Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert
"black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and
former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on
ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a
"nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that
reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation
and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial
transactions. 
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the
president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American
approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce
Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and
other countries in the region.  
Click Here to See Photos of the Players in Another Iran Operation -- the
Iran-Contra Affair: Where Are They Now?
A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The
White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson
said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert
activity."
The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and
received approval from White House officials and other officials in the
intelligence community.
Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its
nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.
"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do
things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the
administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and
would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke,
a former White House counterterrorism official.
Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert
action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not
to pursue a military option against Iran.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
Blotter Crackdown on the Secret War Against Iran 
Blotter Pakistan Denounces ABC News Report on Backing Iran Radicals 
Blotter ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran 
Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows
"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military
strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to
the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had
dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at
a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear
bomb in two years.  
Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool
available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to
fund the nuclear program.
"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do,
in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be
extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find
them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation
center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.    
Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out
such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection"
operations without a presidential finding.
"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and other key congressional leaders.
The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may
not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran.
Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great
risks.
"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already
afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the
region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct
senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive,
and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of
escalation can follow," Nasr said.
Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al
Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were
National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security
Advisor Elliott Abrams.  
"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one
intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his
chop on it."
Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign
government led to criminal charges. 
He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding
information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated
efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central
America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by
President George H. W. Bush in December 1992. 
In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for
democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005,
National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the
president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy
strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions. 
As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has
supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has
conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged
Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."
U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the
leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials. 
American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons
through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence
service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.
A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had
captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps
of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."
A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of
Jundullah. 
The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official,
has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified
missions" across the border in Iran.
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 ABCNews.com.
Tipo questo:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/143208
Seymour Hersh: U.S. Indirectly Backed Islamist Militants Fighting
Lebanese Army
JUAN GONZALEZ: Lebanon's defense minister has said Islamist militants
entrenched in a Palestinian refugee camp must surrender or face
further military action. The ultimatum followed three days of fierce
fighting between the army and the Fatah al-Islam group. The army has
laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared camp since the fighting erupted on
Sunday, bombarding it with tank fire and artillery shells. At least
eighty people have died, with dozens more wounded.
On Wednesday, an informal ceasefire enabled thousands of residents to
flee the camp. Some headed for another Palestinian refugee camp
nearby, while others traveled to the neighboring city of Tripoli. The
International Committee of the Red Cross estimates between 13,000 and
15,000 refugees have left Nahr al-Bared. The camp is home to 30,000
people. The internal conflict is the bloodiest in Lebanon since the
civil war ended seventeen years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: The Lebanese government accuses Fatah al-Islam of having
ties with al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. But there's another
theory of who's backing the militant group: the Lebanese government
itself, along with the United States. Last March, investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker magazine that the
US and Saudi governments are covertly backing militant Sunni groups
like Fatah al-Islam as part of an overarching foreign policy against
Iran and growing Shia influence.
Seymour Hersh joins us now on the phone from his home in Washington,
D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sy.
SEYMOUR HERSH: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what you learned?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, very simply -- this is over the winter -- the
government made -- I think the article is called "The Redirection."
There was a major change of policy by the United States government,
essentially, which was that we were going to -- the American
government would join with the Brits and other Western allies and with
what we call the moderate Sunni governments -- that is, the
governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- and join with them
and with Israel to fight the Shia.
One of the major goals for America, of course, was the obsession the
Bush White House has with Iran, and the other obsession they have is,
of course -- is in fear -- is of Hezbollah, the Party of God, that is
so dominant in -- the Shia Party of God that's so dominant in southern
Lebanon that once -- and whose leader Hassan Nasrallah wants to play a
bigger political role and is doing quite a bit to get there and is in
direct confrontation with Siniora.
And so, you have a situation where the Sunni government, pretty much
in control now, the American-supported Sunni government headed by
Fouad Siniora, who was a deputy or an aide to Rafik Hariri, the slain
leader of Lebanon, that government has -- we know, the International
Crisis Group reported a couple years ago that the son Saad Hariri, the
son of Rafik Hariri, who's now a major player in the parliament of
Lebanon, he put up $40,000 bail to free four Sunni fundamentalists,
Jihadist-Salafists -- which you will -- who were tied directly to --
you know, this word "al-Qaeda" is sort of ridiculous -- they were tied
to jihadist groups. And God knows, al-Qaeda, in terms of Osama bin
Laden, doesn't have much to do with what we're talking about. These
are independently, more or less, you can call them, fanatical
jihadists.
And so, the goal -- part of the goal in Lebanon, part of the way this
policy played out, was, with Saudi help, Prince Bandar -- if you
remember him -- we remember Prince Bandar, the Saudi prince, as a
major player in Iran-Contra and also in the American effort two
decades ago -- if you remember, we supported Osama bin Laden and other
jihadists in Afghanistan against the Russians, and that didn't work
out so well. Well, we run right back to the well again, and we began
supporting some of these jihadist groups, and particularly -- in the
article, I did name Fatah al-Islam.
The idea was to provide them with some arms and some money and some
basic equipment so -- these are small units, a couple hundred people.
There were three or four around the country given the same help
covertly, the goal being they would be potential enemies of Hezbollah
in case of warfare; in case Nasrallah decided to do something
physical, get kinetic, in Lebanon, the Sunni Siniora government would
have some very tough guys on its side, period. That's the policy.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Sy Hersh, if that is true, then what has led to
the current fighting now? If the Lebanese government had been backing
the group, why is it now attacking it?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, first of all, the Lebanese army is very distinct.
Let me begin by saying nobody really knows anything right now. I mean,
there's a lot -- one of the things about crises is you learn that you
really get to play much later. But based on common sense and what I'm
reading, the Lebanese army has maintained an amazing sort of
neutrality, which is surprising. The army has not been a pawn of the
Siniora government.
As you know, the American government -- the American position right
now -- there's a stand-off politically. You cannot discuss what's
going on without discussing the overall politics. There's a stand-off
politically right now, a very serious one, in Lebanon. The government
is polarized. The government in power really has no legal basis to
make any changes in cabinet positions, etc., because it's not a
constitutional government, because Hezbollah, which had five members
of the parliament -- five members of the cabinet and a dozen or so
members in the parliament, Hezbollah pulled out months ago. And there
were street protests, protests against Siniora. And right now, you
have Hezbollah in league with a Christian leader named Aoun, a former
chief of staff for the army. Aoun and Nasrallah are in an amazing
partnership against the Siniora government. And where this breaks down
and who's going to win this stand-off -- it's been going on since last
December -- isn't clear. America clearly supports Siniora. But there's
a big brutal fight going. And the Lebanese army stayed out of it and
was pretty much, very much, independent, in the sense that when there
were street demonstrations, they did not beat up on the Nasrallah
people. They were very impartial.
So I think the story that we have is that there was a crime, and they
were chasing people into one of the Palestinian camps, which are
always hotbeds. God knows the Palestinians are the end of the stick,
not only for the West, but also for the Arab world. Nobody pays much
attention to them and those places. I've been to Tripoli and been into
the camps, and they are seething, as they should be. You know,
rational people don't like being mistreated. And in any case, so what
you have is, what seems to me, just a series -- the word you could use
is "unintended consequences." I don't think anybody in the Siniora
government anticipated that the people they were covertly supporting
to some degree -- I got an email the other day, and I have not checked
this out, from somebody who was in the community, in the intelligence
community and still consults with the community, he says, "Why don't
we ask more about the American arms that the fighters of Fatah al-
Islam have, are brandishing?" I don't know if that's true or not, but
I did get that email. And so, that could be true. Both Saudi money and
American money, not directly, but indirectly, was fed into these
groups.
And what is the laugh riot and the reason I'm actually talking to you
guys about this -- I usually don't like to do interviews unless I have
a story in The New Yorker -- the reason I'm talking about it is
because the American government keeps on putting out this story that
Syria is behind the Fatah group, which is just beyond belief. There's
no way -- it may be possible, but the chances of it are very slight,
simply because Syria is a very big supporter, obviously, of Nasrallah,
and Bashar al-Assad has told me that he's in awe of Nasrallah, that he
worships at his feet and has great respect for him. The idea that the
Syrians would be sponsoring Sunni jihadist groups whose sole mission
are to kill the apostates -- that is, anybody who doesn't support
their view, the Wahhabi or Salafist view of Sunni religion -- that
includes the Shia -- anybody who doesn't believe -- support these
guys' religions are apostates and are killable, that's basically one
of the crazy aspects of all this, and it's just inconceivable. Nothing
can be ruled out, but that doesn't make much case, and I noticed that
in the papers today there's fewer and fewer references to this. The
newspapers in America are beginning to wise up, that this can't be --
this isn't very logical. The White House is putting it out hot and
heavy as part of the anti-Syria campaign, but it's not flying, because
it doesn't make sense. So there we are. It's another mess.
You might think that one of the reasons -- I think I wrote about this
in The New Yorker -- one of the things that the Saudi Bandar had
promised us was that we can control the jihadists. We can control
them, he assured us. Don't worry about getting in bed with these bad
guys, because, as we remember, the same kind of assurances were given
to us in the late 1980s, when we supported, as I said, bin Laden and
others in the war against Russia, the Mujahideen war, and that, of
course, bit us on the ass. And this is, too. So there we are.
AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, what about the role of Vice President Dick
Cheney, the Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you always -- any time you have violent anti-Iran
policy and anti-Shia policy, you have to start looking there. Look,
clearly this president is deeply involved in this, too, but what I
hear from my people, of course, the players -- it's always Cheney,
Cheney. Cheney meets with Bush at least once a week. They have a
lunch. They usually have a scheduled lunch. And out of that comes a
lot of big decisions. We don't know what's ever said at that meeting.
And this is -- talk about being opaque, this is a government that is
so hidden from us.
So I can't -- I can tell you that -- you know, the thing that's
amazing about this government, the thing that's really spectacular, is
even now how they can get their way mostly with a lot of the American
press. For example, I do know -- and, you know, you have to take it on
face value. If you've been reading me for a long time, you know a lot
of the things I write are true or come out to be more or less true. I
do know that within the last month, maybe four, four-and-a-half weeks
ago, they made a decision that because of the totally dwindling
support for the war in Iraq, we go back to the al-Qaeda card, and we
start talking about al-Qaeda. And the next thing you know, right after
that, Bush went to the Southern Command -- this was a month ago -- and
talked, mentioned al-Qaeda twenty-seven times in his speech. He did so
just the other day this week -- al-Qaeda this, al-Qaeda that. All of a
sudden, the poor Iraqi Sunnis, I mean, they can't do anything without
al-Qaeda. It's only al-Qaeda that's dropping the bombs and causing
mayhem. It's not the Sunni and Shia insurgents or militias. And this
policy just gets picked up, although there's absolutely no empirical
basis. Most of the pros will tell you the foreign fighters are a
couple percent, and then they're sort of leaderless in the sense that
there's no overall direction of the various foreign fighters. You
could call them al-Qaeda. You can also call them jihadists and
Salafists that want to die fighting the Americans or the occupiers in
Iraq and they come across the border. Whether this is -- there's no
attempt to suggest there's any significant coordination of these
groups by bin Laden or anybody else, and the press just goes gaga. And
so, they went gaga a little bit over the Syrian connection to the
activities in Tripoli. It's just amazing to me, you guys.
AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, I want to thank you very much for being
with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, writes for The New Yorker
magazine, speaking to us from Washington, D.C.


Equivale ad una dichiarazione di guerra.
Vigliacca perche' manca del coraggio necessario a non essere ipocriti.
Saluti
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/