You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
2008-05-09
Salt to taste, but please don't increase blood pressure beyond safe limits. Not my favorite author but he was the WSJ's resident rad back in the day.

By ANDREW COCKBURN

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."

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. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.
$300 million to dump the Mad Mullahs™? Cheap at twice the price!
Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a "taunting" manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was "absolutely furious" with Fallon for defusing the incident.
That I can believe, expecially as Fallon has kept a very low profile since his departure and he didn't seem like he would.
Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus.

Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. "The Shia account for less than one third," a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, "but if you want a war you have to sell it."

Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.
Posted by:Nimble Spemble

#12  IRANIAN.WS > THE FIRST IRANIAN SATRAPS [Provinces]. Articles describes Persian Histry, but which I deemed as indir appropriate given the brouhaha now going on in Beruit, and given that artic should rightly had been titled or denoted as "PERSIAN" SATRAPS, NOT IRANIAN AS IRAN WAS PERSIA IN THE ARTIC'S OWN TIME FRAME OF HISTOIRE'.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-09 22:46  

#11  yeah, and I'd like my last name to be pronounced as "he's extremely hung". My ex-partners beg to differ
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-09 22:44  

#10  As I understand it, his name is pronounced "coe burn". Or at least that is how people with that name would like it pronounced.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-05-09 21:04  

#9  Cockburn? Is this Andy Sullivan's bunkmate?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-09 18:44  

#8  "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding"

... and then immediately telephoned Andrew with the news so he would get the exclusive scoop ahead of everyone else.

"Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border"

... so as to enable Iran to kill more of the soldiers in his charge which will act to enrage the American people who will then allow him to fulfill his megalomaniacal dream of a much larger slaughter. .... riiiiiiiiiight
Posted by: crosspatch   2008-05-09 12:36  

#7  Only six weeks ago? Surely earlier than that!
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-05-09 11:39  

#6  #5 Destabilize Iran? Parachute in 30 million Barbie Inflatable Dolls Sheep.
Posted by: Perfesser 2008-05-09 09:22

There, fixed it for 'ya!
Posted by: OyVey1   2008-05-09 09:34  

#5  Destabilize Iran? Parachute in 30 million Barbie Dolls.
Posted by: Perfesser   2008-05-09 09:22  

#4  Roger that last, Joe.
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-09 08:28  

#3  Iff Radical Islam = Iran is indeed on a drive 2008-2012/13 to procure strategic weapons + strategic retaliatory capabilities, to include ISLAMIST = PERSO-ASIAN EMPIRE/BLOC IN CENTRAL ASIA, THEN TO PRECLUDE NUCLEAR TERROR + NUCLEAR IRAN DUBYA-US WILL HAVE TO EITHER INVADE OR INDUCE REGIME CHANGE REGARDLESS OF GEOPOL CONSEQUENCES, i.e. REGARDLESS OF ANY POTENTIAL = RISK OF "GREAT POWERS" CONFRONTATION OVER US ACTIONS.

*Iran + OSAMA + Islamists know it, as does RUSSIA-CHINA, etc.

AND, lest we fergit, Radical Islamism's + Iran's drive for strategic capablities is PC SEPARATE UNIQUE OR EXCLUSIVE FROM RUSSIA-CHINA'S "WAR NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" ANTI-US WAR 2014 - 2018 [NLT 2022].

Again, the MOST DANGEROUS PHASE-PERIOD of this WOT nominally lies ahead of us, NOT behind us.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-05-09 00:34  

#2  The US government is hardly going to support the MeK. They would be more likely to support unions. The Ayatollahs routinely use Basij Nazis to break strikes. Iranians resent the millions that the clerics have taken in sweetheart contracts with family firms. The current regime has no future.
Posted by: McZoid   2008-05-09 00:26  

#1  Important note: There are two ways they could approach Iran in this way, taking the fight to Tehran and the leaders; or destabilizing the minority regions.

If they are concentrating on the minority lands, then perhaps it is a signal of our intent to partition Iran.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-05-09 00:12  

00:00