ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

April 03, 2007 5:25 PM

Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

Iran_militant_group_nr A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. 

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.

A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.

Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

To Blotter Homepage

April 3, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (262)

User Comments

Makes sense...not really a new story, tho. What makes Brian and Chris' reporting fairly incomplete is that they make no mention of Jundullah's objectives (which is half the story here). WHY is this group going into Iran and attacking the Iranian military? Look it up. Anyway, If you are the enemy of my enemy, I'll let you get away with being an ally of another of my enemies.

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 3, 2007 5:41:36 PM

I guess that makes the US a state sponsor of terrorism. Can we invade ourselves?

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2007 5:42:47 PM

And whats the point of us knowing this and getting out?

Posted by: Seth | Apr 3, 2007 5:45:47 PM

Is he going to turn out like the other figureheads the US once supported, like, oh I don't know, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein??

Posted by: Nick | Apr 3, 2007 5:46:09 PM

IF this is true, doesn't this sound just like the kind of relationship the US had with Osama bin Ladin in the 80s, when he was fighting the Soviets? When will we ever learn to not share the bed with these kinds of people?

Posted by: Blah | Apr 3, 2007 5:46:40 PM

Terrorism against Iran - well they live by the sword, they can die by the sword, too. Fight fire with fire.

Posted by: Rod M | Apr 3, 2007 5:50:05 PM

No wonder the whole world hates the U.S. - the only terrorism we will allow is that which supports our causes.

Posted by: Embarrassed Citizen | Apr 3, 2007 5:57:33 PM

Al-qaeda was the enemy of our enemy, turns out they usually because out enemies also eventually.

Either way we are supporting terrorists in the war on terror.

Posted by: Paul | Apr 3, 2007 6:09:50 PM

More Bush & Cheney mischief at loose in the World--no wonder the Iranians don't trust America. Our tax dollars going down the rathole that may likely come back to haunt us.

Posted by: jude | Apr 3, 2007 6:10:39 PM

A prelude to making the argument for U.S. Iranian intervention: that Sepah-e Pasdaran is operating in Iraq sponsoring terrorism against American and coalition forces. Who better to build the case than captured high ranking Iranian military officers admitting as much?

Posted by: JR | Apr 3, 2007 6:14:32 PM

This story is just part of the pattern. The Bush administration is determined to start a war in the middle east and Iran is just their latest target. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if this was all part of the plan with the British to destabilize relationships, leak warmongering and fear creating stories to the American people in an attempt to finally get their World War III.

Posted by: Shar | Apr 3, 2007 6:15:18 PM

Golly, gee. More of our tax dollars being wasted on state sponsored terrorism, not to mention the blood on our hands. When will the lunacy stop? We're not fighting fire with fire, we're STARTING THE FIRE!!!

Posted by: Gale Ann | Apr 3, 2007 6:17:49 PM

Thankyou ABC News.

At a time when negotiations over 15 Royal nave personnel comes to a critical stage, you decide to publish this.

If the United Kingdom is a friend of the United States, I hate to think what you do when the French are involved.

Is someone suffering from brain fade, or are you acting on Bush's instructions as a lead up to the attacks on Good Friday?

Posted by: Chris | Apr 3, 2007 6:19:14 PM

Which is worse:
1) USA as a sponsor of terrorism or
2) USA as major hypocrit?

Posted by: Opie Dey | Apr 3, 2007 6:21:17 PM

This is exactly what Cheney meant when he referred to the "dark side." Mr. Cheney, some news: you are a state-sponsor of terrorism.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 3, 2007 6:22:44 PM

I'm not sure what the journalists' objectives are for telling a story like this. Is the story even true?

Posted by: ALFRED SISON | Apr 3, 2007 6:23:05 PM

The constant repetition that we supported Osamma in some way is really tiresome. Read "T=the Looming Towers" if you are interested in facts (which I doubt). Osamma was not among the Afghani's we supported against the Russians. He and his 'Arabs' were foundering around in Pakistan and performed very little combat.

As for supporting Saddam that has also been overblown. Only 2 percent of his armaments were from the US and some of those were obtained illegally. Just like the kidnapping of these British "Marines" Iran committed an act of war by holding our embassy personnel. Since we had a President who was missing his male gender, why should we not have taken satisfaction the conflict between him and Iran? He didn't turn into a major head case until later.

Rather than VERY indirectly supporting guerrilla activity (reciprocity for Iran's activities which results in our the death of our troops) would you prefer we just nuke Iran and get it over with?

Posted by: red | Apr 3, 2007 6:25:17 PM

I understand that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it -- but do our leaders have to forget the past so often?

This is pathetic and embarrassing and will bite us on the butt in a couple decades. And then President Jenna will fund the neo-Baathists or Taliban3.0 to get these evil Jundullah leaders "dead or alive."

Posted by: Eric | Apr 3, 2007 6:25:56 PM

The dot the story misses drawing to is that the US is in effect supporting al Qaeda.

Posted by: Disputo | Apr 3, 2007 6:26:04 PM


Congress needs to find the N.S.A intercepts of Cheney's phone calls to Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: K. Trout | Apr 3, 2007 6:29:56 PM

I'm sure Tony Blair is absolutely thrilled with the timing of this disclosure.

Can someone please explain why anyone within our government would admit to ANY affiliation with them?
And I agree with Jazz...WHY are they killing Iranian soldiers?

Posted by: Rick | Apr 3, 2007 6:30:03 PM

"No wonder the whole world hates the U.S. - the only terrorism we will allow is that which supports our causes."

Umm...so we should be equal-time supporters of terror?

Posted by: Bob | Apr 3, 2007 6:30:56 PM

To Embarrassed Citizen:
Get over your moral vanity. This is war.

Posted by: Thucydides | Apr 3, 2007 6:32:36 PM

This is crazy! The US is involved in this? Just because we aren't *directly* funding this does not mean we aren't a part of this action. This administration supports terrorism and has CREATED more terrorists than were ever here on this earth. When will they learn that dealing with slime only results in horrors later. Didn't we arm Bin Laden to the hilt in the 80s? Yeah? and then he came back to bite the hand that fed him? Yep.. BTW, how's that search for Bin Laden going anyway? Still not concerned Mister Bush? YOU ARE PATHETIC.

Posted by: Unbelieveable Administration | Apr 3, 2007 6:33:38 PM

Hey Blah,

Um, the USA had no relationship with OBL, he was not in Afghanistan at the time of the anti-Soviet insurgency, and the Taliban did not yet exist.

Embarrassed,

What, should we allow terrorism which does *not* support our cause? Why, to make it "fair?"

Maybe the part of the world that you believe "hates" the US does so in part because of misinformation that worked so well on Blah a few comments prior...

Posted by: gringo | Apr 3, 2007 6:36:13 PM

Incidents like this are reminders of the kind of government we really live under, I would imagine our founding father's felt the same way in 1776.

Posted by: Nextgen Patriot | Apr 3, 2007 6:37:18 PM

Let's see, the guy is a Taliban commander, drug dealer, car bomber, and Sunni terrorist who kills unarmed people in cold blood. What's not to love? I suppose we are shipping him stinger missiles as we speak, perhaps along with cartons of box cutters to open them with....

Posted by: Outrage overload | Apr 3, 2007 6:38:05 PM

So, it's fine to support terrorism when it serves your own cause? Doesn't it make the "Global War on Terrorism" even more ridiculous, especially as counter-terrorism activities have proved to be far more deadly than terrorism itself?

Posted by: Wondering | Apr 3, 2007 6:40:13 PM

Nice timing. Weird how these kinds of reports are rarely strung together in any coherent fashion. Perhaps some day ABC will investigate the links between the Pakistani Intel folks and the 9/11 hijackers. Don't hold you breath.

Posted by: Nunya | Apr 3, 2007 6:40:40 PM

To those suffering from MES (Moral Equivalency Syndrome) like Kevin and Embarrassed Citizen, how about this: we'll stop supporting this guy if they'll stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraq insurgency, etc.

Sound like a fair trade?

Then it'll all be sweetness and light.

Oh, Iran will have to declare an end to the war they've been waging on us for 30 years, but that should be no big deal. I'm sure that deep down, the mullahs really want to be good, good friends with us. All that "Death to America" talk is just talk.

Posted by: frosty | Apr 3, 2007 6:42:31 PM

Would someone explain to me WHY and HOW those idiots in the Whitehouse were selected in 2000 and then elected in 2004? I cannot believe that there are that many stupid people in the US, but I guess there are.

Posted by: vicki | Apr 3, 2007 6:45:22 PM

1952 - CIA Ousts the Democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and installs the Shah, who kills hundreds of thousands of Iranians over the next 25 years. Research it.

Posted by: Marco Polio | Apr 3, 2007 6:49:19 PM

And from this we are to draw the conclusions that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists? How can this country claim to be fighting terrorism, when it does all within it's power to keep terror alive -- albeit on someone else's soil.

Posted by: Ginny Albert | Apr 3, 2007 6:50:07 PM

Isn't this the same thing that KSM admitted to to get out of Gitmo? Are we 'supporting' terrorists or are we just plain terrorists?

Posted by: Nunya Bisines | Apr 3, 2007 6:50:37 PM

We have once again legitimized terrorist tactics. We have become our own enemy. I feel like either picking up a carbine, or moving to Canada.

Posted by: Rogue Trick | Apr 3, 2007 6:52:04 PM

Jundullah (Army of God) is a militant Islamic organization that is based in Waziristan, Pakistan and affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: Mary C | Apr 3, 2007 6:52:43 PM

Is it not clear that the British and the Americans are collaborating in order to start w war with Iran -- hence the so-called "hostage" crisis. Agents provocateurs! This is insanity --and all so that the rich resources can be divided up among two greedy nations -- the same two greedy nations (especially Great Britain), who have tried again and again to get a major stronghold on the most resource-rich continent in the world!

Posted by: Ginny Albert | Apr 3, 2007 6:53:52 PM

the united states denies any DIRECT funding. iran contra?? deja vu

Posted by: steve mihalis | Apr 3, 2007 6:54:31 PM

You can argue that the US is being unwise from a pragmatic point. And you can point out that this makes the Iranian taking of the 15 Brits more of a tit-for-tat. But as described in this story, killing "military officers [and] intelligence officers" in war is not terrorism. Killing soldiers, especially in a part of a country whose central government uses soldiers and killing to maintain undemocratic power and keep down a minority ethnic group, is war.

The justness or unjustness of the causes in the war is relevant to the decision of which side we would want to win, or even want to assist, but it is not relevant to whether the guerrillas are terrorists. Iran's calling them so is no more dispositive than Britain's calling them so relative to its colonies, or even Germany's relative to the French Resistance.

Of course, Iran's taking the 15 British sailors wasn't terrorism either, by most definitions. It was, however, an act of war, although Britain has not yet chosen to take it that way.

Posted by: DWPittelli | Apr 3, 2007 6:55:38 PM

I dont know what else to think, no wonder we are hated everywhere. when are we gonna have a leadership that doesnt preach and drink wine?

Posted by: karanja | Apr 3, 2007 6:58:13 PM

Personally I would avoid aiding them because they are executing prisoners, arguably a violation of laws of war, although I doubt this group is a signatory to any Hague Treaty, or that Iran is granting any better status to its prisoners from this group; and one is allowed to reciprocate such practices, for a number of reasons, one of them being so the other side will do the same (as in the American Revolution).

Posted by: DWPittelli | Apr 3, 2007 7:01:16 PM

This is George W. Bush and Dick Cheyney playing the strategy game Civilization IV against the rest of the world. Only, this is the real thing! They have now made a vassal state of Iraq and Afghanistan, encircled Iran and already started covert operations against Iran to destabilize the government before the the final kill. This the classic world domination strategy. Knock out your weaker opponents, make "friends" of them to support your military machine then go after the rest of your enemies. See what happened when the U.S.S.R. fell in on itself? No other country was there to counter balance America's power.

Posted by: Al | Apr 3, 2007 7:01:40 PM

Who is really concerned whether Iran trusts us or not? It's a terriorist based country and should be dealt with accordingly.
Ever since the bleeding heart liberals demanded a stop to covert operations conducted by the U.S., our country's security has gone done the crapper. What better way to destablize an undesirable government. Have a group ZAP the Head of State and/or a group of high ranking officals and save the lives of many, many American troops.
This country needs to step back 50 yrs., and do the right thing again.

Posted by: Dan | Apr 3, 2007 7:02:04 PM

WELL,, THIS DEFINETLY SOUNDS JUST LIKE THE 1980s AGAIN , REMEMBER THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR !!! THE SANDINSTAS AND THE CONTRAS, AND THE SECRET INVOLVMENT WITH THE CIA AND THE REGAN/ BUSH ADMINSTRATION !!! NOW WE GOT SONNY JR. BUSH AND OL' UNCLE DICK CHENEY BACK IN OFFICE AND RIGHT UP TO THEIR OL "COVERT" TRICKS AGAIN !!!! WONDER JUST HOW MUCH LYING AND DENYING THEY'LL DO ON THIS ONE !!!! LETS NOT FORGET, THE LIES WE WERE TOLD ABOUT IRAQ TOO, AND NOW IRAN !!! THEN AGAIN THERE WAS WATERGATE IN THE 70s, AND THEY TRIED TO LIE ABOUT THAT AND COVER IT UP TOO !!!!!! NOW ITS IRAN-CONTRA, PART II followed by no doubt more lies and deception to come !!!!!! I PREDICT THAT CHENEY WILL DENY EVERYTHING AND FOLLOW THRU WITH MORE LIES,,HE'S BEEN DOING IT EVERY SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE !!! TIME TO KICK HIM OUT OF OFFICE, PEOPLE ARE VERY TIRED OF THIS 2 FACED PATHETIC VICE PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JetRanger | Apr 3, 2007 7:02:30 PM

Thanks ABC....without breaking such important stories how else would this knowledge get out and used as propaganda against us. IF it is true.
Truely a patriotic move on your part.

Posted by: Bosk | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:33 PM

Seems the liberals including Brian Ross want it both ways? Werent't they all screaming at the start of the iraq war that we should have armed the people within Iraq to overthrow Saddam? Remember the cries that we should have done this instead of war?
So no matter what the President does, the main stream press and democrats are against it. If we invaded iran, they would have screamed we should have helped those within get rid of the corrupt government.... if we do it there will be investigations. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS AND GET SOME BACK BONE

Posted by: Laura | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:53 PM

This Jundullah terrorist group not only kills the Iranian military personnel but also innocent civilian people. Last year they've attacked civilians between the city of Kerman and Bam and killed one entire family, kids parents and others in the car, they have indiscriminately shoot at any passing car on the road to create terror.

Posted by: Ray | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:54 PM

Well this is certianly going to help the US's efforts to negotiate with Iran. I guess maybe it's not considered supporting terrorism when you're doing things to support your own interests? Yikes, I wonder how Bush is going to (try) and spin this one?

Posted by: Harry | Apr 3, 2007 7:09:52 PM

You libs disgust me! Whose side are you on? This is the most biased peice of bilge I have seen come down the pike to date.

Posted by: Intimidator | Apr 3, 2007 7:14:10 PM

Karanja that is the point

The President is drinking again

Posted by: Chris | Apr 3, 2007 7:17:07 PM

Good work, ABC. The government of Iran thanks you for your services.

Posted by: Beroooz | Apr 3, 2007 7:18:19 PM

So we have intelligence sources, tribal sources, ex CIA officals and a senior state department official. Mmmm... So no one has the nerve to go on the record..This sounds like another bogus MSM report.

Thank you GWB and DC for having the nerve to go after those who want to kill us..

Keep up the excellent work. Who gives a darn if we are liked, if your dead it does not matter anyway...

Posted by: JR | Apr 3, 2007 7:21:30 PM

You know, the funny part of this story is that there is no proof that the US is sponsoring this group. All of the conspiracy theorists out there failed to recognize the one key part of the story. It is the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia (think Sunni) that are sponsoring Jundullah with funds, not the US. The rest is speculation from Paki and supposed "US intel officers" that Cheney and the CIA are doing this. They are not. It is the Sunni nations that are trying to counter-balance the growing Shi'a influence of Iran. The other major part of this story that is missing is that the Jundullah is into major heroin transportation, and that takes place thru Iran to Turkey and on to Europe. These attacks are more likely retaliation against the Iranians who were interfering with the transit route. Everyone needs to stop immediately placing blame on the US. Look at the facts!

Posted by: John | Apr 3, 2007 7:25:17 PM

Tell me the significance of "encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005." Pretty nebulous charge. Encouraged and advised to do what? Lets see...

"A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context."

I'm sure the US is reaching-out to many groups like this throughout the region. Like it or not, this kind of "human intelligence" work is necessary. In that part of the world, there is shortage of "nice guys" to work with.

A leak about this work, with this group, at this time, smacks of another leak from a disgruntled CIA type.

Posted by: edhesq | Apr 3, 2007 7:33:50 PM

Holy Cow, this is Big! Jundullah, or, Army of God, is affliated with Al Qaeda, and their stated goal:
a hardline Sunni Islamist government similar to the Taliban regime. Basically, not only has Bush Regime covertly supported terrorists, they have in effect, supported Al Qaeda TERRORISTS. HOw the heck does this flush, anyone have any idea? :(

Posted by: Richard | Apr 3, 2007 7:37:59 PM

It seems everyone in the world besides 90% of the US population knows of massive CIA involvment in international terrorism, narcotics, and assasinations.

Thank you ABC news for reporting this. It's due time the CIA was turned into an intelligence only agency and any US agression is only taken with the knowledge and will of the American people.

Posted by: JT | Apr 3, 2007 7:38:58 PM

Id beware if I were Iran, didn't they fight Iraq to a stalemate over the course of 10 or 12 years? Didn't we just beat down the Iraqi's not once but twice in the course of a few months each time? Duh? Allied forces control the entire infrastructure of Iraq,that is in no way LOSING a war.

Compare Iraq to even a few battles of the Great Wars, and you'll notice that casualties are few comparatively.(ahem,the Battle of the Bulge) Political bickering always happens at the end of Wars, esp one that has been WON so rapidly.They are killing 100 times each other vs. our troops....think about that..they dont hate us, they hate eachother.

Goodbye Iraq, Hello Iran.
MSP

Posted by: Mattthias | Apr 3, 2007 7:43:33 PM

This nation was founded on terrorism...and fast forward, the cia is known to stir the pot in countries, create insurgencies and then kill the insurgents...all just to find out who in the population would be willing to become an insurgent...

Posted by: Aaron C | Apr 3, 2007 7:44:52 PM

Its time for the world to decide take the good with the bad or nothing at all. For every good deed done by our country overseas we have in turn made mistakes and bad decisions costing thousands of lives. Yet when we make the right one to we get the same amount back in praise, NO. So lets stop sending billions of dollars over seas, keep it at home and fix our country. If the US is so corrupt and evil why do millions of people try to move to this country every year? If you are so upset with the goverment elected by the people with all the flaws involved why do you still live here. If you lived in Iraq under Saddam and posted these articles I would laugh when you cried for help while being tortured. Either accept the bad with the good, volunteer to serve and help fix it or shut up and leave. Posting whining articles and all your conspiracy theories dont solve anything. God bless America

Posted by: BDA | Apr 3, 2007 7:47:06 PM

I have just two questions. Is anyone going to tell the American people why Bush and the US government are involved with this type of illegal activity? Why do you think so many groups want us dead or this country broken? We are so arrogant and self-righteous. Bush and crazies are creating another mess they can not finish.

Posted by: johnmag | Apr 3, 2007 7:48:17 PM

The greatest threat to the freedom of American is in Washington D.C.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | Apr 3, 2007 7:50:02 PM

Beautiful story. I am so happy to see that we are using the methods of our enemies -not on innocent civilians but on those directly responsible for the deaths of countless innocent Iraqi's and heroic American soldiers. Let's officially fund them so that we can dispose of more militant anti-Liberty forces.

Posted by: Ernesto Cullari | Apr 3, 2007 7:53:50 PM

The Pakastian group should have been kept in secret and not tell Iran they are coming. Let them do their job and then report it.

Posted by: Richard Cook | Apr 3, 2007 7:54:46 PM

There go the warmongers blaming the messenger once again, after this admin has repeatedly been busted for lying over and over again to the American people. "We don't torture", "We Don't Have Secret Prisons", "We're not doing domestic spying". Uh huh... Don't buy the Neocon hype. They don't care about Americans.

Posted by: Stereo5 | Apr 3, 2007 8:01:22 PM

Another wrinkle in the "Global War on Terrorism": It's not terrorism if it's being used against people or governments our government doesn't like. And when is this punk Regi going to morph into the new Osama? And will we see video of crowds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims chanting, "Reg-i, Reg-i, Reg-i"?

Posted by: DEJA VU | Apr 3, 2007 8:03:01 PM

This is disgusting. Maybe we should all take a little pill. I can't figure out what country to move to between trying to get away from war, poverty, global warming, terrorism and still be able to buy groceries.... It's comments either shooting the messenger for being unpatriotic ot believing every word without proof~where is the middlde ground? Its a sign of the times but rather than getting on the computer why not call up your congressman and have those guys stop the POTUS and DC before they really mess things up (as if they aren't already)

Posted by: Somebody_s Mom | Apr 3, 2007 8:03:14 PM

well, I think this made us terrorist sponsors as we fight it. Not a good sign.

Posted by: eddie | Apr 3, 2007 8:06:57 PM

This is not new and not that disturbing. It's called politics.

Posted by: Iman | Apr 3, 2007 8:07:54 PM

Can anyone give a reason why Bush and Blair would want to start world war 3? It doesn't make any sense. What will they gain from it?

Posted by: Curious | Apr 3, 2007 8:08:03 PM

It's really scary with Bush/Cheney at the helm. More so with Cheney and his half smile half snarly look. If we new even 10% of what these guys are doing behind our backs we would be shaking in our shoes.

Posted by: reggie | Apr 3, 2007 8:13:10 PM

"US officials 'say,' tribal sources 'tell," and the final blow, 'some former' CIA officers "say." Why should we believe any of this? You are , after all, the "news" media.

If you cannot clearly identify your sources, you should not be reporting such inflammatory material.

Posted by: Charlie | Apr 3, 2007 8:14:00 PM

Ahh so... it all suddenly seems so clear. This proxy war and god knows how many others like it are a clear manifestation of the current administration's true foreign policy agenda. The agenda is at least 10 years old and essentially is one of globalization, or spreading American power and influence around the world. Many view this as a modern form of colonialism.

This sort of thing harkens back to the Reagan administration and the repeal of the Clark Amendment in 1985. The amendment made proxy wars illegal, though of course there are always ways of circumventing the law. For example, the Pentagon is not required to report details of activities conducted by Special Operations Forces to Congress. That's necessary to a point but also leaves the door wide open for them to operate with impunity.

90% of the time the ultimate result of proxy wars is to start fires we don't put out. These fires sometimes spark new ones. In 1986, Osama bin Laden worked as a major contractor on the CIA-funded Khost tunnel complex close to the Pakistani border. The complex housed an arms depot, a training facility, and a medical center for the mujahideen. Can anyone tell me which complex President Clinton bombed in 1998?

How can we be living in a democracy when the entire strength of the world's most advanced and (second-largest) military falls under the thumb of a single person making decisions without any sort of real accountability to the public?

Posted by: Jesse | Apr 3, 2007 8:19:55 PM

This is like fighting terror with a knife while on the other hand helping terror by encouraging them. Very good!

Posted by: ED | Apr 3, 2007 8:20:50 PM

The world is and has
always been a nasty,
tough place. Dealing
with groups like this
, although it doesn't
make you feel good,
just has to be done.

Posted by: jonah | Apr 3, 2007 8:21:41 PM

WHy should we beat around the Bush. The entire world knows what is going on with our government.

Who masterminded this idea? I suppose it was Mr. Karl Rove, RIce, Cheney and the President himself. Very sad indeed ...

Posted by: Peter | Apr 3, 2007 8:26:00 PM

The US has done this kind of thing
over and over and over again for
50 years. From Iran in the 50's
to El Salvador to The Dominican
Republic to Chile to Nicaragua to
Afghanistan.

Anybody that doubts the
Bush junta has a hand in this is
hopelessly naive, a fool or a
willing participant in crimes against humanity.

And 9 times out of 10 it comes back
to bite. But the
American people just never never
learn to recognize when their
patriotism is being perverted by
the puppet masters.

So sad.

Posted by: grennels | Apr 3, 2007 8:28:55 PM

How many of you have done further research into this? The press can be wrong, they have been wrong in the past. If you believe there is a problem let me suggest this, instead of complaining about it on the ABC News website, why don't you tell someone that can do something about it. Why don't you go out and do your own research (if you haven't already). Maybe you can come to your own conclusion instead of taking someone’s word for it. You are all untitled to your opinions, but I just want to know how many of the opinions on here where informed and independently researched, and how many jumped to a conclusion?

Posted by: P | Apr 3, 2007 8:31:32 PM

Funny: the use of the word "guerrilla" instead of "terrorist." I guess "terrorist" only applies when the actions are against the U.S. but it does not apply when the actions are against U.S. enemies. I think this is typical hypocrisy most of the world has come to expect from us.

Posted by: Chris Gibson | Apr 3, 2007 8:33:31 PM

Have you noticed you have never seen Osama, Bush, Cheney and Zawahiri at the same time in the same place. Hmmm makes you wonder.

Posted by: FENDIX | Apr 3, 2007 8:38:23 PM

The problem with democracy is the majority of the people are stupid and emotional. (Hint) Anger is a powerful emotion that most of you thrive on.

If the Administration doesn't keep Iran screaming mad, people will figure out they aren't crazy.

Are we fighting fire with fire, or are they? Think about the dictators the U.S. props up in other countries...Saddam in Iraq...Shah in Iran... In the past the U.S. has given Terrorists control over every aspect of the peoples lives in these countries. Now(?) we are encouraging and advising new terrorist on attacks in Iran.

It's time we take note of what is going on behind the scenes and get control over our government, (of the people?) and (by the people?).

Ask yourself, if the government sets a good example for your children to follow. Is this how you will teach your kids to behave? Is this how you want me to teach my kids to treat yours? The blind support for this type of behavior needs to end. If this country is run by the people, we need to accept responsibility for our actions, and understand why "they" chant "Down with America".

Posted by: James Harold | Apr 3, 2007 8:39:40 PM

The Iranians are really stepping up their propaganda campaign.
I question the sources, & the timing.

Posted by: Guy | Apr 3, 2007 8:39:44 PM

Yeah, I mean if unnamed senior U.S. and Pakistani Government said, I sure as heck believe it, especially if it fits in really neatly with my tidy little view of the way the world works.

Posted by: dog | Apr 3, 2007 8:47:21 PM

It is not terrorism if Jundullah attacks military targets - which is what it does.

The Baluchi's are an oppressed minority in Iran and ar fighting for better treatment or independence.

Good for us if they are killing Iranian military.

However, the Baluchs will not be our friends in the long run.

I'd also like to add that the Blotter has very little credibility - just a step over Debka.

Just a few weeks ago this site was breathlessly reporting a big attack in Afghanistan (against AQ HVTs). It never happened. So I'd take this with a huge dose of salt.