Tehran insider tells of US black ops

[atommom]

TEHRAN - A former Iranian ambassador and Islamic Republic insider has provided intriguing details to Asia Times Online about US covert operations inside Iran aimed at destabilizing the country and toppling the regime - or preparing for an American attack.

"The Iranian government knows and is aware of such infiltration. It means that the Iranian government has identified them but for some reason does not want to show ," said the former diplomat on condition of anonymity.

Speaking in Tehran, the ex-Foreign Ministry official said the agents being used by the US "were originally Iranians and not Americans" possibly recruited in the United States or through US embassies in Dubai and Ankara. He also warned that such actions will engender "some reactions".

"Both sides will certainly do something," he said in a reference to Iran's capability to stir trouble up in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan for the occupying US troops there.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html

[MADem]

1. Oh, I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say!!!!!

...that there could ever be covert operatives, either ours or Israelis, inside the former Persian empire!!!

[cliss]

2. You know - this may be the way to fight them.

Get the cameras rolling. Start writing stories, get busy posting photos of people in these clandestine operations.

Start divulging names. Watch the plans shrivel like a rhododendron in the snow.

That may be their most effective weapon yet. Chavez has been doing it, and look what he got, just last week. A HUGE concession by Mr. Browndump, alias = evil ambassador who's trying to foment violence in Venezuela.

It works.

[atommom]

5. I was thinking the same thing as I read this.

We need to shine a light on them.

[kineneb]

3. Knowing Iran as I do

(I lived there, have relatives there, etc.) I would say that the Iranian gov. is saying "Here kitty, kitty. Come here and see our nice "little" country. We have treats waiting (ha, ha) for you."

1. The Iranian countryside is not like Iraq. BushCo underestimates the terrain. They have the Zagros and Elborz mountains ranges, which are quite high elevation. Tehran is above 5000' elevation.

2. The country has a real, functional army, and huge population of young people to throw into any adventures on land.

I probably know more in general about Iran than most of the intell types.

[cliss]

6. Ah. That's good to know.

But really, the vast majority of people who are informed say that Iran is strong, has a loyal military, and in addition has lots of oil revenue to spend on its defense.

Someone wrote on another news group that "if the U.S. were to attack, it would be like Viet Nam, Somalia, Hitler, Napoleon's Waterloo and the Roman Empire thrown in for good measure". In other words, it would be the biggest defeat in history. (I think they know this in Washington).

Iran has a proud, ancient heritage. They should not be underestimated in this.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[magellan]

4. Ooo, Bush** hasn't notified Congress that our military is in Iran.

"The president hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran," said Sam Gardiner, a retired US Army colonel who specializes in war-game scenarios. "So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran."

Oh so what, you unpatriotic POS. Bush** did the same thing in Iraq. And we know that's okay, because no one in Congress has ever made a peep about it, or about the pre-war bombing that we learned about last year. So just STFU and stop trying to confuse us with details about laws and democracy. :sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. the same was reported by the former head of war games planning at the Army

War College:

Monday, April 17th, 2006

Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner on Iran War Plans: "The Issue is Not Whether the Military Option Would Be Used But Who Approved the Start of Operations Already"

Link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/17/143241

Air Force Colonel, Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College. He was recently a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.

“COL. SAM GARDINER: “I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence.

“COL. SAM GARDINER: And I would summarize that by saying by being in the future, by going through how the United States might attack Iranian nuclear facilities, I have to tell you that there is no solution in that path. In fact, it is a path towards probably making things in the Middle East much worse. It's not a solution to either stopping the Iranians or spreading democracy in the Middle East or getting us out of Iraq. It's a path that leads to disaster in many dimensions.”

“COL. SAM GARDINER: Well, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that a decision has already been made to use military force in Iran. Now, let me do a historical thing, and then I'll tell you what the current evidence is. We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and the only guidance that the military -- or the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. The evidence that we've already --

AMY GOODMAN: Keep it below what?

COL. SAM GARDINER: The CNN line. In other words, I don't want this to appear on CNN, okay? That was his guidance to the military, you can begin to bomb Iraq, but don't let it appear on CNN. You're catching your breath.
“COL. SAM GARDINER: “I was in Berlin three weeks ago, sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I asked him a question. I read these stories about Americans being involved in there, and how do you react to that? And he said, oh, we know they are. We've captured people who are working with them, and they've confessed. So, another piece of evidence.

To listen/watch/read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/17/143241




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[jerry611]

8. The only reason I dont believe this

...is because I don't believe our intelligence capabilities are that good. I'd be surprised if the CIA or Pentagon has spies in Iran. Most of the espionage programs that we used to have were ended at the fall of the Soviet Union.

It would be encouraging to know if this was true, because better intel will save lives in the long run.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. lives won't be saved if it is a prelude to a military attack that almost

every expert agrees would have catastrophic consequences. If U.S. forces which completely surround Iran on all sides are going to carry out acts of war against Iran and refuse any dialog while simultaneously giving Iran every reason to be paranoid-and undermining progressive reformist influences within Iran, what can we possibly expect from them?

How many more wars are we going to have based on the notion that a given country MIGHT eventually someday somehow become a threat?

Zingier Brzezinski: .Iran reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war
Been there, done that By Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

April 23, 2006

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

http://www.dontattackiran.org
_________________________

Former Senator Sam Nunn suspects the real motive is regime change

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.




http://www.dontattackiran.org