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.

link

Opinions?

Reading through the comments on the linked page, I am having such a hoot it is unbelievable. So many people trashing abc news for "bringing it out" and that they are "endangering the troops". I could not resist commenting to it.

Oh folks come on get real already. Do you REALLY think that if this was to be kept secret it would come out like this?

And another bit that someone put up there:

To that I also have a simple reply:

I will not state how many acts of terrorism the US government has committed, even BEFORE 9/11.

The amount of victims of 9/11 (no matter how grave the incident) fades in comparison.

For me there are two views on this:

The first is… what the hell are up with those comments?

Honestly covert options in another state, outside of the grounds of a war, are illegal under international and even US laws! How can you then blame a media source for pointing out that the government is undertaking illegal actions against another state? How can these people really believe just because the government slaps the ‘secret’ label on it that people can not mention this crime without it being ‘treason?’

The second is the obvious fact that the CIA do not breach their own classification rules. If this was really labelled ‘secret’ then no one in the CIA would just leak it. The only reason we even know about past CIA actions that where both illegal and despicable is because the paperwork was declassified. Why? Well because to do so is punishable by death and their ‘internal affairs’ group don’t mess around when they investigate leaks.

If it was ‘leaked’ to the press then you can bet your arse the government wanted it leaked. They wanted the Iran to know they are taking these actions, most likely without actually taking them, and the only reason it was labelled secret is so Bush can deny authorizing it or so that Iran thinks they got something ‘hot.’

Reasons? Well there are two.

The first is that it would put pressure on Iran to capitulate on the many issues that the US has with them. It is a threat of domestic uprising and possible overthrowing unless they yield. In other words, extra pressure then what is already floating out there in the gulf.

The second is that they really want a war with Iran. They have tried to provoke a response time and time again and Iran has, wisely, ignored them. They have all those ships out there, they have men poised in Iraq that could be used for ground operations or just securing the huge uprisings that will happen in Iraq. In short they have everything in position but are lacking an excuse.

The people won’t stomach them starting another war on false pretences; they won’t stomach America striking first. Yet if Iran does… well that’s another matter. They can spin that easily; make it look as if they are only defending themselves and their allies against an unprovoked and ‘evil’ attack.

This is yet another provoking and that is why they want Iran to know they are doing ‘covert’ operations. I would even bet that there are no operations in effect….

Let me take it one step further by asking:

Could it be that the SOLE and MAIN reason to attack Iraq (which was for no valid reason as far as I know) was to bring troops closer to Iran without being noticed? And THUS being in position when a response to various "probings" by the US government was provoked? (which to this day, as you state, has failed)

Sort of the hiding in plain view idea, so to speak.

I don’t believe so.

Iraq was Bush’s “dream child” of a war. The war there was only to take control of Iraq, Iran wasn’t yet in the picture or if it was it wasn’t the main goal. Iraq was a direct threat to the US economy (trading oil in euro) and a persona vendetta of Bush (Doing what his father couldn’t). It was also the first major move of PNAC and while it gives a strategic advanrage for military operations in the ME it was mostly the oil. That advantage won’t play out for another decade or so, it takes time to build military bases the size of the ones the US is building in Iraq.

Now the extra troops being moved into Iraq, which is because of Iran. Iraq has three religious factions and already one of those factions striking out against the US interests in the area. That faction is more or less united with Saudi. The second faction is more or less united with Iran and that faction has been more interested in attacking the first faction in what is a civil war between the two. The third are all for the US because it means they aren’t getting the short end of the sticks for a change.

Imagine what will happen if the US did go to war with Iran. That second faction has been more or less dormant. They have kept their heads low and aside from a few elements they have left the US troops alone. Should it come to war with Iran that will end and they would rise up against the troops in Iraq.

Those extra troops will be needed to just hold down the military bases and the green zone alone. That is why Bush is pushing for them. Not because it will make a difference preventing the Iraqi civil war, those extra troops are just a drop in the sea, but to ensure the troops in the area are not just ‘washed over’ when the religious leaders in Iran say it is time for their counterparts in Iraq to attack.

Seems Bush has dug himself a nice rat hole


What do you predict will happen from here.. I mean.. you have been right about what would happen when Iraq would be attacked..

From here any predictions anyone gives is shaky. Before Iraq there was the atmosphere that Bush used to get into Iraq. Now that has dissipated, leaving behind a bad stench at that so most people are on guard. Without any excuse Bush just doesn’t have the political power back home to get into Iran without it possibly leaving him lynched. This doesn’t mean they don’t want to go into Iran of course, just until they get a good excuse there is no real way of bringing it about.

The war games, carrier groups in international water on the gulf, threats of covert and open attacks and everything else was designed to try and provoke a reaction. Bush could then claim self defence, of course. So far Iran has failed to respond though, either they are being paranoid and condensing their forces, support and such for carrying out a wide ranging counter attack or they have just been wise enough to read the political writings as I am doing here.

Short of a ‘pearl harbour’ event there is no way that Bush can start a war with Iran that won’t lead to his immediate impeachment. Even with a congress that is willing to bend over backwards the public outcry will be so loud that it is either that or a removing of all government in the old French style.

If he does go into Iran though, say he has a convenient excuse pop up or does so without authorization and becomes a dictator back home, it will be the start of WW3. Too many large countries are getting involved in the ME and some are backing Iran for a range of reasons. Why shouldn’t they either as the ME is the largest security risks to any ‘first world’ nation. If a large scale war breaks out in the ME the world’s economies and industrial bases will grind to a halt as oil production becomes a trickle compared to what it is these days.