White House silent on coverts ops in Iran
WASHINGTON —
The White House declined to comment Monday on a news report that U.S. lawmakers last year approved $400 million to ramp up covert operations in Iran to undermine Tehran’s leadership.
“I couldn’t comment either way,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said after The New Yorker magazine reported that Congress passed President George W Bush’s funding request for a dramatic increase in such secret operations.
Asked about the likelihood of U.S. military action against Tehran’s disputed nuclear program before the president leaves office in January 2009, Perino said Bush “is singularly focused on trying to solve this issue diplomatically.”
The New Yorker, which cited former military, intelligence and congressional souces, said the funding revealed a “major escalation” in clandestine operations aimed at destabilizing the Islamic republic’s religious leadership amid concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Among the methods being used are increased U.S. support for minority and dissident groups and intelligence gathering about Iran’s nuclear facilities, said the article, written and reported by Seymour Hersh.
Although such covert activities in Iran are not new on the part of the United States, the magazine said the “scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded.”
However, U.S. ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on Sunday flatly rejected the allegation of cross-border operations from Iraq into Iran.
“I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran,” he told CNN television.
Wire reports
Order by Time Order by Popularity
24 Comments
Login to comment
0
SezWho2
Well, I'm sure we would never try to undermine an Iranian government. Where could Seymour Hersch have gotten such a silly idea!
0
Sarge
Duh!
0
sabiwabi
covert operations? Is that what they call terrorism when it is our side that is doing it?
0
Zen_Builder
For me all part of the build-up to another war.
1.) Covert Ops.
2.) Irag needing to approve the US troops launching attacks on other countries. And they will get it.
3.) Israel doing exercises that can target Iran, etc.
4.) The writing is on the wall. And it will happen soon.
By the end of the year Iran will be attacked. Not sure how Saudi Arabia, Opec, etc will react but I see trouble ahead.
Guys fasten your seatbelts, things will get worse from here onwards.
0
WilliB
But of course, a proper covert operation must be published in detail. How horrible of GWB too keep them secret.
0
skipthesong
If covert, “I couldn’t comment either way,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said after The New Yorker magazine reported" how could she possible know. Aren't covert ops only known to a select few?
0
adaydream
Covert my butt.
This administration has made it known for a long time that they wanted to attack Iran. Covert ops is just a normal part of snooping and pooping to attack them. < :-)
0
SuperLib
Awesome.
0
rjd_jr
"Good news" is, if you're struggling in the American economy and looking for a job, and under 42 years of age (with no prior military service), you can always sign up and do your 20 and retire. The military is probably one of the last 'secure' occupations out there, relatively speaking. Unless you're a total dirt bag, it's not like they're going to fire you.
0
Madverts
Heh, we already knew crocker was full of b/s, but this one:
"I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran"
...is on a par with Rumsfelt's "we know where they are".
0
Taka313
Pick your poison:
Be stone-walled or lied to.
Taka
0
skipthesong
Ok, the New Yorker, which is more known for short stories and going ons in the world, has the ability to find that there are covert ops going on inside Iran - how? how doe the New Yorker find these sources, but other leading news sources don't. And how could the US operate covert ops inside Iran? The stuff is for the movies.
Additionally, the NY Times is now says it has a source that advises Israel that it has less than one year to do something about Iran or face the ultimate.
It would seem to me that the true beneficiaries of wars and conflicts is of course the media.
rjd: "The military is probably one of the last 'secure' occupations out there, relatively speaking." That's real weak, there is going to be enough work out there if you look for it for a while.
0
sabiwabi
"Don't believe anything until it has been officially denied" is a statement I initially found odd but which I am more and more finding out to be very true.
So when they say "I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran" ...
0
Zen_Builder
Seems to have disappeared but I saw news about the report on both BBC and CNN sites a few hours ago.
0
Betzee
We've actually been doing this for a while. The problem is it hasn't been successful, trying to foment unrest amongst Iran's large Azeri minority, for example. Any unrest which does occur is immediately denounced by Tehran as backed by foreigners to attack the patriotism of the perpetrators.
0
buddha4brains
"It would seem to me that the true beneficiaries of wars and conflicts is of course the media."
So what you are saying is that the Bush Administration is so weak that the media can start a war all by itself so it can sell more news. So Chaney's Desire to mix it up with Iran plays no part in this?
What drugs are you on?
0
WilliB
The US government would be criminally insane if it did not try to weaken the genocidal mullah government in Teheran. That they are not sucessful in that and that the American media try their best to sabotage any secret action is another matter.
0
buddha4brains
WilliB the US government is criminally insane.
They gave up trying to catch bin Laben years ago, al Quaida has regrouped, and they started a war on false pretenses. It is quite a feat that the Bush Administration is so poorly regarded that Iran can even muster international sympathy if not outright support.
Criminality, it seems, knows no borders and has no political affiliation - as the Bush/Cheney duo have demonstrated and will no doubt try to display again with Iran.
0
RedMeatKoolAid
"...al Quaida has regrouped, and they started a war on false pretenses."
Do continue. You sound really informed there.
0
Himajin
Truly a headline to make you want to say ,'Well, like, duh....'
0
jeancolmar
War with Iran, just in time for the election. I warned that this was going to happen months ago. Another Bush war seems certain now. Watch the media buckle under and watch McCain get elected as he sings "Bomb Iran." Thus Bushism will continue to rule.
0
Helter_Skelter
The sooner Iran's nuclear facilities are taken out the better. How will Saudi Arabia, Opec react? I think, like most of the countries in the ME, they'll be relieved. Especially some of the Sunni-dominated countries.
0
buddha4brains
RedMeatKoolAid
What, you think al Quaida has not regrouped? Do tell us why.
As for the war in Iraq there are two main schools of thought, I happen to believe that Bush/Cheney wanted war in the worst way - and they got it.
Now a similar pattern is emerging with Iran beginning with the ramping up the rhetoric/propaganda which is a precursor to war.
If you disagree, then make your case.
0
SuperLib
But we've been hearing statements like, "same pattern as Iraq" and "mark my words" for years from the fear-mongers, yet nothing has happened.
Back to top