May 22, 2007

Well, This Takes All The Fun Out Of It

ABC News has revealed a top-secret order from George Bush that orders the CIA and other intelligence agencies to take action to undermine the Iranian mullahcracy. Needless to say, the revelation makes the mission almost impossible (via Hot Air):

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.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

The White House intended on using this plan to keep from having to use a military option to stop the mullahs from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In fact, ABC reports that Dick Cheney preferred the military option, but that Bush overruled him in favor of the covert action instead. As I have written repeatedly here, a military strike is a lousy choice given the terrain, battleground, and options for targets in Iran as well as the political situation on the ground.

Thanks to the loose lips at Langley and ABC, that option may have to go back to the top of the list. Covert actions that appear on national television tend to lose the element of surprise, after all, and the Iranians can now take steps to block these actions. Undoubtedly they have been on guard in case Bush decided to use these options, but it certainly helps to have the American media broadcast it around the world.

Even now, some have objected to the non-lethal finding. ABC quotes Vali Nasr, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wringing his hands over possible "escalation". Iran already is using its proxy terrorist groups to destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and to threaten Israel -- and Nasr worries about "escalation"? It's high time we started fighting fire with fire.

Or, at least it was high time. Someone in the CIA or in the larger "intelligence community" can't keep their mouths shut. Thanks to them, we may wind up with no other option against Iranian nuclear ambitions except the military strike.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10040

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Well, This Takes All The Fun Out Of It:

» President Bush Begins Process To Double Troop Numbers In Iraq; Meanwhile, Declares War On Iran… from The Gun Toting Liberal™
I’ve got a question: did Congress authorize ANY of these actions? FIRST: this action: Bush could double force by Christmas Stewart M. Powell The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this y... [Read More]

» When The Press Reveals An Apparent Covert Plan from The Moderate Voice
Does it help….or make things worse? See our earlier post HERE. ... [Read More]

» Bush Plans To Double Troops In Iraq, Destabilize Iran from U.S. Politics: Current Events
Concurrent with Congressional Democrats bowing out on their push to tie funding of the Iraq War with a timeline for troop withdrawal, a Hearst Newspaper analysis shows that President Bush may double troops by the end of the year. Analysis of Pentagon ... [Read More]

» The Blotter from NixGuy.com
The Blotter 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. a)  It... [Read More]

» CIA Black Op to Destabilize Iranian Regime from Outside The Beltway | OTB
CIA sources have leaked to ABC News an alleged covert plan to destabilize the Iranian regime through non-lethal means. The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian governme... [Read More]

» ABC News Report: Bush Authorizes Covert Operation to Destabilize the Iranian Government from Blogs of War
It looks like overt military action is off the table - for now: 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 co... [Read More]

Comments (32)

Posted by mrlynn | May 22, 2007 9:40 PM

Apparently the Bush administration has been so paralyzed by Democrat opposition and the media that it cannot investigate, prosecute, try, and punish traitors who leak top-secret information to the papers and to the enemy.

Maybe THIS time? Faint hope, I suspect. What in the world are they afraid of? There are only a few months left; might as well go out with head held high as with tail between legs.

Whoever leaked this 'black' plan ought to be in jail, or before a firing squad.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by TyCaptains [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 22, 2007 9:42 PM

Colored me surprised...I actually thought we were already engaging in this.

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 22, 2007 9:43 PM

Traitors! Just shoot them.

Posted by bill agee | May 22, 2007 9:45 PM

I agree with Mr. Lynn... when is the Bush administration and the justice dept going to get their acts together and arrest people who leak classified information...which includes reporters and newspapers who are expediting and encouraging the leaks. It continues because the adults will not take control of the situation and provide consequences that are clear under the law.

Posted by NaM | May 22, 2007 9:52 PM

This will give the Iranian government the excuse to suppress every opposition movement using the excuse that each one is another CIA plot to overthrow the Iranian government. Many more Iranians are going to end up dead or tortured in prison because of this revalation. It will make it much, much more difficult to get Haleh Esfandiari out of Iran, too.

Posted by Optimist Prime | May 22, 2007 10:00 PM

Maybe it's a disinformational head-fake?

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 10:02 PM

Be vewy, vewy quiet. We're hunting Iwanians.

I don't think anything genuinely classified is out there.

Posted by Bobby | May 22, 2007 10:04 PM

why can't i find info on this leak on any news site??? I've been scavenging through the nytimes, cnn. foxnews, ap, reuters, Washington post web-sites for the past 30 mins and I can't find anything on this...

It makes me sick that people who work for the CIA would EVER leak something this sensitive...

Posted by MarkJ | May 22, 2007 10:49 PM

Calm down. I've got ten bucks that says Bush is telling the Iranians everything THEY know...but he's not telling them everything HE knows.

I tend to agree with Optimist Prime that we're playing head games with the Iranians. Now that the "secret" is out, "I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket" and his pals will have to devote a tremendous amount of time, energy, and resources trying to figure if we are, indeed, screwing with their currency, &c.

Posted by trapeze | May 22, 2007 11:18 PM

Does anyone really think this Justice Department could investigate and prosecute anything of serious import? This is the same bunch that let Sandy Berger off practically scot free!

I will count myself, however, within the camp that believes that this is disinformation designed to screw with dinnerjacket's head.

On the other hand, ABC should be held accountable by the public for its irresponsibility in reporting this...unless you want to believe that they are in on it...and that is too much for me to swallow.

Posted by I.C. | May 22, 2007 11:21 PM

Color me cynical, but wouldn't it be ever so easy to "accidentally" leak the covert plan so that they could say, "Gosh-darnit! Now we'll have to go and use Dick's plan anyway! Oh well, at least we tried every other option on (and under) the table..."

Okay, color me even more cynical: it's really all about the bottom line, isn't it? After all, when we replaced the only democratically elected government in Iran with our guy, the much-loved Shah, we then proceeded to sell him nuclear tech, conventional weapons and even state of the art torture equipment. (Kissinger just wanted to spread the love as far as he could, you see.)

Then, after we sold Iraq the means with which to wage war against the Iranians after the bearded ones took over (with more profits, natch), Halliburton began to sell them nuclear tech again in the '90s, beards or no beards, laws to the contrary or no laws.

It's an amorality we're talking about here. It's not Republican vs. Democratic administrations--it's all of the above. Whatever sells. The politics, the speeches, the fine principles involved...they're selling you that, too.

There was a guy, back in 1918, who wanted to outlaw war profiteering. Since he had just been elected to Congress, he might even have been able to introduce the legislation...somehow or another, he ended up in Ft. Leavenworth instead. Must have been one of those coincidences we hear so much about. Like that "leak" about the covert op, just for discussion's sake, of course.

Posted by wolfwalker | May 22, 2007 11:24 PM

I tend to agree, MarkJ. Something smells awful fishy about this "leak." Cui bono? I can't see any rational reason for this to have leaked -- unlike earlier similar leaks, where it was at least possible for the leaker to delude him/her/itself that the leak was in pursuit of a higher goal. But who benefits from leaking this program? CIA doesn't. The public doesn't. The administration doesn't. I don't even see how it benefits the enemy.

That makes me suspect that this is a staged "leak," and an attempt at psywar.

Posted by pilsener | May 22, 2007 11:41 PM

Staged or real, the idea (and reality) that our major intelligence agency routinely leaks to the press is terrible.

The fact that the CIA never punishes anyone, or even denies the leaks makes it just another bureaucracy, consuming billions of dollars and, apparently, producing relatively little for the expenditure.

I would like to believe that the U.S. has effective intelligence and counter-intelligence, but I'm skeptical.

Posted by Pierre | May 23, 2007 12:03 AM

So then what is difference between giving the Country's secrets to the Iranians and giving them to ABC? None. And no I am not damning ABC though there is some good reasons for doing so. No I am more upset that our counter intelligence agencies are so unable to stop this sort of leak.

Posted by patrick neid | May 23, 2007 12:35 AM

i assume this should have been started on 9/12......

Posted by the cannuck | May 23, 2007 12:51 AM

Amazing, but unfortunately not surprising. Why would any government trust the US intelligence system on anything. The whole CIA stable needs to be cleaned out and handed to the military, they have laws to deal with leakers.
Tenet proved decisively what a bunch of dimwits work there.

Posted by Steve J. | May 23, 2007 1:08 AM

Good for ABC!

It's clear we can't trust this profoundly incompetent Administration.

Posted by Kevin! | May 23, 2007 1:09 AM

If the CIA is so pathetic that it can't even get started before leaking to ABC, it's probably for the best they aren't going to manipulate a massive, unstable, possibly-nuclear regime.

Posted by Nikolay | May 23, 2007 4:48 AM

"Needless to say, the revelation makes the mission almost impossible"
Do you really mean this? Do you think there are people in Iranian secret services to whom this news would be news?

Posted by Dan | May 23, 2007 5:48 AM

Haven't we known for years of covert actions taking place inside Iran? How does hearing them mentioned again now compromise them? Or, on the other hand, if they have already been compromised, why order them to continue? It's likely this "leak" is intended either to fish for early support for an argument such as "we must keep troops at present levels in Iraq in the event of a full-blown war with Iran", or simply to change the subject in the media from the lack of progress in Iraq.

Posted by Clyde | May 23, 2007 6:41 AM

Someone should hang these scumbags for the traitors they are.

Posted by Lightwave | May 23, 2007 7:03 AM

So, we're cleverly fighting Iran's not exactly secret plan to destabilize Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza with our not so secret plan to destabilize Iran. I only hope we're as good at it as Iran is.

Cui bono? To whom the benefit? Who profited from this leak? Not the anti-war moonbats. They know that exposing the plan makes a military confrontation more likely. Not the MSM. They already ARE considered traitors by millions of Americans. Certainly not the intel community. They don't need further proof of their incompetence.

But the military option is certainly looking better today, isn't it? Clearly we've had the opportunity to hit the mullahs for a while now. Assets have been in place for most of this year, but we haven't yet.

Iran's been at war with us for decades. Maybe somebody thought it was time we returned the favor. It's far past time we did.

Posted by NoDonkey | May 23, 2007 7:26 AM

I like overt war making:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_navy_3;_ylt=AtPi4fPHJCt9ioTIhlOQvToE1vAI

Would be nice to see the US Navy take out the Iranians. After the Iranian flotilla of rafts, or "navy" is sent to the bottom of the Persian Gulf, the Iranian outdated MiG "air force" can be blown out of the sky.,

Next, a naval blockade. If the mullahs refuse to unconditionally surrender, take out the nuclear sites, with the bunker busting technology the Israelis have perfected (multiple detonations, one on top of another, to create a crater to get at the buried nuclear facilities).

Should take a week, at most. No invasion necessary.

There is no reason at all, not to do this. We can wrap this all up by July 4th. What are we waiting for?

Posted by mrlynn | May 23, 2007 8:20 AM

Wolfwalker can't see why anyone would try to undercut covert action against Iran: "I can't see any rational reason for this to have leaked -- unlike earlier similar leaks, where it was at least possible for the leaker to delude him/her/itself that the leak was in pursuit of a higher goal. But who benefits from leaking this program? CIA doesn't. The public doesn't. The administration doesn't. I don't even see how it benefits the enemy."

Take a look at this editorial in The Boston Globe today,

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/05/23/one_womans_terror_in_iran/

Ostensibly in defense of e Iranian-American scholar Haleh Esfandiari, imprisoned by the Iranians, the Globe insinuates that her troubles are all the Bush administration's fault, referring to "Bush administration fantasies about violent regime change in Tehran" and "hubristic regime-changers in Washington."

The editors of the Globe are left-wing fools who undercut and subvert every effort to defend America and to defeat her enemies, and precisely the people who would welcome traitorous leaks like this one.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Achillea [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 23, 2007 10:57 AM

Who profited from this leak? Not the anti-war moonbats. They know that exposing the plan makes a military confrontation more likely.

'Knowing' would require the loony left to think it through to possible consequences, something they've so far demonstrated zero ability to do. I doubt they could step a single neuron beyond 'Chimpy McBushitler wants it sekrit!!1! WE MUST EXPOES IT1!!!!!'

Posted by Michael | May 23, 2007 1:34 PM

This has been going on for years. Please. Just read Woodward's book Plan of Attack; like the DB Rockstars in Iraq, in 01 and 02, we have had black ops in Iran. Guaranteed!

Posted by doriangrey | May 23, 2007 2:06 PM

As a registered voter I am demanding that you instigate a criminal investigation into the ABC leaking of covert action authorized by the current administration against Iran.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html#comment-70457046

Both the actions of the anonymous sources and those of ABC in publishing this story clearly rise to the level of treason and US constitutional law requires that it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by doriangrey | May 23, 2007 2:11 PM

As a registered voter I am demanding that you instigate a criminal investigation into the ABC leaking of covert action authorized by the current administration against Iran.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html#comment-70457046

Both the actions of the anonymous sources and those of ABC in publishing this story clearly rise to the level of treason and US constitutional law requires that it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by unclesmrgol | May 23, 2007 7:12 PM

I.C.,

Are you perhaps talking about Eugene Debs? Personally, Debs did great damage to his union causes and to the attempts to rein in war profiteering by his strident calls for socialist revolution.

Nobody likes revolutions. People die in them. And Debs overreached and got caught up in the same problems Schenk did.

Had he stuck to the facts and avoided marxist rhetoric, he might have done well.

Posted by Chimpy | May 23, 2007 11:31 PM

These actions have been written about in the alternative press for sometime now. Sources for these stories were mid level military and intelligence people.

Posted by I.C. | May 24, 2007 2:20 PM

unclesmrgol,

No, I was thinking about Victor Berger, whose stances defy our modern categorizations. Debs was his protege, but got it wrong (as you say) on how to go about the business of the people. I quite agree about revolutions, and this is a point that no one seems to understand: the ends can never justify the means, because we become the means we employ, be they good or evil.

Posted by hapmoorii | May 24, 2007 10:23 PM

The leak may well be the administration trying to get Iran to shoot first. If it's not and this was real, isn't it the same kind of stuff that always seems to come back years down the line and bite us?