Bush okayed 'soft revolution' in Iran

[GrGr]

JPost

Bush okayed 'soft revolution' in Iran
By JPOST.COM STAFF


The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) received presidential approval for a covert operation in Iran aimed at destabilizing the Islamic Republic by "non-lethal" means, ABC news reported early Saturday morning.

According to the report, the plan includes several non-military measures by which the US could deeply harm the Iranian economy through global measures while simultaneously undermining the regime on a local political level by distributing propaganda and building on an already existing lack of support for the regime among Iranians.

Global economic measures would include manipulating currencies and making large-scale monetary transactions which would damage Iranian companies.

A commentator pointed "ferment among the students and the intellectuals" of Iran as fertile ground from which propaganda and encouragement towards the local population to overthrow the government could bear fruit.

Another avenue explored by the CIA, according to the report, was supporting the Jundullah militia which operates from the Pakistan-Iran border.

Jundullah (Army of God in Farsi) is a militant Islamic organization based in Waziristan.

The organization, reportedly affiliated with Al-Qaida, is part of the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan as well as in Iran's Sistan and Baluchistan Province. The group claims to represent all Sunnis in Iran, regardless of ethnicity.

Jundullah carried out attacks on Iranian forces in the past. The measure of US contact with and support of the Jundullah militia remains unknown.

The US administration reportedly approved the 'soft revolution' plan after deeming the overall risks and potential losses involved in overt military action to be greater than the potential gains to be made from such an endeavor.

Interesting. There is a pic too of a bank that has been blown up by a bomb. I guess the approach to dealing with Chavez in Venezuela is pretty similar.

 

[jonjonsanfru]

Good ol'political intrigue. A different solution for a different problem, this is nothing new as many nations and elements from within Iran have been executing similar programs even before the war in Iraq.

ps, Is your Churchill quote directed at the US detention of suspected terrorists? If so, you have taken it out of context. It is political statement to garner support for what we came to know as the Cold War.

 

[dahunan]

I wonder what country helped get Bush and the PNAC terrorists elected? - Does it start with an I

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: jonjonsanfru


ps, Is your Churchill quote directed at the US detention of suspected terrorists? If so, you have taken it out of context. It is political statement to garner support for what we came to know as the Cold War.

Oh it is taken out of context because Churchill is long dead?

It is a statement of principle. It is still true.

 

[Lemon law]

Actually its somewhat of a take off on what George Orwell said in Animal Farm and 1984---the Orwell writing were aimed at the communists---but GWB has proved he is the reining world champion of hypocrisies and able to well exceed any communistic moral bankruptcy's. And now Iran is turning into a bigger GWB boogie man than Al-Quida. And its Al-Quida---not any I word country is what got GWB and his merry band elected. And as all can now see, GWB&co. is now allying itself to Al-Quida in Palestine, the Kurdish regions of Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

But the arbitrary detention of of individuals without a specific charge long predates Churchill. Its was an integral part of our revolution against a mad king George.---and its prohibition is enshrined in our constitution in the bill of rights. Now another mad king George has brought detention without a charge back for universal world condemnation.

I am not a Iranian fan, but compared to GWB, Iran is a model world citizen. As a US citizen, its painful to post those facts. My only excuse is that I never voted for GWB.

 

[jonjonsanfru]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Oh it is taken out of context because Churchill is long dead?

It is a statement of principle. It is still true.

I didn't specify that it was out of context because he was dead, I said it is being taken out of context because you are forgetting Churchill was a politician - and as a politician he needs to garner support for his agenda. Just because Churchill is dead, it does not mean he was beyond leveling a classic adage against tyranny in an attempt receive public support for turning on England's wartime ally. THAT is what I mean by context. Are you saying that the Allies gave every single prisoner taken a trial before he put into prison? There is a fudged between POWs and Prisoners, in that 'war' is an ambiguous term.

Anyway you slice it, we didn't start the fire, we were a fledgling world power at the time the current Middle East situation was created. In that we played a more recent hand in the situation on the ground today does not put the blame firmly on our shoulders. Our current administration has taken steps WITH public approval, and within our time honored institutions (unless you are advocating overturning our current system, something the Founding Fathers also believed in). Loyal Anti-Bushies believe that what they put onto forums and news outlets constitutes the general will of the nation.

What constitutes a "Model Global Citizen?" The United States is very conscious of the global opinion and reactive to it, while Iran has taken a hard line stance on anything the global community has to say... Unless you think the UN and the IAEA are merely puppets of the US Governmet...

 

[palehorse]

That sounds like a fantastic plan to me!

Ya gotta love it when the media takes it upon themselves to expose, and perhaps derail, some of our most worthwhile intelligence operations; simply because of a potential jump in the ratings... idiots.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ya gotta love it when the media takes it upon themselves to expose, and perhaps derail, some of our most worthwhile intelligence operations; simply because of a potential jump in the ratings... idiots.

...Or a political bias so extreme, so severe, they would willingly compromise national security and put lives in danger. Such has become the state of the modern liberal media.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ya gotta love it when the media takes it upon themselves to expose, and perhaps derail, some of our most worthwhile intelligence operations; simply because of a potential jump in the ratings... idiots.

...Or a political bias so extreme, so severe, they would willingly compromise national security and put lives in danger. Such has become the state of the modern liberal media.

These are acts of sedition against us, by our own country.

However, I give pause to wonder. While I believe we should destroy Iran, and operations like these are helpful to our end, should not the President be required to ask for some sort of declaration of war before committing acts of war?

 

[1prophet]

Bombs and bullets don't scare them and can actually make them stronger.

Women uncovering themselves and men having long hair or looking like westerners, now that scares them.😉

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
These are acts of sedition against us, by our own country.

However, I give pause to wonder. While I believe we should destroy Iran, and operations like these are helpful to our end, should not the President be required to ask for some sort of declaration of war before committing acts of war?

What makes you think Congress isn't aware of this 'sedition'?

And, under the Constitution, the President doesn't need a declaration of war to begin one. He does have to explain the situation after 90 days and go to Congress for funds but nothing prohibits him from "committing" an act of war (which I do not believe this falls under.)

 

[DealMonkey]

Ahhh, the soft bigotry of setting the bar for revolution far too low. Sad and disappointing.

 

[Lemon law]

The words of Country Joe and the Fish still resonates.

Come on all you big strong men. Uncle Sam needs your help again. He got himself in a hell of a jam. Why off yonder in---insert location of the moment.

And don't forget the Yipee we are going to die.

One two three four. What the hell are we fighting for? I don't know and don't give a damn. Send me off to---insert location of the moment.

What ever happened to the Monroe doctrine, staying home, and minding our own business?

The devil always finds work for evil politicians to do.

 

[Jeff7]

If, and only if, this sort of thing would prevent an open war, I think it's worth it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Ya gotta love it when the media takes it upon themselves to expose, and perhaps derail, some of our most worthwhile intelligence operations; simply because of a potential jump in the ratings... idiots.

...Or a political bias so extreme, so severe, they would willingly compromise national security and put lives in danger. Such has become the state of the modern liberal media.

Only if you're really dumb enough to believe this actually takes place or that this information wasn't purposefully leaked. If you believe otherwise, you're not very intelligent. FYI.

 

[First]

^ Oh, and in case you're slow, the reason why you'd have to be mostly stupid to believe this is anything but U.S. intelligence being purposefully leaked; Brian Ross (the ABC reporter who did this story) gave the White House/CIA six days to voice their displeasure/kill the story. No such displeasure was voiced, both according to ABC and even resident neocon network Fox. In fact, Fox had a couple analysts strongly support this ABC story because of this very reality.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
These are acts of sedition against us, by our own country.

However, I give pause to wonder. While I believe we should destroy Iran, and operations like these are helpful to our end, should not the President be required to ask for some sort of declaration of war before committing acts of war?

What makes you think Congress isn't aware of this 'sedition'?

My reference to sedition is in our media reporting to everyone about our covert-ops. It is a grievous act of betrayal. If someone in our government gave this information to them, we should find that traitor and execute them immediately. If this person is not given up, the reporter holding out for him can take his place.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The words of Country Joe and the Fish still resonates.

Come on all you big strong men. Uncle Sam needs your help again. He got himself in a hell of a jam. Why off yonder in---insert location of the moment.

And don't forget the Yipee we are going to die.

One two three four. What the hell are we fighting for? I don't know and don't give a damn. Send me off to---insert location of the moment.

What ever happened to the Monroe doctrine, staying home, and minding our own business?

The devil always finds work for evil politicians to do.

The words to the first verse are:

Come on all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again,

Got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Vietnam.

So put down your books, and pick up a gun,

Cause we're gonna have a whole lotta fun!

And it's One Two Three, What are we fighting for?

Don't ask me I don't give a damn.

Next stop is Vietnam.

And it's Five, Six, Seven, Open up the Pearly Gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why,

Whoopee we're all gonna die!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
My reference to sedition is in our media reporting to everyone about our covert-ops. It is a grievous act of betrayal. If someone in our government gave this information to them, we should find that traitor and execute them immediately. If this person is not given up, the reporter holding out for him can take his place.

I agree 100%. Leaking national security secrets in the middle of a war is treason and should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
That sounds like a fantastic plan to me!

Ya gotta love it when the media takes it upon themselves to expose, and perhaps derail, some of our most worthwhile intelligence operations; simply because of a potential jump in the ratings... idiots.

so it is OK for the U.S to support groups that blow themselves up

whereas it is not OK for Iran to support such groups?

Interesting.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
These are acts of sedition against us, by our own country.

However, I give pause to wonder. While I believe we should destroy Iran, and operations like these are helpful to our end, should not the President be required to ask for some sort of declaration of war before committing acts of war?

Umm...wow. Why do you want to "destroy" Iran?

While I will not defend Iran (I don't agree with their gov't, or their actions), they are a sovereign country, just like the US.

Tell me, what gives us the right to try and overthrow another country?

Also, why do most people think we have a "right" to do things like that, without the country retaliating against us?

And what would you think if Iran tried to fund some US-based group that was trying to destabilize the US? Because that is exactly what we are doing to Iran. I bet most people would be like "bomb them or invade them", or something like that.

Like I said above, I don't agree with Iran, but what gives us the right to expect no retaliation from Iran when we are basically funding terrorists to attack/destabilize Iran.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
These are acts of sedition against us, by our own country.

However, I give pause to wonder. While I believe we should destroy Iran, and operations like these are helpful to our end, should not the President be required to ask for some sort of declaration of war before committing acts of war?

Umm...wow. Why do you want to "destroy" Iran?

While I will not defend Iran (I don't agree with their gov't, or their actions), they are a sovereign country, just like the US.

Tell me, what gives us the right to try and overthrow another country?

Also, why do most people think we have a "right" to do things like that, without the country retaliating against us?

And what would you think if Iran tried to fund some US-based group that was trying to destabilize the US? Because that is exactly what we are doing to Iran. I bet most people would be like "bomb them or invade them", or something like that.

Like I said above, I don't agree with Iran, but what gives us the right to expect no retaliation from Iran when we are basically funding terrorists to attack/destabilize Iran.

Did no one tell you? This is America. We've been given explicit permission from God Himself (via direct communication with George W Bush) to kill anyone non-American if they don't do exactly as we tell them to. Also, God expressly told Bush that this country is to be a Christian nation led by white, straight men and that anyone who doesn't expressly agree with Bush is a liberal communist America hater.

 

[jonjonsanfru]

several non-military measures

distributing propaganda

Jundullah carried out attacks on Iranian forces in the past. The measure of US contact with and support of the Jundullah militia remains unknown.

Originally posted by: Aimster
so it is OK for the U.S to support groups that blow themselves up
whereas it is not OK for Iran to support such groups?
Interesting.

I missed the part where the article mentions we're actively seeking suicide bombers? I take it that Loyal Anti-Bushies can jump to conclusions but anyone else can not? Also to those using "who gives them the right?" Who gives you the right? Who gives me the right? Is there some flying spaghetti monster I need to consult with before I make any decisions? When you think about the Middle East, you can not look at it from your eyes alone - it is a global scale problem. This outcry against Iran does not stem entirely from the United States. The United States is not the only nation calling Iran out for their hard line stances... unless you consider the UN and IAEA part of the US government? Iran was overrun in a non-popular revolt in the 80s, too which many of those residing in Iran disagree with. If Iran where to cease Uranium Enrichment and be less restrictive upon their population, the world wouldn't have to consider their options in regards to how to handle Iran.

So again, these are WORLD ISSUES - not US ONLY ISSUES.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
My reference to sedition is in our media reporting to everyone about our covert-ops. It is a grievous act of betrayal. If someone in our government gave this information to them, we should find that traitor and execute them immediately. If this person is not given up, the reporter holding out for him can take his place.

I agree 100%. Leaking national security secrets in the middle of a war is treason and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Well, given that we've just started negotiations with Iran over (meddling in) Iraq security, wouldn't it just be easier, and less time consuming, to leak our ability/intent to "meddle back" in Iran. Why have to wait before they uncover it to use it as a bargining chip?

Wouldn't it be nice if in negotiations with Iran if we really had something to trade them if they agreed to stay out of Iraq? Currently we got nothing with the (im)possible exception of looking the other way while they continue with thier nuke program.

So, the "leaking" may just be as purposeful and timely as our destabilization efforts (i.e., we got a new bargining chip).

Fern