| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US Troops Now Directed To: "Catch Or Kill Iranian Agents" |
| 2007-01-26 |
| The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort. For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go. Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq. "There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back." Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said. But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking." "Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said. The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons. The administration's plans contain five "theaters of interest," as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East. The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the "Blue Game Matrix" -- a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran's funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan. In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority. The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war. Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq. Two officials said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, though a supporter of the strategy, is concerned about the potential for errors, as well as the ramifications of a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian troops on the Iraqi battlefield. In meetings with Bush's other senior advisers, officials said, Rice insisted that the defense secretary appoint a senior official to personally oversee the program to prevent it from expanding into a full-scale conflict. Rice got the oversight guarantees she sought, though it remains unclear whether senior Pentagon officials must approve targets on a case-by-case basis or whether the oversight is more general. The departments of Defense and State referred all requests for comment on the Iran strategy to the National Security Council, which declined to address specific elements of the plan and would not comment on some intelligence matters. But in response to questions about the "kill or capture" authorization, Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC, said: "The president has made clear for some time that we will take the steps necessary to protect Americans on the ground in Iraq and disrupt activity that could lead to their harm. Our forces have standing authority, consistent with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council." Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force. In his last few weeks as the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. sought to help coordinate the program on the ground. One official said Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "hostile entity," a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action. Casey's designated successor, Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, told Congress in writing this week that a top priority will be "countering the threats posed by Iranian and Syrian meddling in Iraq, and the continued mission of dismantling terrorist networks and killing or capturing those who refuse to support a unified, stable Iraq." Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said. With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program. R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an interview in late October that the United States knows that Iran "is providing support to Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq that have posed a problem for our military forces." He added: "In addition to the nuclear issue, Iran's support for terrorism is high up on our agenda." Burns, the top Foreign Service officer in the State Department, has been leading diplomatic efforts to increase international pressure on the Iranians. Over several months, the administration made available five political appointees for interviews, to discuss limited aspects of the policy, on the condition that they not be identified. Officials who spoke in more detail and without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name. The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said a group of senior Bush administration officials who regularly attend the highest-level counterterrorism meetings agreed that the conflict provided an opening to portray Iran as a nuclear-ambitious link between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the death squads in Iraq. Among those involved in the discussions, beginning in August, were deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, NSC counterterrorism adviser Juan Zarate, the head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, representatives from the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and outgoing State Department counterterrorism chief Henry A. Crumpton. At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace." Two weeks later, Crumpton flew from Washington to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. A principal reason for the visit, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussion, was to press Abizaid to prepare for an aggressive campaign against Iranian intelligence and military operatives inside Iraq. Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation. But senior officials saw it as too timid. "We were making no traction" with "catch and release," a senior counterterrorism official said in a recent interview, explaining that it had failed to halt Iranian activities in Iraq or worry the Tehran leadership. "Our goal is to change the dynamic with the Iranians, to change the way the Iranians perceive us and perceive themselves. They need to understand that they cannot be a party to endangering U.S. soldiers' lives and American interests, as they have before. That is going to end." A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy. "This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there. But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah. In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention. Asked whether such a designation is imminent, Johndroe of the NSC said in a written response that the administration has "long been concerned about the activities of the IRGC and its components throughout the Middle East and beyond." He added: "The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force is a part of the Iranian state apparatus that supports and carries out these activities." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #34 I vote for Option #2. And I would add that they only need to 'look Iranian' to qualify. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-01-26 21:47 |
| #33 The weirdest & most depressing aspect of this is the phrasing "catch or kill Iranian agents." This implies that the agents have long been known & that the US military has been letting them do their thing. It also implies that news of the harmful activities of these "agents" has been suppressed. ABC TV news tonight did make mention of the Iranian supplied anti-armor weapons, but this was not stressed, nor was it the lead article of the evening news, as it should have been, and a long time ago, too. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-26 21:20 |
| #32 About fucking Time! But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And this is different then how they are operating now how? Face it we have been at war with Iran for the last 26-odd years. Its about time we stopped fighting it with both hands tied behind out backs, hobbled, and gagged. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-01-26 20:19 |
| #31 Rule #3 - there's a process for Diplomats - they're officially accredited. If they aren't accredited, see rules #2 and #1 above. PS: it's not a "Consulate" just because they say so.... see "mosque" and "XXXth Holiest Place In Islam" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-26 19:41 |
| #30 Catch or kill? Why the choice? Rule #1 - Kill all non-uniformed combatants. (After all, we do want to follow the Geneva Conventions, don't we?) Rule #2 - When in doubt, see Rule #1. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-01-26 17:34 |
| #29 Remember Col. Higgins. Yes I do. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-01-26 17:32 |
| #28 #1: Catch and release is something sport fisherman do. When it comes to terrorists, the best policy is the Californian response to "endangered species" on their property, kill quick and bury deep. Also known as shoot, shovel, and shut(up). |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-01-26 17:29 |
| #27 Bush needs to declare open season on all the "don't do anything, it might make the muzzies mad" idiots in State, Defense, and Justice. That may make more of a difference than what we do in Iraq. If he could do the same, openly or clandestinely, against the MSM, we might even win this damned war. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-01-26 16:31 |
| #26 I vote kill, this is looonng overdue |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-01-26 15:43 |
| #25 djohn66, I have a mild remonstrance to say: you don't "take" anyone's ambitions "away" from them. You have to ass-kick people's ambitions out of them. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-01-26 14:59 |
| #24 The "skeptical" official is the other head-shaker. That people this clueless can be stamping passports or doing bland reports on Malaysian finances, much less be "senior officials", should depress and frighten everyone here. Depress and frighten, sure. But it comes as no surprise. In non Defense related government employment, appearance and perception are everything. Knowing all the right people helps too. The level of incompetence at the management levels in most agencies would take your breath away. Of course, some of you here already know that. |
| Posted by: Chuck Darwin 2007-01-26 14:56 |
| #23 Iranians are never going to give up there nuke ambitions until we take it from them. This is to get the Iranians to do something stupid, so we can pound on them hard. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-01-26 14:53 |
| #22 "The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program" It does not readily occur to me how this will compel Iran to give up it's nuclear program. |
| Posted by: FeralCat 2007-01-26 14:33 |
| #21 Perhaps this coming to light now might be a way of goading Iran into overstepping. They don't strike me as being a party whom it would take very much to goad into doing something doing something very...ummm... ill-concieved. Or extremely counter-productive to their ends. Or spectacularly violent. Or all three. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2007-01-26 14:12 |
| #20 U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go. Oh, the humanity! Call the ACLU, HRW, and AI! I agree with Verlaine. W wasn't going to win any friends in Congress or overseas by being "diplomatic." I think Iran's stealth war should have been exposed early and often. Things have gone so far now that, short of a direct massive attack by Iran, any military action against Iran will be followed by months of Congressional hearings and impeachment efforts. That may have happened anyway, but the American public has been so soured that I doubt even they'll support military action against Iran. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-01-26 13:27 |
| #19 "Secret Aaaa-gent Mullah! Secret Aaaa-gent Mullah! They've given you a numbah and taken away your goat!" |
| Posted by: mojo 2007-01-26 13:20 |
| #18 Remember Col. Higgins. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-01-26 12:31 |
| #17 While pleased to some extent, I find this a tremendously depressing item. Another absolutely baffling failure by people who generally have the right instincts to act sooner, and more vigorously. The failure, that is, to implement even harsher (more "confrontational") responses the instant we knew that Iranian activities were killing/wounding our soldiers (don't know when this was, but I first heard about the smoking-gun EFP/trigger discoveries in the south a long time ago, and certainly long before last fall). No problem with catch-release as part of a concerted effort to unveil their network with the objective of destroying it. Enormous problem with waiting until last fall to get serious. The "skeptical" official is the other head-shaker. That people this clueless can be stamping passports or doing bland reports on Malaysian finances, much less be "senior officials", should depress and frighten everyone here. What, we might "provoke" Iran? I get it - criminal regimes that have been at war with us for over two decades and which sponsor global acts of terrorism for that period and which are a key adversary damaging our interests in three central theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon) best not be "confronted"? Words fail. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-01-26 12:27 |
| #16 I vote Kill. |
| Posted by: doc 2007-01-26 11:33 |
| #15 but suits wanted their rituals and have paid with the consequences. I wish it was them that paid the suits that paid. It's our countrys future leaders that are paying. And I for one want them to do whatever they feel they need to do, when they are getting shot at. Not want the suits think. I know you think the same way Procopius2k. Damn kids have done everything we have asked and more. Time they get to ask. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2007-01-26 11:24 |
| #14 lol, Glenmore. I actually feel a LOT better about this "catch and release" program with our military running it. Retinal scans, DNA, Fingerprints, Photographs....all will be used to follow these guys to "their masters" methinks. Almost wonder if some Spec Ops have already done so (with the news that Iran's top nuclear scientist "mysteriously" died last week). Note that this was approved last fall, but only reported now. The MSM at work, once again! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-26 10:55 |
| #13 But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, but, but. Anybody got a risk-free way to go? The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war. I'm sure we'll be hearing more from the "skeptics" - this is the Washington Post, after all. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-01-26 10:53 |
| #12 Darth, I think the term is 'panty waist', but your way is pretty accurate - they are a waste of panties. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-01-26 10:49 |
| #11 Better late than never. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-01-26 10:45 |
| #10 About. Fucking. Time. And get rid of the panty waste diplomats while we are at it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-01-26 10:43 |
| #9 I kind of liked the 'catch and release' (with GPS implants) technique. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-01-26 10:13 |
| #8 Oh, and find out who this senior intelligence officer is and sack his sorry as$ butt - for making unauthorized comments regarding foreign policy if for nothing else. He'll be the one with the lacy handkerchief. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-01-26 10:03 |
| #7 I caught that part too Sloper S. Who the hell are these skeptics? |
| Posted by: danking_70 2007-01-26 10:03 |
| #6 A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy. "This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there. Oh, and find out who this senior intelligence officer is and sack his sorry as$ butt - for making unauthorized comments regarding foreign policy if for nothing else. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-01-26 10:02 |
| #5 Now if they open the policy up to Iranian agents both inside and outside Iraq... |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-01-26 10:00 |
| #4 The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war. Repeat after me: We are already at war. We have been at war since 1979. |
| Posted by: Sloper Snemble8186 2007-01-26 09:58 |
| #3 No issues with Gitmo if they're worm food. Should have been the situation with Saddam as well, but suits wanted their rituals and have paid with the consequences. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-26 09:39 |
| #2 now THIS will make a difference. Combined with the "surge", things should improve. Open season on Iranian agents - I like it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-26 09:37 |
| #1 Catch and release is something sport fisherman do. When it comes to terrorists, the best policy is the Californian response to "endangered species" on their property, kill quick and bury deep. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-01-26 09:35 |