Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

US Sponsored Terrorism in Iran?

Posted by Larisa Alexandrovna at 8:25 AM on February 15, 2007.


Larisa Alexandrovna: All signs point to 'yes'...
150
mirror

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

I think people should be very concerned about the following:

"A car loaded with explosives blew up near a bus carrying members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards in southeastern Iran, killing 18 of them, the state-run news agency reported today.

The car stopped in front of the bus near Zahedan, the capital of Sistan-Baluchestan Province, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. It called the attack a terrorist operation and said the car's occupants fled on motorbikes seconds before the car exploded.

"This blind terrorist operation led to the martyrdom of 18 citizens of Zahedan," IRNA quoted a Guards commander, Qasem Rezaei, as saying.

State-run television said the bus had been taking them to work when the attack took place. There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Rezaei blamed "insurgents and elements of insecurity" for the attack. Hossein Ali Shahriyari, a deputy representing Zahedan, told an open session of the parliament today that "insurgents and drug traffickers" were behind the attack.

Shahriyari called lawless regions in southwestern Pakistan a safe haven for Iranian insurgents and drug traffickers, and called on the government to take up the issue with Islamabad."

Why should we be...

concerned?

"The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being "run" in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President's office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

-snip-

According to all three intelligence sources, military and
intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a
known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of
terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world -
including US civilian and military casualties
- Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on
special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran
strike.

They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all," one intelligence source said."

and the below is just one example of a policy to support terrorists for use as proxy groups:

"Bomb blasts struck Iranian government buildings in the capital of an oil-rich border province, followed within hours by two other bombs in central Tehran, killing nine people, days before presidential elections."

I believed that the attacks by MEK had been halted in March of last year. If this attack is shown to be tied to MEK terrorists or any other "group" we are funding, arming, and training in the region, then the US will be implicated - even if we had nothing to do with the bombing directly.

Let's use Al Qaeda and the US as an example to illustrate how the MEK-US relationship might look to Iranians:

Imagine that this morning you woke up to find that 18 US national guardsmen were assassinated on US soil via a car bomb on their way to a work facility. Now imagine that it was determined that Al Qaeda was behind the attack and that Syrian government officials were behind the funding, training, and harboring of this Al Qaeda cell. How would you react? Would you not see this as a declaration of war against our country? How then would this look to Iranian citizens if it turns out MEK or any other organization being run by Israel and the US is behind this attack?

We can only hope that the US backed groups had nothing to do with this bombing, but I fear given what we already know, the case against us is looking very strong.

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, terrorism, us

Larisa Alexandrovna is a journalist, essayist and poet. She is currently managing news editor for Raw Story.


Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
After Casting Sole No Vote on Slavery Memorial, Rep. King Keeps Digging Deeper
This is one contorted excuse.
Post by Steve Benen. July 9, 2009.
Airing of Grievances: Right-Winger Incensed over 'Commie's' Jab at 'Saturday Night Fever'
Oh, and Pinochet was a good guy, damnit!
Post by Roy Edroso. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 15, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
C'mon... why would we EVER do something evil like that?? After all.. it wasn't like WE were the ones who destroyed democracy (you know.. the same kind of "mocracy" that Bush wants to bring to "rak".. in theory) in Iran to reinstall a monarchy friendly to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First thing I thought of too
Posted by: feduphoosier on Feb 15, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, because this is the first thing I thought of too. I told my husband 'our government was behind this, and there will be hell to pay.'

Now if I can connect these dots within a couple of seconds... you can imagine that much of the world connected them just as fast or faster.

You know it would be fascinating if it wasn't so frighteningly predictable. I first heard that the Bush administration was planning to attack Iran last fall (with the bombing 'scheduled' for this spring.) Many of us heard this well ahead of all of the current saber-rattling. Apparently information has been leaking out - via desperate insiders - for a long time.

Suddenly after the New Year... sure enough, the signs were everywhere. The creation of the 'premise' had begun. Our rogue government actually raided an Iranian Consulate in January -- and this was denounced the world over, but of course... our government didn't care. It was a deliberate act of provocation. They knew that somewhere, somehow, someone of Iranian descent would pick up the glove.

I don't have an exact timeline of who did what to whom first (and Bush & Co. are counting on that,) but I'm willing to bet the shooting of American helicopters might be somehow related to this: "One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate."

Hitler created his premise for invading Poland by inventing an attack on Germans just inside German's border with Poland, and of course hanging it on the Poles, who had no part in it. So whether the Iranians play into Bush's hands or not... Bush will keep right on daring them, provoking them, until someone snaps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

State-Sponsored Terrorism or Proxy War?
Posted by: Russ Wellen on Feb 15, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are they the same?

Legendary CIA man Milt Bearden had this to say about proxy war on Harper's yesterday:
"I don't know why anyone would be surprised by Iranian gambling in our Iraqi casino—especially as there are time-honored rules, at least a half-century old, for proxy wars. The Soviets and Chinese armed our adversaries in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, where we suffered about 100,000 killed in action. Nevertheless, successive American administrations never gave serious thought to attacking either China or the U.S.S.R. in response to their arming of our enemies. And I personally funneled much of the ordnance to the Afghan resistance fighters that killed 15,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Here again, the U.S.S.R. never seriously considered striking at the source of their torment in Afghanistan."

Are US-sponsored actions in Iran the same as Iranian actions in Iraq? In any case, it might not apply here, because at this point, it looks like the Iranians really aren't engaging in this.

Gareth Porter of IPS has compiled up-to-the-minute info on arms from Iran to Iraq:
"The argument for Iranian official responsibility assumes that such weapons are so tightly controlled that Shiite groups could not purchase them in small numbers on the black market in Iran, Syria or Lebanon. It is well documented, however, that the Shiites have resorted to black market networks to obtain EFPs.

"An article in Jane's Intelligence Review last month by Michael Knights, chief of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security consulting firm, reports that the British discovered that there was indeed an organisation in Basra engaged in arranging for the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs and that it was comprised entirely of police officials, including members of the Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate and the Major Crimes Unit."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Connecting Dots
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 15, 2007 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Cheney brought down the Twin Towers, why wouldn't he bring down helicopters and use MEK? It's crazy but what is Cheney's world if not insane?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

5 more lives/unexplained deaths
Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Feb 15, 2007 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I felt that the murders last month of the 5 soldiers was a put up job. With all the mercenaries in Iraq that this administration has access to and pays ,they would do what they were told. They did not take enough time to make it look like the Iranians did it. What is 5 more American lives to this administration. Of course we will never know for sure. It was too bold and professional for the insurgents or terrorists. Paid assassins seldom confess or tell anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop the world...
Posted by: on Feb 15, 2007 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wanna get off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, shades of El Salvador...... Negroponte was the point man on that one...
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 15, 2007 7:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was assigned to an embassy through the state dept for honduras back then and operated and trained the right wing death squads from there.

Didn't he just get reassigned to the State Dept as undersecretary of State??? It appears he is back at it again. Of course I must disclose I have no idea if he is involved or even if we are, but the parallels exceed coincidence. Thats if you even believe in "coincidence" in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]