IRAN: Word of Bush's alleged covert war hits Tehran

New Yorker magazine investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s article this week alleging a major upping of the American campaign to fund and back covert operations against Iran became major news in Tehran today.

The 6,000-word article alleged a secret campaign to fund ethnic separatist groups fighting the Iranian government and U.S. commandos scooping up intel on clandestine forays onto Iranian soil.

But for both supporters and opponents of the Iranian government one thing stood out in the report above all else: the price tag.

Hersh alleges that the U.S. Congress secretly OKd up to $400 million to fund such activities.

To Iranians, that’s a lot of cash that you can throw around at a lot of people to do a lot of things.

Television news shows went bonkers with the report. “Sabotage of the U.S. in Iran and a new wave of psychological warfare,” was the title of one televised roundtable discussion.

One expert on the show called the Americans’ alleged move “state terrorism” that violated international law and the U.N. charter forbidding interference in the affairs of other countries.

Others called the U.S. Congress’ alleged approval of so much money late last year a strategic milestone that the Iranian government would have to address.

“We understand that  the US administration is sending conflicting signals,”  Iranian lawmaker Kazem Jalali said. “On the one hand they send signals to say they want to negotiate. On the other hand, they try to bully.”

Iranian moderates and dissidents worry that that news of the price tag would bring civil society and pro-democracy groups under even greater suspicion.

Here’s Mohammad Marandi, head of the North American studies department at Tehran University, in a brief interview today with the Los Angeles Times:

From now on, the authorities in Tehran can refer to the article and say this is evidence that America is supporting the separatists and subversive groups. If the U.S. is looking to open the space in Iran, these kinds of budgets are counterproductive. From now on the social and political groups will be under more scrutiny, and the wall of mistrust between the two countries will be greater than before.

For his own sake, Marandi said he’s going to be extra careful to vet all invitations from abroad to make sure he’s not being brought to a U.S. government sponsored event and all requests for visiting American scholars to make sure they’re not spooks.

Human rights attorney Mohammad Ali Dadkhah said word of the cash was bad news for those fighting slowly for change in Iran. He once turned down an offer from Holland to fund a human rights center where he works. “In our norms and tradition, only bad and corrupted politicians are under payroll of foreigners, no matter which country,” he said in an interview.

Even if the government doesn’t crack down, the news of the cash will strain ties between dissident leaders and ordinary people.

“People are very sensitive to any penny received by their intellectuals and dissidents from abroad for democracy,” Reza Kaviani, a student activist, told The Times.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that the article or parts of it are wrong, or that even though Bush got cash approved, he hasn't spent it yet.

For their part, U.S. officials have either remained mum or denied some of the allegations in the article, particularly the claim of cross-border commando raids into Iran from southern Iraq.

Abul-Fazel Amoee, a Tehran political scientist close to the hardliners, was a skeptic. He told the Times he thought the article was probably nothing more than psychological warfare, and that Hersh was a has-been:

Seymour Hersh is not well-reputed in Iran any longer. His credentials have been tarnished because of his incorrect predictions regarding attacks on Iran. The U.S. government leaks news of the $400 million, and he writes the article. The U.S. administration is somehow continuing its psychological warfare operations.

— Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran and Borzou Daragahi in Beirut

Photo: Seymour Hersh in 2006. Credit: Stanford University news service

Comments

[Annie]

What Kiumars says is true. If there were no oil under that God-forsaken hellhole, the US would have never come there in the first place.

Going forward, it it shall be our foreigh policy to preemptively strike other countries in order to appropriate their natural resources, I actually have no problem with that. My chief problem is with the smarmy subtrefuge of "spreading democracy" under which we achieve regime change. If our foreign policy is to be imperialistic, at least we should have the "moral" courage to admit it! And why stop with Iran? There're oil reserves a whole lot closer to our shores such as Venezuela and Mexico. If we decide to "spread democracy" to those countries at least it will not create such a logistical nightmare as sending our best and brightest to die in that meat grinder currently operating in Iraq.

Too bad there's no oil under the Darfur region of Sudan or Rawanda. Maybe all those people wouldn't have died.

[Annie]

I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Hersh a more likely scenario, to wit...

President Mahmoud Ahmenidijad will obtain a nuclear device from either that paragon of mental health and ally, Kim Jong Il of north Korea or from one of the republics of that nuclear arsenal that used to be a country, the old USSR. Unable to contain himself, President Ahmenidijad will launch a strike against Israel, a country he has denied the right to exist. Israel, flush with pride in their fleet of nuclear capable submarines, now numbering four will retaliate in the blink of an eye, without hesitation and without remorse or pity.

The missiles carried by Israel's submarine fleet will reach Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and possibly even Baghdad within minutes. The entire Middle East region will go up in nuclear Armageddon, drawing China and Russia into the fray along with those two other members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan as well.

The United States will not preemptively attack Iran because to do so at this time is not politically feasible; nor is it physically possible given the strain on the American military due to the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Regardless of how sincerely deluded is our president about bringing 18th century American democracy to Islamic theocracies who would not recognize "democracy" were it to kiss them on both cheeks; a decision on his part to take an action so mindlessly reckless would provoke open revolt among the Joint Chief of Staff and the military in general.

No, my dears...

As much as President Bush would desire to secure his "legacy," as well as his father's and put one in the win column before his second term ends, the US will not preemptively attack Iran because it violates Annie's Fourth Law of Politics:

1. Get elected.

2. Get re-elected.

3. Don't get mad, get even.

4. Whatever action an elected official takes MUST be politically feasible.

Sadly, for President Bush, an attack on Iran is not!

[Jason]

It's funny that American thinking about regime change in Iran. Wake up. You have the most corrupted regime in the world. You have a president who lies better than speaking. You have a vise president that dreams of oil. They lied to you and started a war that you lost more than 4000 young soldiers and you got more than 40000 disabled. Your economy is collapsed and .......... Go and think about a regime change in your country. I don't talk about your corrupted media.

[Intellectually Honest]

We are living by the sword, fellow Americans. I think we will be hit by physical destruction, even though many others predict our destruction will be economic. Of course, if we are hit by the physical destruction of a nuclear attack, that would be economic destruction, too.

I don't have much optimism for the world, let alone the U.S. One thing about the policies of the past six years: Because the U.S. owes the world so much money, if something happens to us, that's bad for the world. It's like we have the Samson Option here in the U.S., too, just like Israel. Barack is our only hope.

[Audeamus]

This has Cheney written all over it. How this guy got into power is a story worthy of anything Machiavelli wrote about. History will not be kind to him.

[Bijan]

Hey Randy,
It is easy to talk. What are you doing here? You should be in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting.

Some people watch too many John Wayne movies.

[gloria badal]

I want to know what the armchair general who said we should team up with Israel "to get this done" thinks the U.S. and Israel should do? Nuke Iran? Do you think that Russia will stand by and let you use nuclear weapons on a country that lies on their border? By the way, this is how world wars get started. Should we go in with ground troops? Another brilliant idea. Iran is not Iraq (although I'm not sure that Bush is aware of the difference). Unlike Iran, Iraq is a country literally drawn into existence by an English woman named Gertrude Bell when the British and French were successful in conquering the Ottomans and dividing up the empire. Over 60% of the population is Shi'a and 35% Sunni, not to mention the large population of ethnic Kurds and 3-5% Christian Assyrians. Iran is over 90% Shi'a Muslim. Iran's national identity is thousands of years old. Iranians are extremely nationalistic, eventhough they detest this current theocracy. An invasion of Iran would result in tens of thousands of U.S. casualties. Do you think that Americans are ready to spill more of their children's blood for Israel, oil, world domination, Halliburton ...whatever? Do you think that the old "Weapons of Mass Destruction" story will work again?

Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy in the last eight years has been as thoughtful as some of these posts that want to "get the job done." It may lend some credibility to your position if your president had gotten either of his other two jobs done (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq).

[Randy Harris]

We need to blow Iran up before they attack us. It's either going to be mushroom clouds all around the Iranian desert countryside or mushroom clouds here at home in Washington, New York or Los Angeles. Kill or be killed. It's that simple. Personally, I really wouldn't feel bad if we nuked all of them. Iranians. Iraqis. Saudis. All of them. The "energy crises" would sure get sorted out in a hurry if wer did. Bush needs to act boldly before some wuss gets elected to our country's highest office.

[Janice Silverman]

So now we're going to start another "preemptive war," despite our own national intelligence estimate stating that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Here we go again. It seems clear that the Bushies plan to get us into another unnecessary war before leaving office, and no one and nothing is standing in the way. Brave, isolated souls like Seymour Hersh are doing journalism's job in democracy,but the rest of media will again keep it off the front pages and out of the TV headlines, except for some cooperative propaganda, until it's too late. Then everyone will say, woe is me, how did this happen again? Sigh ...

[mike arrington]

Sy Hersh is irrelevant. We need to act in concert with Israel and get this done. Without mercy.

[Bijan]

AIPAC and neocons know no limit. And everyone is quiet while domination and genocide of certain nations are on-going.

It is time to wake-up and change things before it is too late.

[Robert Biegler]

We bash Iran for helping insurgents in IRAQ while at the same time funding insurgents in IRAN. With these sorts of policies we will never be respected. Let's try acting like a responsible, respectable country. Note to World. I believe that most Americans do not support these Actions. Hopefully we won't be stupid enough to elect McWar. Although we probably will because of all the damn Racist pigs that will vote McWar just because he is white. The Greatest Generation my ASS. How do we think we can run the world when we can't even take care of our own house. Even if we were smart enough to elect Obama some dumb ass redneck will probably shoot him! That will just make it worse.

[Ricky]

Just more of the same. From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.

[Wilbur Varela]

The best way to achieve the overthrow of the corrupt Iranian theocracy is to let them do if for us. Do not give them an excuse to attack others. Their system is built on an unsustainable oil economy, which diverts billions to the ruling class. Iran's birthrate is falling, their women are turning to prostitution, and their islamic institutions are regarded with cynicism by the majority of educated people. Leave Iran alone, and they will collapse, just like the soviet union.

[carlc]

That ought to win hearts and minds in Islamaland.

[Kiumars]

Regardless of the article being true or false the fact is that the USA is the enemy of every single Iranian.

USA has never been Iran’s friend; facts like the coup of 1953, de-nationalizing Iran’s oil and robbing 90% of it till 1979, USA’s support of the Shah and his US & Israeli made SAVAK to kill the Iranian Muslims and Nationalists, and stealing over $10 billions of Iranian assets deposited in the USA are just a few facts that every intelligent Iranian knows by heart.

USA has been our enemy in the past, is our enemy today, and will be our enemy in the future as long as there is Oil and Gas in Iran. Just read the news to see how USA is trying to rob Iraq’s Oil today!