Pentagon Eyes Massive Covert Attack on Iran

Iran Forum

The Pentagon is advocating a massive covert action program to overthrow Iran's ruling ayatollahs as the only way to stop the country's nuclear weapons ambitions, senior State Department and Pentagon officials told ABCNEWS.


The proposal, which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government, is not new, and has not won favor with enough top officials to be acted upon.

But sources say it is a viable option that is getting a new look as the administration ramps up its rhetoric against Iran, and it is likely to be one of the top items on the agenda as high-level U.S. policymakers meet today to discuss how to deal with the Islamic republic.

The Pentagon's proposal includes using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahedeen e Khalq, a group currently branded as terrorist by the United States.

The MEK, which had been primarily supported by Iraq and was responsible for numerous attacks inside Iran, agreed after the Iraq war to a truce with U.S. forces.

The Pentagon specifically set aside a proposal to reconstitute the MEK under a different banner and promote their armed incursions into Iran, much as the MEK had been doing under Saddam. As the State Department insisted, and the White House concurred, the MEK has been disarmed but their forces are still in place and their weapons are in storage.

The State Department argument was that MEK is on the terrorist list and any failure to disarm it would be an act of hypocrisy, which was the same line taken by the Iranians in confidential meetings that have been ongoing in Geneva, until the United States recently cut them off.

Register for weekly Insider e-mail updates here.

The office of Doug Feith, undersecretary for policy at the Department of Defense, argued that the MEK has not targeted Americans since the 1970s, which is true, and was only put on the terrorist list by the Clinton administration as a gesture to improve relations with Iran.

The Pentagon argues that the MEK is disciplined, well-trained, and an effective lever against the ayatollahs, and could be renamed and placed under American clandestine guidance.

For the moment, this proposal is blocked, but will be revisited as part of the greater proposal to institute massive covert action against the ayatollahs.

This covert action program, which has not been approved or even recommended by the so-called deputies committee of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, National Security Council Deputy Steven Hadley and the deputy to the director of Central Intelligence, would include intelligence collaboration with Iranian dissidents, as well as lethal aid (i.e., guns and other military assistance to anti-Iranian government elements, both inside and outside Iran).

The objective of the Pentagon proposal to destabilize the Iranian government is based on the belief that the religious hard-liners are opposed by the majority of the Iranian population and any pressure would make them crack — a view that some analysts find dubious.

The debate over Iran comes after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday warned Iran against meddling in Iraq, and presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer described the Islamic republic's efforts to root al Qaeda leaders out of country as insufficient.

New accusations also surfaced this week from an Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, that the government has built a uranium-enrichment plant for bomb materials, echoing existing charges from the United States.

Whether the Pentagon proposal gets to the point of a covert action program is partly dependent on Iranian responses to U.S. demands, such as turning over high-ranking al Qaeda lieutenant Saif Al-Adel and closing down the alleged nuclear weapons program.

The State Department favors diplomatic and political pressure, utilizing the International Atomic Energy Agency as one pressure point on the nuclear program.

Whether or not that al Qaeda leaders will be handed over, as the United States formally requested last week, depends on politics within Iran.

There is an apparent debate under way in Iran between more hard-line elements led by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, and moderates led by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

Khatami seems to argue that cooperation with the United States on al Qaeda is necessary, and that Al-Adel should be turned over. The hard-liners apparently are using the issue of protection of senior al Qaeda as a tool against the pragmatists who wish to improve relations with the United States.

Some senior American intelligence sources are optimistic that the issue can be resolved in the United States' favor soon.

But the nuclear issue remains, and U.S. officials are apparently divided on how imminent the threat is.

The Pentagon, and Vice President Dick Cheney, are said to believe that Iran may have all the means necessary to build a nuclear bomb without further foreign assistance, although CIA intelligence sources say their assessments are at variance with these assumptions.

The intelligence agency apparently believes that Iran is trying to build a bomb, but that it still needs help for parts of the program.

Source: ABC News

Nice how none of the discussion mentions the precedent for this action - the US overthrow of Iran's democratic government in '53 (for oil reasons of course). Surely the effects of this overthrow, and the now transparent motivations behind it, should be considered before considering yet another one.

I would venture to say that the main reason that Iran is the US's enemy #1 today is because of that overthrow back in '53 (and the subsequent CIA propping up of the repressive Shah), leading to the inevitable reaction of the Iranian public, who overthrow the US-installed govt, installed the anti-west religious leaders, and have hated the US ever since. Given this history, how can people seriously contemplate a repeat of this mistake?

What right does the US have, given its history in relation to Iran, to even consider such action.

Even more ridiculous I find is that a war with Iraq has just been concluded - a war which was justified by a WMD threat which know appears to have never existed. Yet know action is being contemplated against Iran for exactly the same supposed reasons!

I guess these reasons are now proving true.
Iran is next.

mcbevin said this in post #2 :

Nice how none of the discussion mentions the precedent for this action - the US overthrow of Iran's democratic government in '53 (for oil reasons of course).

BS. The only democratic leader ever ruling Iran was the Shah.

Dont believe me? As you wish. Just ask any persian who had gone thru Shah's period and then islamic revolution and they will tell you who was oppressive and who was democratic.

Why do you like turning facts upside down so much?

Surely the effects of this overthrow, and the now transparent motivations behind it, should be considered before considering yet another one.

Conspiracists have evolved into a tribe and now have got a different way of speaking, as it's perfectly seen with this individium.

So what are the effects of and the motivations behind the overthrow in 1953?

I would venture to say that the main reason that Iran is the US's enemy #1 today is because of that overthrow back in '53 (and the subsequent CIA propping up of the repressive Shah), leading to the inevitable reaction of the Iranian public, who overthrow the US-installed govt, installed the anti-west religious leaders, and have hated the US ever since. Given this history, how can people seriously contemplate a repeat of this mistake?

Please, before posting this BS, read a little about Islamic revolution, who started it, who benefitted from it, etc.

What right does the US have, given its history in relation to Iran, to even consider such action.

Hah i would give the US every right it needs for the sake of democracy and stability.

Even more ridiculous I find is that a war with Iraq has just been concluded - a war which was justified by a WMD threat which know appears to have never existed. Yet know action is being contemplated against Iran for exactly the same supposed reasons!

It is obvious to international experts that Iran is going to produce nuclear weapons. It's so obvious it's not even funny. And they have ballistic missiles able to reach Israel.

Anyways, before posting something, read and then think about it. You keep pouring conspiracy you have read on the internet.

Why is reforming the UN an American responcability?

Because America wants justification to change all these regimes and make the world "safer" (by invading and conquering all these places) ... and if the US had UN (ie world, everyone else's) backing then that would give it a lot more justification to go and kill all those people. At the moment, it doesn't have any real leg to stand on, legally, except that who's gonna argue with the big dawg, and if you do, what can you do anyway, the US has 98% of the world's nuclear weapons and most of the money and if you don't hitch your wagon to the big dawg it's apt to bite you on the arse or declare you one of the axis of evil who's not wid us cos dey against us.

sheesh - that rant got a little outta control - no. What I mean is:

it'd be exceedingly good if the US invested half as much energy as it does in warring, into transforming the UN into a global police force - one with teeth and power - an organisation that could affect regime change where neccessary, in the case of Saddam, without going it alone, unilaterally, without the support of so many BILLIONS of the earth's people.

Maybe it's a pipe dream. But it's a good pipe dream cos that's what we humans should be striving for - co-operation. This war is not about co-operation. It was about ... self-interest. The US's self-interest in Iraq's oil.

WMD and the war on terror. No. It was about oil and power and money and it's wasted a lot of people.

Until we have a world police force, its better to have USA a democratic superpower to promote it's interests than China or USSR or Europe because all three are imperalists and colonialists - unlike USA.

That would never happen. They can't agree.
We will never have a world police until we have a world order.

Never say never brothers.

The USA might be a democratic superpower - internally - but it was un-democratic to invade Iraq without the vote of the UN.

I've said this long and loud that if there's one thing that'll come out of this stupid war is that we might get a reformed UN, with the power to multi-laterally sort out despots and bring them to justice. Seems to be working with Milosevic - yet no-one's done anything about the hell in Sudan. It's a dysfunctional and pretty hopeless - but it was the best we had and the US as a democratic member of the league of nations should have respected its wishes - that's democracy, that's majority rules.

The UN is a despot "power" itself. Who needs 'em?
I say bring the UN to justice. Disband it. Their injustices and lack of judgment are not needed today.
The world court? Sell the wood and distribute the gold.

despot power? the US is part of it, a large part of it - one of the Security Council members - infact the US was largely involved in setting the whole thing up - to then go against it's rules - and to do it for oil and self-interest - well ... you want democracy? Not going against the rules is democracy - tops example to the rest of the world - and as for freedom and prosperity - give us a break - the US has people in Gitmo without charge, without rights, without legal representation, whose freedom has been summarily dismissed, dispensed with - the big test for the US, the test of its belief in its own freedoms and democracy came after 9/11 - and the mark? A big F, sorry, which is too bad cos these are noble beliefs and values ... too bad the US can't apply them too itself, or couldn't stick to their guns. Frightening thing 9/11, and no argument, but it shouldn't have caused you to forget the values and morals the country was founded on.