Sy Hersh On Covert Action Against Iran, Again

By Cernig

Sy Hersh has a new piece out in the New Yorker alleging that the Bush administration has ramped up covert action inside Iran - funding and directing proxy groups of Iranian dissidents, including a group with ties to Al Qaeda, to carry out attacks "designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership."

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, according to Hersh. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.

There's a lot more - seven pages in total. Read, as they say, the whole thing. Hersh has been vocal about this alleged covert war and other clandestine Bush administration plans to provoke conflict with Iran for some time now, over a year. That there hasn't been a full-on shooting match despite his claims has led many to question his reports. Kevin Drum, for instance, wrote recently:

In the past, conservatives have complained that we liberals are obsessed with the idea that George Bush is going to launch a military strike on Iran. And I admit that after reading the tenth or twentieth article about this with no attack forthcoming, I began to think that maybe they had a point. Maybe we should all lay off the Seymour Hersh pieces for a while and calm down.

So is Hersh crying wolf or is he one of the few warning voices in the wilderness? Seems to me I'd rather be wrong and there wasn't a war than wrong and there was. If the former, I look foolish - if the latter, I look foolish and people die. I don't think my pride or credibility is worth any portion, however small, of the responsibility for the loss of multiple lives. If some of our prominent foreign policy commenters had felt the same before the Iraq invasion, it would have been far harder for Bush to accomplish. And so, here's my post noting Hersh's article and saying I continue to be worried about the true intentions of an administration that has a proven record of saying they don't want war while preparing to launch one. Read Hersh's piece and make your own mind up about what he writes.

Update Interesting denial from Crocker, via Think Progress:

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, reacting to Hersh's story on CNN's Late Edition, said: "I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran."

Which, although it makes me feel better about the prospect of some Janaja-style foul up starting a general shooting match, leaves the possibility of US-backed proxies carrying out destabilization ops undenied. Wouldn't that rather rob US protestations over alleged Iranian meddling-by-proxy in Iraq of their moral legitimacy, or is it only OK if we do it?

Comments

[qwerty]

"have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year"

Really? I could have sworn Sy Hersh has been reporting the same thing for at least 3 years.

[Steve Hynd]

Qwerty, you can swear it all you like, but can you cite it? Provide a link to a three year old Hersh piece saying this, if you please. Otherwise your comment is content-free.

Regards, C

[JohnShreffler]

C,

Qwerty's right more or less. Hersh has been talking this up for 3 years. The main thrust of his work on this subject is about 2 years old. Here's the complete Hersh New Yorker index. I still feel that Cheney's looking for a cassus beli here and that's in the most recent Hersh story as well, so this story is significant indeed. Here's hoping he doesn't get his wish.

[JohnShreffler]

Col. Sam Gardner had a string of comments out about covert ops in Iran in early 2006 also. Neither Hersh nor Gardner had anything about Presidential authorization, though it would have be assumed, as no one freelances that sort of stuff.

[BJ Bjornson]

John beat me to it. The first Hersh article he links to is from January, 2005 and discusses secret missions inside Iran.

Crocker's specific denial regarding the Iraq border also doesn't cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, or other bordering countries where the US has bases and/or influence.

[Steve Hynd]

Good links, John. That's the way we like it. Thanks.

BJ - good point. With this administration, it's always worth watching how they weasel-word things.

Regards, C

[Cheryl Rofer]

It's possible that the fact that Hersh publishes these reports is one of the factors preventing the attacks.

This is the sort of thing that can't be proved, of course, unless someone in the administration chooses to tell us it's the case and provide a "Pentagon Papers" confirmation, which I don't expect to happen for a few years yet.

[Kilo]

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/01/newshog-23-01-2005.html

[Kilo]

Biggest news story of the week - US special forces have been doing target scouting in Iran for 6 months.
Posted by Cernig at 1/19/2005
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/01/newshog-19-01-2005.html

Give you a link to your own archives for a story you've posted about or someone else is the one coming up short ?

Here's a thought, given that 100% of commenters here recall this story that you don't, maybe you ought to try a different attitude to the one where you challenge people to substantiate common knowledge as though it is a fabrication. You pissy bitch.

[Steve Hynd]

Kilo, you're being an ass. I asked you to link because that's what commenters here do when they make assertions like that, as a matter of course. Notice I thanked John for the links?

You're also a sockpuppet. Did you forget which of your four or five names you posted under before, qwerty/kilo? Good bye.

Regards, C