| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US Funding Iranian Minorities; Moves Bombers From Diego Garcia To Qatar |
| 2007-02-25 |
| America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan. Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph. His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime." Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made. Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party. John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity." Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture. The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money. A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime. The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage." At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters. The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street. While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility. "It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table." The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #28 MVARIETY.com > NEWSWEEK > GUAM IS FRONTLINE IN POSSIBLE FUTURE CONFLICT WITH CHINA. * IONews [earlier], RUSSIANS + CHICOM PLA front companies reportedly heavily investing in Northern Marianas[CNMI]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-25 23:15 |
| #27 America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran Not any more - thanks a heap. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-02-25 22:22 |
| #26 Repositioning bombers are the same as moving the fleet into an area. Political chess pieces and messages to our friends and enemies. Leaking the move or openly posting the move is posturing and gunboat diplomacy. Good move by the administration. When I was a young trooper in the 82d, 1981, there was a poster with a giant mushroom cloud and the quote. "Made in America, Tested in Japan. We know the bomb will work, let's use it on Iran!" |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-25 22:20 |
| #25 As well, the whole thing about US/British supplied weapons and explosives is BS : you always use sterile supplies for this type of operation. AKs, RPGs, RPKs, Russian mortars, Semtex, East German boots, Russian or Chinese uniforms, and ammo from former Warsaw Pact depots are readily available to us if we want to supply someone. Hell, we can buy some of the captured stock from the Ethiopians/Somalis and transship to the Iranians. Or get stuff from Afghanistan, Iraq, captures from the Israelis, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc; and supply the rebels with that. You never use stuff made in your country for this, at least not if you want deniability. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-02-25 22:01 |
| #24 F15 "Strike Eagle" > oh yeah, dat famous 1990's photo of an F15E carrying circa 25,000 ibs of Ordnuncez Boom-booms. Sigh, iff only the Navy had built the F14 "BombCat" or "BattleCat"!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-25 21:58 |
| #23 Of course, this could be a "Left hand, right hand" move : if the Emir has upgraded a couple of shelters at his super base for B-2s, and a couple of them happen to be stationed there for a bit, everyone will be looking at them. As long as they are on the ground, everyone will be looking at Qatar, not Diego Garcia or Iraq. Left hand waving, right hand comes in for an upper cut. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-02-25 21:53 |
| #22 Any US bomber based in Qatar will be visible to observers so we should be able to confirm which / if any there are. I also doubt moving the B2s there, logisitics as well as the (unlikely) lucky punch would make great propaganda, plus they can fly 44 hours + (crew endurance is limiting factor) so no need to position close; just launch earlier and line up the tankers. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-02-25 20:15 |
| #21 Obviously, the British and Americans are too dumb to hide the origin of these 'weapons", or the clever Iranians are sooooo smart they can identify the US/British fingerprints. Or maybe they're blowing smoke. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-02-25 16:03 |
| #20 |
| Posted by: Angenter Crolugum3645 2007-02-25 15:19 |
| #19 In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions. The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials. Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made. Okay, let's get something straight here: Terrorism is when, to make a political point, civilians are attacked. It's a proper geurilla movement if the targets are exclusively government or military. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-02-25 14:41 |
| #18 Parabellum, I too noticed the "hotted up" thing - assume it's just the editors' britishizing of the English. But Global Security is "influential"? Huh? They're quite useful, and though Pike's often out of his area when being interviewed, he doesn't do a bad job most of the time, esp. for a Beltway weenie who looks and sounds the part besides. But while they're a useful resource, I'm puzzled by the description of Global Security as "influential". My understanding is they do info, not advocacy. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-02-25 12:38 |
| #17 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pronounced: Ahmed- needsjihad)just announced that their nuclear program is an "unstoppable train without brakes". I seem to think we a have a couple of tools in the box that can stop the train or create a crater down the line big enough to derail it. |
| Posted by: HammerHead 2007-02-25 12:04 |
| #16 Bet RWV and 2204 are right. B-1beez have been noted loitering around Baghdad recently. Course they might just be moving north for Spring. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-02-25 11:33 |
| #15 RVW That's my guess. Everybody forgets about "The Bone." They shouldn't. It's visually impressive, fast and hauls a lot of boom. It's not as cheap to fly as a -52, and not as stealthy as the Spirits so it doesn't get a lot of press. On a different topic: My, hasn't Iran had a lot of accidents lately. |
| Posted by: Thrinenter Spaise2204 2007-02-25 11:27 |
| #14 Of course, by international standards, a Strike Eagle qualifies as a heavy bomber. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-02-25 11:14 |
| #13 B-1s? |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-02-25 11:13 |
| #12 John Pike used the term "hotted up"? I highly doubt it. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2007-02-25 10:44 |
| #11 The B-2 requires specific maintenance every time it flies. Shelters were built in the UK and Diego Garcia for this purpose in the run-up to the Iraq War (Part Deux). Unless such shelters have been built more recently at Al Udeid this story cannot be accurate in that detail. Of course, there has been nothing to stop construction of such a facility at Al Udeid: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/al-udeid-imagery2.htm |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-02-25 09:37 |
| #10 I find it rather implausible that the U.S. would now re-base them where they could be watched taking off. Not if Tony, who has concluded there can be no military option in Iran, is bossing his poodle, George, about. It's a feel good story about the obvious iced with the optimistic. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-02-25 09:27 |
| #9 Diego Garcia was upgraded to cope with B2 Spirits. I find it rather implausible that the U.S. would now re-base them where they could be watched taking off. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-02-25 08:46 |
| #8 The story's based on the speculation of "former" officials, at least one speaking anonymously. It's as trustworthy as anything published in the Weekly World News. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-02-25 08:39 |
| #7 of course we'd break these developments in the Telegraph, after our secret briefing of the NYT. PSYOPS. But if the CIA isn't doing these things, they should be fired |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-02-25 08:29 |
| #6 I remember when the bombers were taking off in Britain during the Iraq bombardment that there were news crews at the end of the runways televising the takeoffs and saying that they would be over Baghdad in so many hours. I hope there was a lesson learned by that. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2007-02-25 08:07 |
| #5 The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street. I definitely call BS on that one. Heavy bombers=B-52s, and if one of those were to show up in Qatar, you'd have people tripping all over themselves to change their dishdashas . Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-25 07:11 |
| #4 The British media have been all over these garbage military "stories" the last couple of days. They must be worried that the U.S. Is going to take on their Iranian buddies. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-02-25 02:11 |
| #3 I think the media is probably doing a lot of fishing. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-02-25 00:32 |
| #2 I don't buy it, unless we are getting sloppy any news on this front will be mullahs on stakes and Spooky gunfire. There will be no forewarning |
| Posted by: Flolumble Elmuling1667 2007-02-25 00:22 |
| #1 how come al-guardian didn't blame Israel? |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-02-25 00:09 |