Wednesday
Oct212009
Iran: Taking Apart the Jundallah-US Narrative
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 9:50
LATEST Iran Bombings: Former Pakistan Intelligence Chief Blames US
Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
UPDATE 1945 GMT: Take this for what it's worth from former CIA operative Robert Baer: "I've been told that the Bush Administration at one point considered Jundallah as a piece in a covert-action campaign against Iran, but the idea was quickly dropped because Jundallah was judged uncontrollable and too close to al-Qaeda. There was no way to be certain that Jundallah would not throw the bombs we paid for back at us."
--
We followed up Sunday's bombing in southeastern Iran with a discussion between EA's Mr Smith and Chris Emery on the likely attackers, the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani were claiming that Jundallah was supported by foreign intelligence services, including US operatives.
EA correspondent Josh Mull dissects the Jundallah-US narrative to put some questions not about the claim but about the significance of the bombing. --- WSL
My immediate question is why the blaming of Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi automatically makes Tehran's anti-Western rhetoric more credible. Who else could they have named that would NOT lend credibility to their anti-Western rhetoric? The Kurdish PKK? The Baluchistan Liberation Army? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq? The US is said to have supported all of them against the Tehran regime at one point or another, so what makes Jundallah an extra-credible outlet for US activities?
Let's presume Tehran is telling the truth and that that was a deliberate covert action by the United States using Jundallah assets in Islamabad:
1. What is the specific motivation of the United States to use this specific tactic, with these specific assets, against this specific target, at this specific time?
2. This would be a grievous act of aggression against a country with which the US claims to be in diplomatic discussions. It is an attack massacring dozens more than the globally-condemned Taliban attacks against Indian personnel in Afghanistan. How does this reconcile with the US strategy of engagement on the nuclear issue?
3. What are China and Russia's motivations to continue along the US path, knowing that the US will commit these atrocities without regard to diplomatic consequences?
4. The Obama administration has previously claimed to have ceased aggressive covert actions against the Iranian regime, so is this an outright lie? What would be the motivation and benefits of covert operations?
5. What is the cost-benefit of outrageous suicide tactics against a worthless and irrelevant target? If you're going to use a suicide bomber, why not hit a nuclear facility, or something else important to US national security interests?
6. Why would Pakistan allow Jundallah assets to operate in Islamabad, given their well-known ties to the Baluch insurgency, who would likely jump at the chance to strike this deep in Pakistani territory?
7. Why would the US run such an incredibly sensitive operation out of one of their most watched Embassies on the planet? India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia: all are highly operationally capable in Islamabad, and any aggressive covert actions which would compromise their own national security interests vis-a-vis the US and Iran would raise a lot of red flags and alarms.
8. Why not use closer, more efficient assets, such as an enormous special forces apparatus in Afghanistan, or similar forces in Iraq, or even sea-borne assets from the Persian Gulf? We're talking communications here, so why is a crowded and compromised embassy better than an invisible submarine or clandestine outpost?
9. If Iran really could decrypt US covert satellite communications, why not such evidence to the United Nations and/or the International Criminal Court? It constitutes a smoking gun.
If any of those questions could be answered, we might be on to something in blaming the US for a suicide bombing against an Iranian army base. Failing that, perhaps a simpler explanation might hold up. It appears that Jundallah has pulled off a spectacular and vicious attack against the institution most involved in the systematic oppression of Sunni and Baloch Iranian citizens.
We can presume that Jundallah perceives, far more acutely than we do, weakness in the regime. It may seek to exacerbate that weakness by antagonizing the military, the institution which oppresses them but would also be used to maintain order against a restive reformist movement as well. It can be reasoned that Jundallah calculates a reformist regime would be slightly more open to their demands than a fanatical, military-supported regime.
Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
UPDATE 1945 GMT: Take this for what it's worth from former CIA operative Robert Baer: "I've been told that the Bush Administration at one point considered Jundallah as a piece in a covert-action campaign against Iran, but the idea was quickly dropped because Jundallah was judged uncontrollable and too close to al-Qaeda. There was no way to be certain that Jundallah would not throw the bombs we paid for back at us."--
We followed up Sunday's bombing in southeastern Iran with a discussion between EA's Mr Smith and Chris Emery on the likely attackers, the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani were claiming that Jundallah was supported by foreign intelligence services, including US operatives.
EA correspondent Josh Mull dissects the Jundallah-US narrative to put some questions not about the claim but about the significance of the bombing. --- WSL
My immediate question is why the blaming of Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi automatically makes Tehran's anti-Western rhetoric more credible. Who else could they have named that would NOT lend credibility to their anti-Western rhetoric? The Kurdish PKK? The Baluchistan Liberation Army? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq? The US is said to have supported all of them against the Tehran regime at one point or another, so what makes Jundallah an extra-credible outlet for US activities?
Let's presume Tehran is telling the truth and that that was a deliberate covert action by the United States using Jundallah assets in Islamabad:
1. What is the specific motivation of the United States to use this specific tactic, with these specific assets, against this specific target, at this specific time?
2. This would be a grievous act of aggression against a country with which the US claims to be in diplomatic discussions. It is an attack massacring dozens more than the globally-condemned Taliban attacks against Indian personnel in Afghanistan. How does this reconcile with the US strategy of engagement on the nuclear issue?
3. What are China and Russia's motivations to continue along the US path, knowing that the US will commit these atrocities without regard to diplomatic consequences?
4. The Obama administration has previously claimed to have ceased aggressive covert actions against the Iranian regime, so is this an outright lie? What would be the motivation and benefits of covert operations?
5. What is the cost-benefit of outrageous suicide tactics against a worthless and irrelevant target? If you're going to use a suicide bomber, why not hit a nuclear facility, or something else important to US national security interests?
6. Why would Pakistan allow Jundallah assets to operate in Islamabad, given their well-known ties to the Baluch insurgency, who would likely jump at the chance to strike this deep in Pakistani territory?
7. Why would the US run such an incredibly sensitive operation out of one of their most watched Embassies on the planet? India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia: all are highly operationally capable in Islamabad, and any aggressive covert actions which would compromise their own national security interests vis-a-vis the US and Iran would raise a lot of red flags and alarms.
8. Why not use closer, more efficient assets, such as an enormous special forces apparatus in Afghanistan, or similar forces in Iraq, or even sea-borne assets from the Persian Gulf? We're talking communications here, so why is a crowded and compromised embassy better than an invisible submarine or clandestine outpost?
9. If Iran really could decrypt US covert satellite communications, why not such evidence to the United Nations and/or the International Criminal Court? It constitutes a smoking gun.
If any of those questions could be answered, we might be on to something in blaming the US for a suicide bombing against an Iranian army base. Failing that, perhaps a simpler explanation might hold up. It appears that Jundallah has pulled off a spectacular and vicious attack against the institution most involved in the systematic oppression of Sunni and Baloch Iranian citizens.
We can presume that Jundallah perceives, far more acutely than we do, weakness in the regime. It may seek to exacerbate that weakness by antagonizing the military, the institution which oppresses them but would also be used to maintain order against a restive reformist movement as well. It can be reasoned that Jundallah calculates a reformist regime would be slightly more open to their demands than a fanatical, military-supported regime.
Reader Comments (38)
4. The Obama administration faces a velvet revolution from the Republican hawks. By supporting covert action they tame the conservative beasts and the neo-conservative evangelical ayatollahs of america. Once Obama passes his health care plan, the old conservatives can be made to face the death panels. The Obama dove is growing the secret talons they use in the holy city of Chicago(the qum by ya-ya gang of the Annanberg conspiracy and the Reverend Wright)
This group in question still could have received funding from the previous administration and carried out the attack without having been ordered to do so by the U.S. That still means the U.S. would have a measure of responsibility for what occurred without having crudely ordered the attack. Seymour Hersh did report that the Bush administration was looking to stir things up in Baluchistan.
Killing five Sepah commanders is hardly worthless strategically and one of them was head of the Qods force responsible for foreign missions - a force constantly blamed by the US for the many headaches faced over the years in Iraq.
Local factors of course are equally important. The meeting was the Iranian government's effort at coming to a reconciliation with the local notables at the expense of the growing and expanding forces of extremist Wahabism, Wahabi clerics and neo-Talibanization. This was an obvious threat to Rigi's power and influence in the region and thus a potential threat which needed to be nipped in the bud. The question of where Jundollah managed to receive such powerful and affective explosives and knowledge of the crucial meeting are all questions worthy of further exploration and also cause for suspicion. As someone above has commented the action was probably done off their own back with funding previously acquired during the Bush era.
Ali,
It's not a political concession, it's a covert operation. O are you suggesting that Republican members of the congressional intelligence committees are leaking classified national security operations for the express purpose of political maneuvering? That's what would have to happen in order for Republicans to see any political gain out of this. Either that or we assume all Republicans are analytical geniuses who will instantly see this suicide bombing in Iran as a manifestation of Obama's foreign policy, and furthermore, as a political concession to themselves specifically as Republican hawks.
Canuckistan,
Fair enough, but I said we should presume that Tehran is telling the truth. Tehran didn't say "maybe they still had some stuff lying around from Bush," they very explicitly offered investigative details such as the satellite communications in Pakistan. The whole debate began around the premise that in the case of this bombing, Tehran's claims are credible and that they are an honest victim against a deliberate US terrorist attack. If we presume that Tehran is instead lying, that for instance there were no satellite communications between US intelligence and Jundallah operatives, then sure, leftovers from Bush is a very reasonable assertion.
Sadegh,
Can you clarify what you mean by "neo-Talibanization" and, if possible, quantify "Rigi's power and influence in the region" because I'm under the impression that he has little to zero power or influence. Unlike the Kurdish groups or even MEK, Rigi's outfit is more a plainly criminal/terrorist organization in Iran. Not to be confused with ethnic/religious/nationalist insurgencies which operate on popular support and rhetorical nobility. A parallel would be the Iraqi insurgents in the 1920s Revolution Brigades and AQ's Islamic State of Iraq. One is a nationalist front, the other is a violent criminal organization.
As for the high value military targets and their strategic importance to the United States, we'd have to establish what that strategy is.
-If the US objective is regime change, it doesn't make sense to go about it by assassinating military brass. As the US has learned from Iraq, you undertake regime change by co-opting the military, not annihilating it. And it really begs the question of what ultimate success looks like: what are they going to do, suicide bomb Khameini? Absurd, right?
- If it is, as you say, a hit against targets who were responsible for US casualties in Iraq, then we have a different strategy than "regime change" - we'd have a US national security strategy consisting of revenge. That's not impossible or ridiculous on its face (President Clinton once bombed downtown civilian Baghdad because of a foiled plot to assassinate President Bush) but it is a possibility that is extremely difficult to reconcile with the Obama administration strategy of diplomatic engagement. If the US will take revenge at any time, slaughtering Iranian citizens in a vindictive act of suicide terrorism, what is the motivation for any of the players to negotiate on the nuclear issue?
UJ,
Has Iran explicitely alleged satellite communications existed between US intelligence and Jundallah operatives in the build up to this attack?
ChrisE,
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/10/18/latest-iran-video-blame-on-sunni-group-jundallah-us-for-bombing/
The group “has been in constant contact with the US Embassy in Islamabad [Pakistan] and this has been certified by different groups and sources [of Press TV]“
Another very interesting analysis. There are several feasible explanations for the attacks.
If the US were involved, it's not from the govt. Engagement is integral to President Obama's plans for the entire region-- it's not a show-piece & he's not going to shoot himself in the foot this way. More likely...
(1) As Chris & Mr Smith discussed the other day, there is plenty of available money still sloshing around from Bush-era support of anti-regime groups which included Jundallah.
(2) If there was active US involvement, it would come from people opposed to engagement and would be part of an effort to create tensions to disrupt the process. The Bush era people who had working relationships with Jundallah & other groups are part of the same set who denounce engagement in the op-eds. If...*IF*... there is US involvement, I would look more in that direction.
(sorry to repeat myself- hard to not jump in)
Amy,
#2 is a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence that the editorial boards of mainstream American newspapers are infiltrated by intelligence operatives engaging in overseas terrorism? Are you suggesting that William Kristol or Charles Krauthammer have operational contacts within the Jundallah organization? Who are the "Bush era people" who have these contacts in Jundallah? The policy-makers who enact these decisions are not the same CIA and military operatives who will carry out those decisions. To suggest otherwise would require considerable proof. (You're suggesting at minimum a violation of the Logan Act, or worse, high treason against the government of the United States)
I'm not making an allegation-- I am stating an opinion. There's no way to know even if there is US involvement of any kind. What I am saying is that there are people who don't want engagement with Iran and some of the same people have been part of the process that initially employed these groups in the past admin. *If* there is US involvement, I would not jump to the conclusion that it comes from the government, but would look at who has an interest in disrupting engagement. I stated the direction I think is most likely. My knowledge is limited to news items such as the following, which I'm in no position to verify, but my opinion is based on years of watching how these people operate, beginning back in the Iran/Contra era.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html" rel="nofollow">The Secret War Against Iran
Posted this on the daily news thread before I saw this one:
Interesting article in today’s Asia Times Online by MK Bhadrakumar called “Saudi-Iranian Hostility Hits Boiling Point”. The arguement is that the Jundallah attack is part of an ever increasing proxy war between the two states.
UJ,
The world has been Osama Bin Ladenized, i.e. any wealthy private individual can become a benefactor to an insurgent or terror group, whether they agree with the goal or not, and use them for their own political purpose(s). There are plenty of retired intelligence officers in the world to hire for operations or as go betweens. We will have to see how this story plays out, but with my Post #11, I tend to think this is a Saudi operation.
Thomas,
I think you're right on with the Saudi connection. It makes a lot more sense for the Saudis to engage in "strategic suicide attacks" given their past use of the strategy against opponents on the Mediterranean and the horn of Africa. The IRGC leadership would be a very important strategic target for Saudi Arabia, given that the commanders likely oversaw counter-Saudi and anti-Sunni activities in and around the Persian Gulf (Yemen, Bahrain, UAE, etc) as well as in Lebanon (Hizb'allah).
What I'd wonder about is if it's a situation like Amy mentioned earlier, wherein rogue elites fund and support Jundallah against, or outside, of official Saudi national security policy. While that would be a severe allegation against a US journalist or policy-maker, there is a long, and well-documented, history of Saudi elites funding terrorism and militancy above and beyond what their sovereign government allows.
If it is an official act of Saudi policy, then it was quite a devastating strategic blow against Iran. If it was a rogue Saudi elite, the regime would be wise to get this situation under control quickly, lest they suffer the blowback themselves.
I'd be interested in seeing some polling, no matter how questionable, of Saudi and Iranian citizens on their opinion of each other. I wonder how much of this is vivid Sunni-Shia animosity and how much is just the machinations of depraved, entrenched elites.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean journalists when I mentioned op-ed writers. I was thinking of former advisers & officials who regularly denounce engagement & other foreign policy issues in the major newspapers & media outlets.
Normally the suggestion would be outrageous, but in some circles, there's an 'anything goes' mindset about bringing down this admin. I'm wary of back-door efforts to disrupt foreign policy. IMHO, it's something to keep in the back of the mind.
In the case of this bombing, there are several plausible explanations. I bring it up as something to consider if it turns out that there is US involvement.
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) on Jundullah
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00128/FFI-rapport_2009-01_128873a.pdf
"An ethnic conflict has turned sectarian. The Islamic Republic is dealing with a Jihad within its own borders."
This report has a history of Jundullah detailing how religion has become significant in the Baluchi region strife. Jundullah's first suicide attack was in response to the razing of the Abu Hanifa mosque and seminary in Zabol. Their tactics of operation, justification and propoganda have become increasingly in step with other sunni jihadi organizations. Suicide attacks are almost always religiously driven.
"In a furious message posted on the Jundullah blog, Abdolmalek Rigi swears revenge, and says that the “jihad will never end”136"
The report also lays out possible funding from families of soldiers, extorting gas deliveries, smuggling and trafficking and even kidnapping. Report 60% of Afghan poppy yeild goes through Baluchistan into Iran.
Here is a very good and interesting look into the salafi jihadi response to the attacks:
http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/10/baluchi-insurgent-jihadi-group.html
There is discussion on concerns about muslim on muslim violence and its justification, celebrations and snide comments (Gen. Noor being bar-b-que), the glory of the operation (suicide attack) of their "brother" and even U.S., Isreal and Saudi devastation from the attacks (yes they think the zionists and apostates were responsible for the meeting in Baluch). Without doubt, this act has been heroicaly accepted in jihad ciircles.
When I first heard of the attack, I thought of Yemen. The day prior Iran announced it foriegn minister would deliver a message from AN to the Yemenise government. There is a sunni-shia battle raging in Yemen and the meeting in Baluch was a sunni-shia summit. The global jihadi believe this sunni-shia battle creates opportunity against the apostate Kingdom of Saudia Arabia as well as the apostate IRI. The timing of the attack and announcement seem coincidental, but caused me to question on whether a new front was opening up in Iran. As one person on a forum points out though, it isn't a new front because "the brothers from the different mujahideen groups in Iran have been carrying out operations for years. And Iran isn't pressuring the kuffar in Afghanistan, but rather assisting them."
This lays out justification for the fight in Yemen and caused me question the possibility of a new front as mentioned in my previous post.
http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=213
"Could Yemen be the Next Surprise of the Season"
Important to note that it isn't a battle against shia or sunni that global jihadi cherish, but rather the battle between "the rulers in the Arabian Peninsula (that) are playing a central role in the fight against Islam especially the al Saud family" and the apostate Islamic Republic of Iran that they find significant.
Reports from NATO commanders are that hundreds of foriegn fighters have fled Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to join the fight in Yemen. They either join the sunni in the south who are rising up and protesting the government of Yemen, or join the Hituthi shia in the north. Report from Yemen soldiers is that the shia rebels are above human and no natural person has the abilities of they possess. That is a constant sign of foriegn jihadi fighter on the battlefield. Odddly, these Yemenise soldiers come to this conclusion after chewing the stimulant qat, which is thought to give superior fighting abilites (think Mogadishu).
This conflict could have implications on the pilars of the Iranian regime going forward if the Jundullah attacks are indeed steeped with a religious undertaking. Their statement indicates it was for the oppression from the regime. At the surface it may seem legitimate, but could be to provide shelter for the Pakistan Baluchi and further Pakistan (ISI) involvement. Always remember with these guys "war is deceit."
UJ,
Saudi Arabia has a lot of powerful political factions within the Family. They are in the midst of another succession struggle with Crown Prince Sultan's health apparently terminal. So there is room for a rogue competent faction to undermine another. Also this proxy war in Yemen could have lead to an offically approved "dark op". Either would explain the heavy US communications in Pakistan trying to warn Jundallah not to do it.
I agree with Amy that the US can have problems with rogue political operators. We are in a new era were it is anything goes, especially with "the machinations of depraved, entrenched elites".
Darren,
Thanks for the info.
Thomas,
I don't deny that it is possible for US elites to engage secretly in overseas terrorism, but before I'm willing to seriously consider it as a possibility in this situation, I require more evidence, no matter how dubious or circumstantial. So far there has only been allegations against unspecified members of the Bush administration. However, these are real people, with names, jobs, areas of responsibility, etc. Even naming just ONE of the possible "Bush era people" who might be involved would be a start, giving us something firm to start investigating. Until then, we have as much evidence that it was US elites who back Jundallah as we do that martians or the X-Men are also big Jundallah supporters. That is to say, zero. To get any further on that "opinion," we at least need SOME evidence to start with. Fantasy isn't really the best option.
Regarding the US communications in Pakistan, the variable is not whether the US might be communicating with Jundallah, but rather proving that Tehran knows this. Can Iran intercept or monitor covert US satellite communications? This should have massive consequences for US national security planet-wide, including far more sensitive enterprises in China, Russia, the Korean Peninsula and Japan.
Also, what is the "new era" that we're in? Is this just a restatement of the Bush administration talking point that "everything changed after 9/11?"
UJ
It is a new era. Politics no longer end at the the country's border. Like I said, anything goes when it comes to taking down President Obama.
We don't even know that there was American involvement in this bombing at all. I am saying that if there is, as well as in the future, when the "US" does something that doesn't add up, it's a good idea not to take things at surface value. Considering a possibility is not an accusation or a conclusion-- it's just considering all options
Agree with the Prez or not, this stuff in the past would have been called out by the people doing it. Gotta go-- sorry for incoherence
(sorry, no time to format)
Inhofe: I’m Bringing a ‘Truth Squad’ to Copenhagen
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY1YWZhOWZjNWNmODkxZTU2MTg2YTllOTgxOTNiZDU=
China airs fears: congressman
http://www.straitstimes.com/Overcoming%2BThe%2BStorm/Latest%2BStories/Story/STIStory_387854.html
The former VP's daughter & entourage formed a group expressly to oppose President Obama's foreign policy
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28212.html
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I am saying it's something to consider when such events occur
UJ, II
Wow... post in haste, repent in leisure... should have waited till I got home to comment above. I was trying to dredge up recent articles
The quote was a http://www.straitstimes.com/Overcoming%2BThe%2BStorm/Latest%2BStories/Story/STIStory_387854.html" rel="nofollow">statement by Representative Mark Kirk (R, IL)
Yeah, right, he just wants to build trust with the Chinese. He has no qualms about trying to undermine US/Chinese economic relations & maybe tank the economy.
Senator James Inhofe (R, OK) is http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY1YWZhOWZjNWNmODkxZTU2MTg2YTllOTgxOTNiZDU=" rel="nofollow">taking a "Truth Squad" to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to make it clear what the Senate will or will not do.
Laughable or not, opponents of the Obama admin are injecting themselves into foreign affairs and attempting to disrupt or redirect policy.
After the last 8 years, "http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28212.html" rel="nofollow">rallying the opposition" just seems so tame. Sorry, but I don't put anything past these folk.
It's just stuff to watch, OK. They've gone beyond the pale too many times. If it stays at this level, I will gladly eat... whatever people are supposed to eat when they make idiots of themselves.
"[10/21/09]: The NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a claim of responsibility from a Sunni militant group known as “Jondollah” (“The Army of God”) for the October 18 suicide bombing attack on a delegation of senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers in the southeast corner of the country near the border with Pakistan."
http://www1.nefafoundation.org/index.html
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaJondullah1009.pdf
It is interesting that this was translated into Arabic in very short time after the attack and posted on jihad forums. This one seems more elborate. If a martyrdom video surfaces, it will give more insight into the planning and sphere of influence by way of media production, associated images and release techniques used.
In the statement they attribute justification for the attack as retribution of the hanging of three Pakistanis who were arrested for the Jundullah suicide attack on the May 28, 2009 Ameer al-Momenin mosque in Zahedan that killed 25 people and wounded 125. This attack also promted US denial with Jundullah.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/05/200953065959399196.html
These three men were hanged on May 30, two days after the mosque attack. Iran has reportedly arrested three individuals for the most recent attack on IRGC. A public hanging on this account could escalate this anymosity further. Especially with the threats mentioned:
"This martyrdom operation comes as a response to the crimes of the Iranian regime against the Baluchi people"
"Also, this is considered a warning to the Iranian Guards to stop its schemes and refrain from creating collusion and struggle between the tribes and families of Baluchistan."
"This operation, for the second time, has shown the determination of the Baluchi people to present sacrifices." (suicide attacks)
The Iranian government could use this as a reason to further clamp down leading up to November 4 or even opportunity to put up a false flag.
Amy,
Wow!! Speaking of tin-foil hat.
Josh makes a good point in number five about the target. If there was a higher cabal of planning, wouldn't it happen somewhere else in Iran and be more spectacular? Sadegh rightfuly points out that this was a huge target. Iran is considering it one of the worst acts of terror and it involves high ranking members meeting at a crucial time. So, it is worthy of an "operation," at least as mentioned in the claim of responsibility. (Notice no sunni death mentioned which could absolve the munafiq, or false muslim, line from their justification. No doubt it is there below the surface.)
“The Popular Resistance Movement 'Jondollah' declares that one of the heroic men of Baluchistan—land of martyrdom and resistance—named Abdulwahad Mahmadi Sarawani, was able to kill tens of commanders and units from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Basij Militia, and officials from the Ministry of Intelligence (al-Ittela’at, literally ‘information’) by carrying a martyrdom operation in Sarbaz City, one of the cities in Baluchistan Province."
If this was an operation that had outside planning, how far out does it go. Iran has said that the "planning" has taken place in Pakistan. The previous mosque bombing resulted in Pakistani suspects who were accused of supplying the explosives and instructions. The direct accusations of Pakistani involvement, however, are overshadowed by the US, UK and KSA blame game. Who in Pakistan do they blame for letting the planning take place?
Iran thinks foreign powers are giving the orders for the operation. If they are right or wrong, who exactly is it? Putting all previous foreign government involvment aside, you have a local jihad influenced militia group with a target in their own territory. Did they just sieze the opportunity? Reports are that this was one of several such meetings and this one had been cancelled and rescheduled. Asia Time reports:
"The sheer scale of the loss has led some Iranian and international media to speculate about a "sophisticated" operation, but all the available information in the local media and information supplied by IRGC and intelligence sources in Tehran point to a simple and straight-forward suicide bomb attack. "
"Indeed, one source has told me that the list of participants had been changing up until Saturday evening, thereby giving the Sunni militant group, Jundallah, plenty of opportunity to sneak in a suicide bomber."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KJ22Ak03.html
If this Rigi faction of Jundullah opperates on the bequest of others, they may just have to go ahead to attack at will. Another option is that they just attack at will, with specified targets, grievances and justifications. Using the Sunni Deobandi hard line approach of tactics and justification and their territorial pride influence, conclusion seems to point to an ideological go ahead. Iranian retaliation will also get ideological support through out the sympathizing jihadist sphere.
If there is outside influence, it would seem logical that it goes past Pakistan, and onward to the US, or wherever, and Pakistan is just a planning ground. Is there a next step or stage, before reaching the foriegn influence, who could perpetuate this ideological go ahead? This is interesting:
"Sunday, 27 September 2009
Egyptian security agencies released 25 members of Egyptian Jihad, Jundullah, and other salafist groups in recent weeks. They are the first hard-line Islamists to be released from detention in several months "
http://news.egypt.com/en/200909277364/news/-egypt-news/egypt-to-release-25-religious-arrests-from-jail.html
Interesting in that Egypt lables Jundullah as Salafi, where as the Norwegian Defense summary of them emphasizes the influence and spread of Deobandi among them, and the entire region. (Not sure of the difference and significance. Sadegh mentions the wahabi influence, and from what I understand, it is interchangeable with salafi. Is deobandi the same? Is this large convaluted influence the neo-talibanization? Maybe Sadegh could elaborate?)
"Security forces released an additional 16 prisoners from other salafist groups, including Fouad Atef Khairallah of Alexandria, a member of Jundullah."
If this Fouad Atef has noticable Iranian ties or any Egyptian associations or accusations come about, we could be onto the larger cabal. Or it could be nothing and they just strike, and kill, at will. And the Iranian government just uses the catastorphe to further its agenda. And they flat out make up lies.
A translation from Arabic on why they lie and blame everyone else... because they have their hand in everyone's business (Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan,Yemen...).
http://www.mideastwire.com/topstory.php?id=32234
Megan
Believe it or not, I hope you're right & I'm tending paranoid. It's not my usual way of thinking, but in this area I'm suspicious of what people will do to get their way..