, allowing (and or encouraging) some countries to have them and others not. Pakistan worries me a good deal more than Iran, and it already has a few dozen kilotons of Bombs ready to fly and al-Qaeda operating freely within its borders.

                    At worst, assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons, it's years away from producing a uranium Bomb (maybe a decade) and three years or more from producing a plutonium Bomb (via its IR-40 nuclear reactor, which supposedly will come on line in 2009, if no technical problems arise).

                    That provides some time for additional diplomacy. Military actions make diplomacy more difficult.

                    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

                    by Meteor Blades on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:06:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'd characterize the regime as "aggressive" (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Keith Moon

                      And I agree with your first paragraph, except for the Pakistan part.  The Paki military is pretty secular and they've got the keys to the nukes.  There's cause for concern, yeah, but less cause than with a nuclear Iran.  With any luck, neither will be a concern.

                      I think we just disagree on where the line is regarding "military actions".  I don't consider the cloak and dagger stuff to be military although I agree that we should knock off the aid to insurgent groups inside Iran.  I wouldn't consider that a "military action" though - to me, military actions consist of US trigger pullers being in country which there is no proof of as of yet.

                      by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:19:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So...? where's the "aggression"? (5+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Rusty Pipes, corvo, suicide blonde, paxmonger, Concentration Cramp

                        A country like Iran who hasn't invaded anybody for 300 years is labeled "aggressive." Yet Israel who invades and occupies its neighbors, has undeclared nuclear weapons and insists on maintaining a "Jewish" character in its government is not a concern to you.

                        Can we step outside of our own prejudices and evaluate the facts please?

                        (-9.13, -8.10)

                        by Florida Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:51:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What does Israel have to do with any of this? (0+ / 0-)

                          You still haven't explained.

                          Try typing "Israel" into the find box from the top of your diary and page through.  It is not the subject or object of a single sentence.

                          by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:39:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's in the very first sentence... (5+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, corvo, suicide blonde, paxmonger, Concentration Cramp

                            in the blockquote... about Israel's cooperation with US and Arab client states against Iran. Further details have been explained here, upon your request.

                            I'm glad you're paying attention. Scary how you can make that many accusations without even reading the diary.

                            (-9.13, -8.10)

                            by Florida Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:50:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Right, so the score is: (0+ / 0-)

                              Iran:  funding and ordering missile strikes and kidnappings from the only two areas that Israel has withdrawn from seeking peace in the last 10 years.  All while making statements to the effect that Israel shouldn't exist and that the Holocaust didn't happen.

                              Israel:  Maybe contributing in an unspecified manner to US training efforts on stuff the US would be doing anyways.. after Iran did all of the above.

                              Israel is clearly to blame for Iranian bellicosity.

                              Oh and I saw the first sentence of the blockquote.  Israel was listed along with every other country in the region as being concerned about Iran and probably sharing intelligence with SA.  Yeah, that's damning.

                              by unfounded on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:07:16 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  I'm not trying to "damn" anybody (3+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                Rusty Pipes, paxmonger, Concentration Cramp

                                You asked "what has Israel done to Iran" and I answered you. Keeping "score" with people's lives is quite distasteful, but I assure you Israel "wins" there handily.

                                Israel, in fact had more to do with the rise of both Hamas and Hezbollah than Iran ever did, even helping to fund the former. There's no "maybe" about it. Israel has supported terrorist groups directly for years.

                                The focus of this diary was not Israel but US/Israel and Arab allies funding terrorism against Iran. You seem to only care about Israel, so I'm answering you with Israel specific facts.

                                (-9.13, -8.10)

                                by Florida Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:23:49 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

            •  A line (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Florida Democrat, Rusty Pipes, corvo, paxmonger

              But when you start grabbing people, killing people, arming opposition groups, then you cross a line.

              More importantly, it is not just any line, but the line our entire world strategy is based around.  The entire logic of the GWOT is that some things are unacceptible, including arming and supporting terrorist groups.  

              One of the few successes the Bush Admin has had is pushing many countries to disavow, further outlaw, and effectively prosecute terrorists.  So we are undermining our entire position by supporting separatists in Iran.

              Further, before anyone says that these groups only attack the Iranian military, I have 2 answers:

              1. Not true, a number of citizens and officials have been killed or injured, particularly in Khuzestan, and
              1. The US definition includes attacks on soldiers as part of terrorism.  This is true under US law, under the line we take at the US, and in our description of what happens in Iraq.

              So we are completely undermining supposedly the most important current US policy, the GWOT, by supporting Iranian separatists.

              by weasel on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:49:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  What's that supposed to mean? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have anything to say about the article?

        I resent that this important issue is being dismissed like it was a "pie in the sky" remote possiblity.

        Read the piece!

        (-9.13, -8.10)

        by Florida Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:08:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You really don't know? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rusty Pipes, corvo, paxmonger

    Behind the increasingly shrill rhetoric and saber rattling over Iran’s nuclear ambitions America and Israel are engaged in a secret war against Iran that has echoes of the years when the CIA supported the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union.

    This time, the United States and Israel are running covert operations with the help of Kurdish militias and rebel Iranian fighters. For some observers, training and arming Islamic fighters smacks of the days of Soviet rule in Afghanistan.

    Then, the Soviet army, which was the second most powerful military in the world, was defeated by Islamic militants, including men like Osama bin Laden.

    Now the U.S. military, with Israeli commandos lending a hand, is arming and secretly training a different breed of mujahideen, or Islamic fighters—Kurdish militias with links to ethnic Kurdish communities in Iran and Syria, and fighters from the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which has bases in southern Iraq and has provided the United States with information about the Iranian military and Iran’s nuclear sites.

    http://www.americanfreepress.net/...

    This is in the same order of what Al-Qaeda has done to the US.

    Arming and training the terrorist group PEJAK

    Here, recruits are training to fight Iran, one of the four countries that rule the fractured Kurdish people. And although they belong to an organization officially outlawed as terrorist by Washington, they appear to be operating unhindered either by Iraqi-Kurdish units or the limited U.S. force in Kurdish areas.

    A boulder-studded road spirals up through sun-soaked mountains to a pale yellow building that flies the flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), condemned as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey.

    A giant face of Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK founder who is serving a life sentence in Turkey, is painted on the mountainside. Sixteen kilometers (10 miles) farther on lies the Qandil range, which runs like a snow-dusted spine along Iraq's northern border with both Turkey and Iran.

    In the camp, lugging heavy machine guns and AK-47 assault rifles, are men and women of the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PEJAK, an offshoot set up by the PKK in 2004 to fight for Kurdish autonomy in Iran. The PKK and its affiliates are spread through a region of some 35 million Kurds that straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. PEJAK, the newest group, claims to number thousands of recruits, and targets only Iran — a mission which has made PEJAK the subject of intense speculation that it is being used to undermine the radical Islamic regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    In the Nov. 27 issue of The New Yorker magazine, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote that PEJAK was receiving support from the U.S. as well as from Israel, which fears Iran's nuclear ambitions and Ahmadinejad's call to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

    Support for MEK, a Terrorist organization that has killed American Civilians.

    The MEK also has the support of the state of Israel. It has the support of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby here in the United States. It has the support of many members of congress, whether they have arrived at their position independently or as a result of intensive lobbying. The MEK does have a base of support among the anti-Tehran groups in Washington.

    http://www.zmag.org/...

    (-9.13, -8.10)

    by Florida Democrat on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:42:40 PM PDT

Permalink | 49 comments