UK Telegraph: US IS FUNDING TERROR GROUPS IN IRAN TO CREATE CHAOS

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran

By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme. In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime. In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HDZB2432Z4F1LQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml

Here's another link from Tehran. Having problems pasting entirety of original from Sunday's Telegrph. maybe someone else will put it in their post:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/26/2007&Cat=2&Num=015

This planet is going to Hell.

with COndi as the lube.

But I guess it's OK because they're our terrorists...at least for now.

and misdemeanors, just goes to show how powerful they really are.

Dem-controlled Congress. Hmmph!

We're *still* funding terrorists.

-Hoot

How many times have we financed groups like this who come back later and bite us in the ass (or for other political reasons get made into "the bad guys".)?

AMY GOODMAN: Well, it's good to have you with us. Stephen Kinzer, why don't we begin with you. This month, August 2003, 50 years ago, the C.I.A. orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. Can you briefly tell us the story of how this took place?

STEPHEN KINZER: This was a hugely important episode, and looking at it from the prospective of history, we can see that it really shaped a lot of the 50 years that have followed since then in the Middle East and beyond. But yet, it's an episode that most Americans don't even know happened. As I was writing my book, I had the sense that I was dredging up an incident that had been largely forgotten. During my work, I realized early on that Mossadegh, the prime minister of Iran, had been the Man of the Year for Time magazine in 1951. And after I realized that, I went to some trouble and I finally located a copy of that Time magazine. And I framed it, and I have it up on my wall. And it gave me the feeling that, not only am I digging up this episode again, but I'm bringing back to life this figure of Mossadegh. He was really a huge figure in the world of mid-century. This was a time, bear in mind, before the voice of the Third World, as we now call it, had ever really been raised in world councils. This was a time before Castro, before Nkrumah, before Sukharno, before Nasser. Mossadegh actually showing up in New York and laying out Iran's case and by extension the case of poor nations against rich nations was something very, very new for the whole world. And what a figure he was. This book is full of amazing characters. Not just Kermit Roosevelt, the guy who planned the coup. But Mossaugh--tall, sophisticated, European-educated aristocrat--but also highly emotional, a guy who would start sobbing and sometimes even faint dead away in Parliament when giving speeches about the suffering of the Iranian people. When he embraced the national cause of that period, which was the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he set himself on a collision course with the great powers in the world. And that collision has produced effects which we're still living with today.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company.

STEPHEN KINZER: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company arrived in Iran in the early part of the twentieth century. It soon struck the largest oil well that had ever been found in the world. And for the next half-century, it pumped out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil from Iran. Now, Britain held this monopoly. That meant it only had to give Iran a small amount--it turned out to be 16 percent--of the profits from what it produced. So the Iranian oil is actually what maintained Britain at its level of prosperity and its level of military preparedness all throughout the '30s, the '40s, and the '50s. Meanwhile, Iranians were getting a pittance, they were getting almost nothing from the oil that came out of their own soil. Naturally, as nationalist ideas began to spread through the world in the post-World War II era, this injustice came to grate more and more intensely on the Iranian people. So they carried Mossadegh to power very enthusiastically. On the day he was elected prime minister, Parliament also agreed unanimously to proceed with the nationalization of the oil company. And the British responded as you would imagine. Their first response was disbelief. They just couldn't believe that someone in some weird faraway country--which was the way they perceived Iran--would stand up and challenge such an important monopoly. This was actually the largest company in the entire British Empire. When it finally became clear that Mossadegh was quite serious, the British decided to launch an invasion. They drew up plans for seizing the oil refinery and the oil fields. But President Truman went nuts when he heard this and he told the British, under no circumstances can we possibly tolerate a British invasion of Iran. So then the British went to their next plan, which was to get a United Nations resolution demanding that Mossadegh return the oil company. But Mossadegh embraced this idea of a U.N. debate so enthusiastically that he decided to come to New York himself and he was so impressive that the U.N. refused to adopt the British motion. So finally, the British decided that they would stage a coup, they would overthrow Mossadegh. But what happened, Mossadegh found out about this and he did the only thing he could have done to protect himself against the coup. He closed the British embassy and he sent all the British diplomats packing, including, among them, all the secret agents who were planning to stage the coup. So now, the British had to turn to the United States. They went to Truman and asked him, please overthrow Mossadegh for us. He said no. He said the C.I.A. had never overthrown a government and, as far as he was concerned, it never should. So, now, the British were completely without resources. They couldn't launch an invasion, the U.N. had turned down their complaint, they had no agents to stage a coup. So they were stymied. It wasn't until November of 1952 when British foreign office and intelligence officials received the electrifying news that Dwight Eisenhower had been elected president that things began to change. They rushed one of their agents over to Washington. He made a special appeal to the incoming Eisenhower administration. And that administration reversed the Truman policy agreed to send Kermit Roosevelt to Tehran to carry out this fateful coup.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

:scared:

how Kermit Roosevelt was handing out mucho US dollars to various groups as payola in agreement that they would incite riots in the streets of Tehran and many of these groups were in fact disinterested in any of the political actors and used simply to create tension and create public distrust of the Mossadegh regime.

Now recently 393 tons of US cash has gone missing in the Mideast. I wonder.

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/


Some additional links...


The Coup That Changed the Middle East

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj02-2/Zahrani.pdf

snip

"Few upheavals in the Middle East have had
wider aftershocks than the 1953 coup that
overthrew the Iranian nationalist leader Mohammed
Mossadeq."

snip

"But to many Iranians,
the United States betrayed its own
values by covertly joining with Britain to
depose an elected leader, and then abetting
the imperial ambitions of Shah Mohammed
Pahlevi. For Americans, the unintended result
was the rise of political Islam, leading
to the 1979 revolution and the present continuing
impasse in Iranian-U.S. relations."


Just like that
How the Mossadegh government was overthrown

By Mark Gasiorowski
July 7, 2000
The Iranian

http://www.iranian.com/History/2000/July/Coup/index.html

snip>>

"16. The CIA history of the coup warned of the possibility of "blowback" (p. E21). This certainly was a prescient warning of events that began to unfold 25 years later."



US-Iran Relations: Forty Years of Observations

James A. Bill, PhD.
William & Mary College

http://www.mideasti.org/articles/doc183.html
and
http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=3472


snip>>

"If the Islamic Republic and the United States fail to cooperate, then violence and warfare are sure to intensify and to spread across the Persian Gulf region. In choosing the role of global gendarme, the American giant must understand the social and political environments in which it travels. Otherwise, in spite of infrared goggles, laser-guided automatic weapons, and kevlar bullet-proof vests, the giant is easily lost and its destination uncertain.

In the words of Kipling:

AT THE END OF THE FIGHT
IS A TOMBSTONE WHITE
WITH THE NAME OF THE LATE DECEASED
AND AN EPITATH DREAR
A FOOL LIES HERE
WHO TRIED TO HUSTLE THE EAST.

The United States will have a difficult time trying to "hustle" Iran. Nor will it be easy to "muscle" the Islamic Republic. At the same time, Iran must take an indepth course of its own about American society and politics. I have had the great opportunity to work with Iran and Iranians over the past 40 years. Sometime during the next 40 years, the United States and Iran will engage one another seriously. It is essential that the decisionmakers on each side familiarize themselves intimately with the historical background that will shape this coming encounter."

I found a photo of Prime Minister Mossadegh as it was carried during a demonstration:



You've definitely pointed us toward an area we need to research far, far more. Thank you.

But 'they' (the govt. faction that wants to unleash these terrorists freedom fighters) do learn: so far these kind of schemes have worked quite well in most cases. And of course they're going to act all surprised when the blow-back occurs.

Diplomatic initiatives ? .... That means attempting to resolve matters using discussion to build a mutual consensus that all parties can generally agree to .... right ?

Since when does THIS MALadministration engage in diplomacy ? ....

The failure of diplomatic initiatives is due to the failure to have a diplomatic initiative .....

Diplomacy is this bunch of thugs fiery vinegar .... it is their red headed stepchild .... It is their LAST resort .....

WHO needs diplomacy when you have a willing populace happy to send their favorite sons and daughters to fight oil wars for Georgie and Dickie Boy ? ... :sarcasm: ...

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

...at our behest, for over a year now.

Welcome to DU, Devon77!

but I don't know if it's them or somebody else

Thank you

But also difficult not to be very suspicious:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bomb_blasts_kill_several_in_Iran

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15562.htm (there's a full transcript beneath the video)

Also, two people who've been right on everything so far have been talking about the MEK's involvement in stirring things up in Iran for the West: Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter. But just the fact that a MEK representative was in NY flogging "intelligence" on Iran's nuclear intentions to a select audience (second link above) should set off alarm bells. Apparently terrorists are welcome in the US if they wear a business suit and provide information that benefits BushCo's agenda.

Alleged MEK activity in Iran

In 2006 news reports linked the PMOI with US threats to attack Iran, specifically use of the PMOI to "prepare the battlefield" for US military action against Iran.<37>

According to the news organisation Rawstory, an intelligence official said that following the invasion of Iraq, “We disarmed of major weapons, but not small arms. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but there was infighting between Rumsfeld's camp and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but she was able to fight them off for a while”.

According to another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Rumsfeld, under pressure from US Vice President Dick Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization." “These guys are nuts,” the intelligence source said. "Stephen Cambone <[[Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence>] ] and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them” for action in Iran. A UN source close to the United Nations Security Council, again according to Rawstory, said in April 2006 that "the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year".<37>


According to a former Iranian ambassador and an intelligence correspondent of the UPI news agency, "The Iranian accusations are true, but it is being done on such a small scale - a series of pinpricks - it would seem to have no strategic value at all."<38>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen_al-Khalq

And there's plenty of non-Wiki info out there about the MEK too, for those who are cynical of Wiki.

The point is, BushCo and our "allies" are sowing division in the Middle East by backing Iran's enemies: groups that are considered terrorists and are responsible for the deaths of Americans, like the MEK.

Another example is Saudi support of 'al Qaeda in Iraq' -- the same radical Sunnis who are allegedly linked to bin Laden and are killing more of our soldiers than any Iranian backed Shia militias in Iraq. At the very least this funding of 'al Qaeda in Iraq' is going on with US tacit approval.

These practices imply that Bush**'s focus has always been Iran, which like Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iran represents the Shia sect of Islam which opposes the Wahhabism being spread by bin Laden and Sunni radicals like him.

Bush** has yet to explain how supporting such groups isn't treason, seeing as he believes that aiding and abetting terrorists is a crime.

We're still making the same old tired mistakes we've been making for decades: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so equip him for battle and then try to control him -- never mind what atrocities he commits (Saddam, bin Laden, Maliki) or that he's destined to turn on us.

Sowing division is unfortunately the plan, I'm not sure if the Bushes feel it's a mistake.
But it's probably not going to work in Iran.

More info on Kuzestan and Mek
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/MarchApril06/AKhuzestan.html


Are you familiar with the "Bernard Lewis Plan" or "A strategy for Israel in the 1980's" document?


splitting up Iraq into 3 parts is for example the Bernard Lewis Plan.



http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/AZPartVI.html



A strategy for Israel in the 1980's

Excerpt from an amazon user comment


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0937694568/

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html




All this divide and conquer thinking has been around for several decades, going back even to the British. So there is somekind of system to this madness.

BushCo don't think anything through or have any interest in culture or society other than a very simplistic black & white view. Their top concern is what's in US (read: their own) interest and they're determined to have it their way no matter the fallout or how many people die. They're even worse than the Brits, who at least endeavored to understand the underlying divisions in the places they colonized, even if their actions weren't ultimately in the best interests of the region.

I'd dearly love to know for instance how BushCo plan on convincing Turkey that a Free Kurdistan is a good thing for them. And there are more recent maps of a partitioned Iraq that show the Sunnis confined to the comparatively oil-barren western part of the country; if the new Oil law is adopted, that will leave the Sunnis without access to the oil revenues that the Kurds and Shia will see. That ought to go down a treat. :sarcasm:

And then there's the little matter of leaving Iraq's oil port in control of the Shia. Do BushCo honestly think they can control the in-fighting that will take place over that? The British have basically given up!

In BushWorld, everyone accepts the great gifts the US bestows on them and no one complains about superficial things like wanton death, destruction, and being enslaved for generations under "free market" dictatorships with no benefit to themselves or their families.

:crazy:

i would know, i reported it:)

but god help us... no one is paying attention:(

I'm hesitant to state something as a fact when I'm not clear on the source, and there's so much to keep track of my little brain gets overwhelmed sometimes. But if you've reported it, I trust it's true. And so you have:

"the war on terror".

that rummy couldn't account for? Just how much mayhem will that buy anyway?
"Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph".

It's quite deliberate nd the intentions are clear. It's also well established on the historical record that fomenting chaos has very great benefits for the Military-Industrial Security Complex. And then there is that little bit about worldwide scarcity of petrocarbons and where the predominant number of those precious molecules are perched.

This is a must read:


Mohammad Mosaddeq and
the 1953 Coup in Iran
Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne

New Volume Reexamines a Seminal Event
in Modern Middle Eastern History

A Joint U.S.-British Regime-Change Operation in 1953 that Holds Lessons for Today

New Documents Shed Further Light on Secret U.S. Policy

June 22, 2004

For further information Contact
Malcolm Byrne 202/994-7043
mbyrne@gwu.edu

"This book … sheds vital new light on issues that remain crucial to the evolution of U.S.-Iran relations and to continuing questions about unilateralism and secrecy in U.S. foreign policy."
Nikki Keddie, UCLA

"Mark Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne have assembled a stellar array of talented scholars … This is an exceptional collection dealing with a uniquely important event."
Gary Sick, Columbia U.

"This multinational, multiarchival history is a magnificent addition to the literature on post-World War II international history."
Melvyn Leffler, U. of Virginia.

On the morning of August 19, 1953, a crowd of demonstrators operating at the direction of pro-Shah organizers with ties to the CIA made its way from the bazaars of southern Tehran to the center of the city. Joined by military and police forces equipped with tanks, they sacked offices and newspapers aligned with Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and his advisers, as well as the communist Tudeh Party and others opposed to the monarch. By early afternoon, clashes with Mosaddeq supporters were taking place, the fiercest occurring in front of the prime minister's home. Reportedly 200 people were killed in that battle before Mosaddeq escaped over his own roof, only to surrender the following day. At 5:25 p.m., retired General Fazlollah Zahedi, arriving at the radio station on a tank, declared to the nation that with the Shah's blessing he was now the legal prime minister and that his forces were largely in control of the city.

Although official U.S. reports and published accounts described Mosaddeq's overthrow and the shah's restoration to power as inspired and carried out by Iranians, this was far from the full story. Memoirs of key CIA and British intelligence operatives and historical reconstructions of events have long established that a joint U.S.-British covert operation took place in mid-August, which had a crucial impact. Yet, there has continued to be a controversy over who was responsible for the overthrow of the popularly elected Mosaddeq, thanks to accounts by, among others, former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Zahedi's son, who later became a fixture in the Shah's regime. Those versions of events virtually ignored the possibility that any outside actors played a part, claiming instead that the movement to reinstate the Shah was genuine and nationwide in scope.

Now, a new volume of essays by leading historians of Iranian politics, the coup, and U.S. and British policy presents the most balanced, detailed, and up-to-date assessment of this landmark event to date. Based on new documentation and extensive interviews of participants, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (Syracuse University Press, 2004) offers an abundance of new information, analysis and insights into the staging of the overthrow as well as the historical, political, and social context which made it possible.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

Thanks for sharing it with those of us who still haven't learned nearly as much as we want on the subject.

NT

Strategy of tension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a way to control and manipulate public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, false flag terrorism actions and even terroristic actions. According to historian Daniele Ganser, "It is a tactic which consists in committing bombings and attributing them to others. By the term 'tension' one refers to emotional tension, to what creates a sentiment of fear. By the term 'strategy' one refers to what feeds the fear of the people towards one particular group" <1>.

The term was coined in Italy during the trials that followed the 1970s and 1980s terror attacks and murders committed by neofascist terrorists (such as Ordine Nuovo, Avanguardia Nazionale or Fronte Nazionale). The terrorists were backed by intelligence agencies, the P2 masonic lodge and Gladio, a NATO secret "stay-behind" army set up to perform guerilla and resistance activities should Italy be successfully invaded by the Soviet bloc (there were equivalent armies in most Western states). Largely unmonitored by civilian agencies, Gladio began to pursue its own right wing, anti-communist agenda using violent means, which included false flag terrorist attacks. False flag terror attacks would be those conducted by anti-communists but then blamed on communists in order to incite the public anger against communism.

The suspected aim of these actions was to make the public believe that the bombings were committed by a communist insurgency, to promote the formation of an authoritarian government...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

nt

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say

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.


<snip>


Editor's note #2: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the MEK leadership duo as brother and sister, they are in fact husband and wife. There seemed to have been some disagreement with various experts just what that relationship was and how much of it was for public appearances. There is however enough agreement with experts and sources to issue a correction on this small point. We apologize for the confusion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml

(the secret with Telegraph links is to leave out the ";jsessionid=..." bit, so it reads "...news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/..." . The semicolon upsets the DU software. Alternatively, you can use the DU "link:www. ... |Text shown for hyperlink" form, like:

This link

From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
The same neocon ideologues fabricating intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran
by Craig Unger

Global Research, February 25, 2007
Vanity Fair (March 2007)

The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?
In the weeks leading up to George W. Bush's January 10 speech on the war in Iraq, there was a brief but heady moment when it seemed that the president might finally accept the failure of his Middle East policy and try something new. Rising anti-war sentiment had swept congressional Republicans out of power. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had been tossed overboard. And the Iraq Study Group (I.S.G.), chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, had put together a bipartisan report that offered a face-saving strategy to exit Iraq. Who better than Baker, the Bush family's longtime friend and consigliere, to talk some sense into the president?

By the time the president finished his speech from the White House library, however, all those hopes had vanished. It wasn't just that Bush was doubling down on an extravagantly costly bet by sending 21,500 more American troops to Iraq; there were also indications that he was upping the ante by an order of magnitude. The most conspicuous clue was a four-letter word that Bush uttered six times in the course of his speech: Iran.


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=UNG20070225&articleId=4932

the same folks that said "there are no US troops in Cambodia or Laos"

ja, sure...

another "well, duh" moment.

Now, that's irony!!

It's yet to be established that the Iranians even have a nuclear weapons program. Unless this is all about stopping them from having nuclear power, which seems rather unlikely.

This is to goad them into war and broaden the conflict.

for supposedly aiding insurgents fighting against American troops inside Iraq. Excuse me, but which nation, the U.S. or Iran, has troops from the other stationed just across the border from it's capital? Which nation, Iran or the U.S., has made "regime change" in the other a major policy priority?

Wes Clark describes any Iranian efforts to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq as Iran's first line of defense against being targetted for military overthrow by the United States. Who is the aggressor here?

We need to mobilize a peace offensive and we need to mobilize it now. I don't want to mobilize against an Iran war after it has started. I've been down that road too many times in my life and watched too many people die while we've struggled to end a war that could have much more easily have been prevented.

We have been given fair warning on this one. We can mobilize now to stop this war or we can mobilize later to protest it. It's one or the other.

Please go to StopIranWar.com and join the campaign against the march to war with Iran: http://www.stopiranwar.com /

Their logo isn't hiding it

:hi:


This one, in particular, being a must see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=923696&mesg_id=923696

In fact, I hope you didn't mind, but, I referred to a couple of those old threads recently when looking into who Bush & Co. were getting their intel on Iran from -- MEK/Jafarzadeh/Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc.:

Is MEK/MKO the source for the propaganda about Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=194123

Bush & Co.'s Intelligence on Iran: A Preview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=212315

I forgot about the connection between MEK and Geoffrey D. Miller. Feel free to spread that info anytime. I'm trying to compile as much info as I can for the 2nd edition of American Judas, which I hope to complete by the end of this week.

Dear Chairman Waxman
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x293844

:hi:

American Judas was one of the first GD threads I bookmarked when I finally ventured out of the 2004 election forum!

2nd Edition American Judas! For Waxman! I think that's a great idea.

Endless Enemies by Jonathan Kwitney started to spell this out.

What the fuck!?

According to the March 4 Los Angeles Times, the US currently spends US$14.7 million a year on Farsi "opposition broadcasts" into Iran. The Voice of America's Farsi service reaches an estimated 15 million Iranians with news programs and websites, and the Bush administration has recently requested an additional $5.7 million for 2006 to expand the hours of transmission.

Los Angeles Farsi radio station KRSI noted the similarity between current US efforts and the CIA's 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected premier Mohammed Mossadeq. When asked if he was CIA-affiliated, Corsi replied: "No, I'm not. I've never held a government position, never had any government position at all. I've been in universities. I'm an author. I'm in business. I'm not related to the CIA. It's just not true."

But when later asked how he became so committed to Iranian liberation, he explained, "When I was a young man I was an expert in antiterrorism and political violence. I had a top secret clearance when I was in universities and I worked to assist the State Department and the government." Corsi's publisher, Cumberland House, states in his biography that Corsi's top secret clearance came from the government agency US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has often served as a conduit for American covert operations funding, under humanitarian auspices.

This writer asked Corsi about the Iran Freedom Foundation's funding. He said the money came from sales of his book Atomic Iran and from private donations, adding that the IFF would apply for government funding when it became available.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG06Ak03.html