US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007



America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.


In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.

The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

Additional reporting by Gethin Chamberlain.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...25/wiran25.xml)

oh well as usual the US government shows itself to be hypocrites.

"You're either with us or with the terrorists!" [Emperor Bush]

Conveniently, we now choose to be with the terrorists. What utter hyprocrisy!

Ahem. They're not terrorists because they're on the Americans' sides. There was a time when Saddam Hussein was a staunch US ally in the War on Ayatollah-based Fundamentalism, and when the Taleban were US allies in the war on Soviet invaders.

Iran funds terrorists groups against the US. Iran has been conducting an informal war against the US since day one. It would be total stupidity for the US not to do the same.

hey if the US wants to support al-qaeda linked groups against iran, go ahead, just dont complain about iran helping hamas, hezbollah and others, because that would just be double standards.

and iran are much smarter than us, because iran funds groups who will not eventually turn around and attack them as the us does! at least if the us wanted to fund millitans they could fund ones who wont become their enemies in 20 years, such as saddam, and bin laden! sheeshhhhhhhhh louise!

and also correction, iran has NEVER funded a group that attacked american soil, US on the other hand funds attacks on iranian soil, imagine iran did that, imagine the reaction of your people. therefore iran is very within its legal rights to attack the soil of the usa through a third party as usa has done against iran. you and your ppl cannot complain to that.

infact you started the war against iran in the 50's, with operation ajax, you overthrow a legitimate iranian regime who was backed by the ppl, the USA overthrow him, and installed the shah, so quite frankly iran is very within its rights to attack the USA as you have done it against them time and time again. you began the war against iran, not the other way.

Of course, America is the great evil. Iran has been pushing for war singe it started. Maybe some day it will get it's wish.

hey facts are facts, the first nation to open hostilities was the usa in operation ajax, do you deny this? i mean its like denying the sun exists! everyone knows about operation ajax, so plz man take responsibility that you began the war against iran, so hence dont complain of what comes with it, you started this mess up hence you take responsibility for it.

Or maybe unconditional hatred of Israel will bring down Iran.

It is truly funny. We may all die laughing.

hey willber plz stop running away from what i said, which is that you began this war against iran with operation ajax, comment on this instead of going quiet because this point of history debunks every claim you want to make on who began the war and who the good and bad buys are.

it seems your shy of this fact, that you began war against iran in operation ajax, plz dont act like it didnt happen, because operation ajax has led to all this, you placed the shah whom ppl greatly disliked, hence the Islamic party became the victors through wide public support, and out of this led to their large animosity towards USA due to the strong backing of the shah and your placing the shah in power over a very popular leader. every action has a reaction, and your violent provoking act against a legitimate iranian goverment causes a very angry reaction.

LOOOL...Like I said, utter hypocrisy.
A lot of good his "satunch US ally" status did him. Too bad we didn't remember his past service to us, when we captured him, treated him like a dog, then allowed him to be executed on our watch.

Yes. I used to see the Journalists proudly call the Afghans: Mujahideen, on the nightly news. Now, the same Journalists and "experts on Islam, easily switched it to: terrorists.

They are no more than "media prostitutes."

There is way too much hypocrisy in our foreign policy. We deal with terrorists and dictators like there is no toworrow, then turn around and act like we're the only righteous people around.

Much of our actions abroad is considered terrorism...

So the US started the war? I guess you are to young or have never bothered to read about them taking US diplomats hostage for over a year.

If you want to go "way back", why don't we go back to when Muslims conquered the area?