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)
Let me put it this way, if someone is inclined to perform that kind of operation, they will think twice if the possibility is publicly batted around once in a while. I don't mind looking foolish as a batter if nothing happens. Tin foil's not my color, but I'll wear it it the hat fits...
Hmmm... should have said I don't mind looking foolish if nothing was going to happen. The way I phrased it above might sound like I would take credit for nothing happening, a very tin-foil thought indeed ;)
Amy,
To clarify, I don't think you personally or your suggestion is crazy, it's just that in this specific case, we have no evidence that it was rogue US elites and lots of evidence that it was other possibilities. Your suggestion is not tin-foil hat or absurd, just extremely unlikely in this one case. However, if we have actual evidence of US elites acting outside of official national security policy, then we, of course, should begin to pursue this analysis. Until then, I believe the evidence points far more reasonably in other directions, such as Thomas' suggestion of Saudi collaboration, or Darren's inference that it was a solo Jundallah operation.
UJ,
Are you in the US? Like I said earlier, we have to let these kind stories play out. As for rogue US elites, I put more as rogue political operators with the point being that do not underestimate this possibly happening. With this case it was an attack on the eve of negotiations by a group that had contact with government agencies previously. This leads to questions not accusations.
It may very well be that this was a gloden target of oppurtunity that they did on their own. In the end, it will lead to their destruction because they now ticked off Pakistan, which is dealing with its own insurgency in Baluchistan, and an IRGC after revenge.
New Era= anything goes in international politics.
Satellite communictions can be intercepted, decryption is the challenge.
UJ
Thanks for your clarification. Thomas in #29 just covered the situation much more succinctly than my various efforts. The previously unthinkable is possible now and it's time to start thinking that way when analyzing international events. I agree with you & Thomas about this incident. Several of the explanations are plausible-- US involvement isn't at the top of my list. We speculate this way all the time about SL, AN etc, so I was a little surprised at people's reaction.
Amy and Thomas,
I'd actually disagree with the approach outline in #29. Waiting it out, continuing to assume and speculate, doesn't seem very wise. Rather, I'd suggest mapping out the analysis, and seeing how far you can get with firm, publicly available evidence.
For example, let's take the idea raised about Liz Cheney's newly formed Foreign Policy lobbying group/fundraising organization.
#1. Who are the members of this organization?
#2. Which of these members have the capability to support a Jundallah operation, including the ability to provide funding, equipment, and/or intelligence?
#3. Which of these members have the motive to support a Jundallah operation, including public support of Baloch liberation, public support for aggressive (read: violent) covert operations against the regime in Tehran, or public reference to acting outside of the official national security policy of the United States?
Answer those with firm, verified evidence, and we could begin to build a solid theory around the analysis. Apply them to any other person or organization you'd like, but be sure to keep the same standard of requiring evidence. You might be wasting your time, but we also might be very surprised. But either way, we could be satisfied with the evidence as opposed to waiting it out or making baseless assumptions.
Thomas,
How does Iran intercept US satellite communications? Do they have tricorders that the IRGC carries around looking for them? Maybe a big truck that drives around like college kids looking for WiFi? Or maybe their own satellite capabilities are decades beyond our intelligence assessments, and they actually have space-to-space interception capability? The very next step should be to immediately inform the FBI, Department of Defense, and the NSA, because right now all of our intelligence, diplomatic, and military personnel are in grave danger of being "sniffed out" by Iranian agents. What if they share this capability with China? Or Hizb'allah? Or good god man, what about Hamas?!
Or, more likely, they don't have that capability, and they just said "US satellite communications" because it SOUNDS right. "Oh yeah, you know those Americans, always satellite-ing it up with their super technology." The domestic Iranian audience, which I believe is the intended target of Iran's anti-US rhetoric, would eat that stuff up with a spoon. It has "Truthiness"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
UJ
OK, you are getting me curious. I assumed we couldn't do much more than watch as events unfold because there wouldn't be enough public info to make a case one way or the other. I laid it out bec I was frustrated about people jumping to the conclusion that US involvement meant the US govt when, in this case, govt involvement could derail a linchpin of the admin's plans. If it were the US, the current political climate makes other explanations more plausible than the admin shooting itself in the foot. Like I said earlier, in the arena of foreign policy, it's a card that should be face up on the table.
The example you outlined sounds like a worthwhile exercise, even tho it probably doesn't apply to the Jundallah bombing... just to see what actually can be known, instead of assuming there's not a way to find out. The worst that can happen would be (heaven forbid) to learn something new.
UJ
What is your problem?
X recieves a satellite phone call from Y, Z knows this but doesn't understand what is said because they can not decode the encryption.
Thomas,
How do they detect the presence of the signal? How do they receive the signal? What specific device or contraption do they do this with? Satellite phones used by US intelligence operatives are not just promiscuously blasting their signal out all over the place, these devices are ultra-low radiation specifically so they can't be intercepted (and thus triangulated, revealing the physical location of covert assets).
And again, if you believe they have this capability in Islamabad, would you say they are also capable of doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, where US military, diplomats, and intelligence operatives use the same standard satellite tools? The Persian Gulf, where US Naval assets regularly support communications operations? What about the same equipment on Air Force One? Wouldn't you agree that it's outrageously dangerous for the Iranians to be able to exploit this vulnerability? What will it mean for Israeli government officials, some in range of Hamas rocket attacks, if Iran shares their interception techniques with hostile militant groups in the region, like Hamas or Hizb'allah?
The point is: Either the Iranians are decades beyond what we think they're capable of, technology-wise, OR the regime in Tehran is lying for political purposes. Which one of those do you think is more likely? The Iranians are sophisticated adversaries of the US, but they are not magical.
UJ,
Pherhaps we are going off in a tangent here. The point is that if some one in the US embassy wanted to warn Jundallah not to stage an attack the way to reach them was by satellite phone. Every one with signal intercept in Islamabad (i.e. every embassy) would know a call is made, but they wouldn't know what is said unless they were capable of decoding US encryption. This is what NSA does on a worldwide basis as do other countries.
Iran probably knew a call was placed and tried to exploit the issue. In the end, US-Iran are still talking and Rigi probably won't see Spring.
Are you one of Scott's Grad students?
Thomas,
Haha, no I wish. Why?
Josh,
Ok you got me. I should have caught UJ and your icon as being the same. Wasn't paying attention to detail and mistook you as two separate commentators.
My approach to issues reflects my undergraduate studies in history, and I was following responses on this thread with a view of how this story was playing out over this first week.