In an article in the October 2007 number of Le Monde diplomatique, Selig S. Harrison, director of the Asia program Center for the International Policy of the Woodrow Wilson International Center described U.S. maneuvering in the stand-off with Iran.  --  The article does not really live up to the more sensational French title ("The Ultras Are Preparing the War against Iran"); the title of the English-language version sums its contents up more accurately ("The U.S. Meddles Aggressively in Iran:  Covert Action, Economic Pressure, and Destabilization")....



Washington, Tel Aviv, Paris

By Selig S. Harrison


** "We must prepare for the worst," explained Mr. Bernard Kouchner, and the worst "is war." The statement from the minister of foreign affairs about Iran evoked many criticisms and sheds light on the inflections of the new French diplomacy. Above all, it confirmed that the United States was seriously contemplating a military operation against the Islamic Republic. In fact, in spite of all the warnings and developments on the theme of the need to persevere on the diplomatic path, the White House has already launched an escalation against Iran, authorizing "non-lethal" actions inside that country and aiding separatist groups, whether Arab, Kurdish, Baluch, or Azeri. Far from supporting the democratic opposition, this interventionism, contrary to international law, has allowed the "hard-liners" of the regime to reinforce their positions and harass intellectuals and democrats In Tehran, however, it is thought that it is possible to open a dialogue with Washington. In order for this to take place, it would be necessary to accept putting on the table all the points at issue in the U.S.-Iran dispute. And for the White House to renounce its objective of "regime change." **

Le Monde diplomatique (Paris)
October 2007
Pages 1 & 8

The battle lines are familiar and clearly drawn in the unresolved policy struggle over Iran within the Bush administration. Vice-President Richard Cheney and his allies in the Pentagon and Congress, prodded by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), not only want the US to bomb the Natanz uranium enrichment facility but are also calling for air strikes on Iranian military installations near the Iraq border. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to test diplomacy first by broadening the US-Iran negotiations on stabilising Iraq that began in Baghdad in May. But, as the price for postponement of a decision on military action, she has agreed to a dangerous compromise: an intensification of clandestine operations that aime to destabilize the Islamic Republic, formalised by a presidential “finding” in April. [Note 1: See "Tempêtes sur l'Iran" ('Storms over Iran'), Manière de voir, no. 93 [June-July 2007]

Covert action to undermine the Tehran regime has already been under way for the past decade. Until now, however, the CIA has operated without a finding (authorization for covert action) by using proxies. Pakistan and Israel, for example, provide weapons and money to insurgent groups in southeast and northwest Iran, where the Baluch and Kurdish ethnic minorities, both Sunni Muslim, have long fought against the repression of Shia-dominated Persian regimes. The presidential finding was necessary to permit accelerated "non-lethal activities" by U.S. agencies. Besides expanded propaganda broadcasts, a media disinformation campaign, and the enrolling of U.S. and European-based Iranian exiles to promote political dissent, the programme focuses on economic warfare, especially currency rate manipulation and other measures designed to disrupt Iran’s international banking and trade.

Although the finding was nominally secret, it did not stay secret for long after it was reported to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as required by law. In Tehran, everyone is talking about it and both conservatives and reformers, surprisingly, agree that it comes at an unusually damaging moment of genuine opportunity for cooperation with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senior officials in the foreign ministry, the National Security Council, the office of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and pro-government think tanks all say that stability in Iraq and Afghanistan is in Iran’s interest. Cooperation with the US is possible, they say, but only in return for a gradual accommodation between Washington and Tehran, starting with a complete cessation of covert and overt "regime change" policies.

In Iraq, “the United States is like a fox caught in a trap,” says Amir Mohiebian, editor of the conservative daily Reselaat. “Why should we free the fox so he can eat us? Of course, if the U.S. changes its policy, there is scope for cooperation.” At the other end of the journalistic spectrum, Mohammed Adrianfar, editor of Hammihan, identified with the moderate former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, elected in early September 2007 as head of the Assembly of experts [Note 2: A body composed of clerics charged with choosing the Supreme Guide -- currently the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- and with overseeing his actions] says: “The atmosphere here is for starting negotiations and relations. People want stability. The slogan ‘Death to America’ doesn’t work any more, and our leaders know it. It’s an irony that two governments which are now enemies have many of the same interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

While officials did not want to discuss whether Iran is aiding Shia militias in Iraq. But Mr. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis (parliament) Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the U.S.'s protection of Baathist and Sunni elements, declaring forthrightly that Iran expects Shia domination as the prerequisite for stability in Baghdad and for U.S.-Iranian cooperation there as part of an overall accommodation. [In English edition only: “The US occupying authorities are not truly pursuing de-Baathification of the security forces,” he said, “and should give the Iraqi government greater freedom to do so. That is the key to cooperation between our countries in Iraq.”

According to these journalist and several official spokespersons, an important gesture from the White House would be the dismantling of a U.S.-backed militia of Iranian exiles based in Iraq, known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The MEK supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and though its 3,600 fighters have been disarmed in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, they remain on their bases. U.S. intelligence agencies use them for espionage and sabotage missions in Iran and to interrogate Iranians accused of aiding Shia militias in Iraq. Until recently, MEK radio and TV stations broadcasting to Iran were based in Iraq, but Iranian pressure on the Baghdad government forced their relocation to London. When the moderate Mohammad Khatami was elected president of Iran in 1997, the State Department made a conciliatory gesture by listing the MEK as a terrorist organization guilty of human rights violations, and it is still on the list.

Dismantling the MEK paramilitary forces would be an effective way to signal U.S. readiness to accommodate Tehran, suggested Mr. Abbas Maleki, an adviser to the National Security Council. Mr. Alireza Jaffarzadeh, chairman of the MEK’s front group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, appears regularly on the conservative TV channel Fox News as its Iran expert, rather like the pro-U.S. Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi before the Iraq invasion, rallying Congressional and media support for military action against Iran.

As its terrorist listing of the MEK showed, the Clinton administration hoped for a diplomatic opening to Iran. When the Republican House speaker, Newt Gingrich, pushed through an $18m appropriation for non-lethal covert action to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran, the White House restrained the CIA. But the Bush administration was quick to change course. Cheney shared Gingrich’s goal of regime change and he persuaded doubters that pressure on Tehran would strengthen the U.S. in negotiations to end the uranium enrichment program.


First, the administration revived and expanded the dormant plans for direct U.S. non-lethal covert action. Then, in February 2006, it obtained a $75m appropriation from Congress for an overt State Department program “to promote openness and freedom for the Iranian people.” Finally, it cast about for covert ways to harass the regime militarily without the need for a formal presidential finding.

The most readily available means of doing this was to get Pakistan and Israel to arm and finance already-existing insurgent groups in the Baluch and Kurdish areas through well-established U.S. ties with Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence Directorate (ISI) and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. The ISI channelled weapons and money to an already established Iranian Baluch dissident group, Jundullah (Soldiers of God), which inflicted heavy casualties in raids on Iranian Revolutionary Guard units in Zahedan and southeast Iran in 2006 and 2007. The U.S. made no effort to hide its support for Jundullah. On April 2, 2007, the Voice of America interviewed its leader, Abdolmalek Rigi, introducing him as a “leader of the popular resistance movement of Iran.” Several of our contacts familiar with Baluch nationalism [Note 3: Cf. *In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations* (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1980)] recently provided detailed proof of Mr. Rigi’s ISI ties. [Note 4: Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, ABC News, April 3, 2007]

Mossad has built up contacts in the Kurdish areas of Iran and Iraq since it used bases in Iran during the days of the Shah to destabilize the Kurdish areas of Iraq. Against this background, Seymour Hersh’s report that Mossad is giving "equipment and training" to the Iranian Kurdish group Pejak is credible. [Note 5: "The Next Act," New Yorker (November 27, 2006)] -- and it is even true that Pejak is linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party, a Turkish group denounced by Washington and Ankara as a terrorist organization. Jon Lee Anderson interviewed a senior Kurdish official in Iraq who said that Pejak is operating out of bases in Iraqi Kurdistan to conduct raids in Iran and has “received covert U.S. support.” [Note 6: "Mr. Big," New Yorker (February 5, 2007)] In retaliation, Iran bombarded these bases for two weeks in late August, prompting Iraqi protests.

The most dangerous latent separatist threat facing Tehran is in the south-western province of Khuzestan, which produces 80% of its crude oil revenue. The Arab Shia of Khuzestan share a common ethnic and religious identity with the Arab Shia across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway in Iraq. Ahwaz, the capital of Khuzestan, is only 150km east of Basra, where British forces in Iraq have been headquartered.

Not surprisingly, in the light of history, Tehran accuses Britain of using Basra as an intelligence base for stirring discontent in Khuzestan. Backed by British forces and British oil interests, the Arab princes of Khuzestan seceded from Persia in 1897 and established a British-controlled protectorate, Arabistan, which Persia did not recapture until 1925. Although most of Iran’s oil wealth is produced in Khuzestan, separatist groups charge that Tehran denies the province a fair share of economic development funds. So far, the scattered separatist factions have not created a unified military force like the Jundullah and no evidence of foreign help has surfaced. But they periodically raid government security installations and bomb oil production facilities. Several broadcast propaganda in Arabic from foreign locations. The National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz, which advocates independence, operates Ahwaz TV, a satellite channel with an on-screen caption giving a fax number with a California area code. [Note 7: BBC World Media Monitoring, January 4, 2006] Another satellite channel, Al-Ahwaz TV, broadcast by Iranian exiles in California, is linked to the British-Ahwaz Friendship Society, which advocates regional autonomy for the province in a federal Iran. [Note 8: "Al-Ahwaz News," British Ahwazi Friendship Society, February 2006,]

Nearly half ($36m) of the $75m 2006 U.S appropriation goes to support for the U.S.-operated Voice of America and Radio Farda and to anti-regime broadcasting outlets run by Iranian exiles. Another $20m goes to NGO human rights activists in Iran and the U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has revealed that “we are working with Arab and European organisations to support democratic groups within Iran”, since getting direct US funding into Iran “is a very difficult thing for us to do” given “the harsh Iranian government response against the Iranian individuals." [Note 9: Council on Foreign Relations, New York, October 11, 2006] One Iranian participant in a U.S.-sponsored workshop in Dubai last year told the Iranian-American journalist Negar Azimi that “it was like a James Bond camp for revolutionaries.” [Note 10: "The Hard Realities of Soft Power," New York Times Magazine (June 24, 2007)] [The English version of the article adds: Four Iranian participants were later arrested.]

Covert and overt efforts to destabilize the Islamic Republic and pressure it economically to abandon its nuclear program have been counter-productive for at least four reasons:

--they have given hardliners an excuse to harass Iranians working internally to liberalize the regime and visiting Iranian-American dual citizens such as Haleh Esfandiari of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who was imprisoned for three months on vague espionage charges.

--by aiding ethnic minority insurgencies, the U.S. has enabled Ahmadinejad to cast himself as the champion of the Persian majority, while minorities constitute about 44% of the population. [The Englis version adds: The largest, the Azeris (24%) have been mostly assimilated, and the rebellious Baluch, Kurds and Khuzestani Arabs are bitterly divided between advocates of secession and of a restructured federal Iran.]

--Ahmadinejad can also blame external economic pressures for economic problems that are mainly the result of his own mismanagement.

--negotiated compromises on stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan are possible, but only if destabilization stops and not if President Bush takes the military steps implied in his 28 August threat “to confront Tehran’s murderous activities” in Iraq.

Even if the pressure is relaxed, a definitive nuclear compromise is unlikely in the absence of changes in the U.S. Persian Gulf security posture, though a suspension of the Natanz facility might be possible if Israel would agree to a parallel freeze of the Dimona reactor. [Note 11: For a fuller discussion of the nuclear compromise with Iran, cf. "The Forgotten Bargain," World Policy Journal, Washington, D.C., Winter 2006] “How can we negotiate denuclearization while you send aircraft carriers to the Gulf that, for all we know, are equipped with tactical nuclear weapons?” asked Alireza Akbari, deputy defense minister in the moderate Khatami government. “How can you expect us to negotiate when you won’t talk about Dimona?”

The covert and overt pressures so far applied to Iran are just sufficient to infuriate Iranians of all political persuasions, strengthening the hardliners, but are not nearly enough to undermine the regime. The economic pressures are more effective than the covert insurgency aid, however. But out of forty European and Asian banks doing business with Iran, though, only seven have cut ties with Iran in response to U.S. sanctions. In any case, Iran is routing its international business though 400 Dubai-based financial institutions, mostly Arab. With trade between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, including Dubai, nearing $11bn this year, U.S. Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey’s threat of reprisals against firms dealing with Iran, in a speech in Dubai on 7 March, were pointless. The administration is now pushing more sharply-targeted measures against enterprises linked to the Revolutionary Guards and the bonyad, conglomerates run by clerical interests, but their impact has been very limited.

Likening the U.S.-Iran tussle to a bull fight, a respected European ambassador long resident in Tehran asked: “What’s the point of all this? What good does it do to keep waving the red flag? It just makes the bull more and more angry. It doesn’t kill him.”

--Translated by Mark K. Jensen (most of the text appears in a slightly different form on the web site of the English-language edition of Le Monde diplomatique)
Associate Professor of French
Department of Languages and Literatures
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447-0003
Phone: 253-535-7219
Web page:
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.