Brent Scowcroft on Al Jazeera: "US Has Spies On the Ground in Iran"

[laststeamtrain]

Brent Scowcroft: US Has Spies On the Ground in Iran

By Jeremy Scahill

As violence continues on the streets of Tehran, RebelReports has learned that former US National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has confirmed that the US government has spies on the ground in Iran. Scowcroft made the assertion in an interview to be broadcast on the Al Jazeera program “Fault Lines.” When asked by journalist Josh Rushing if the US has “intelligence operatives on the ground in Iran,” Scowcroft replied, “Of course we do.” (See Video)

While it is hardly surprising that the US has its operatives in Iran, it is unusual to see a figure in a position to know state this on the record. New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh and Former Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter both have claimed for years that the US has regularly engaged in covert operations inside of Iran aimed at destabilizing the government. In July 2008, Hersh reported, “the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded.”

In the Al Jazeera interview, Scowcroft defended President Obama’s position on Iran, which has been roundly criticized by Republicans as weak and ineffective with some characterizing Obama as a “de facto ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.”

Scowcroft tells Al Jazeera: “We don’t control Iran. We don’t control the government obviously. There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom and, therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behavior in the region, and with nuclear weapons.”

Video here...http://rebelreports.com/post/129610205/brent-scowcroft-us-has-spies-on-the-ground-in-iran

[dorkulon]

1. Bad timing, dummy.

Just as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are trying to blame the unrest on the West. What a tool.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. It was perfect timing

That is if you want to help Ahmedenejad & Khameni. This "news story" is specifically designed to give cover for the ruling regime's brutal crackdown.

Without a bogeyman like Iran or the fictional Al Queda the trillions spent on "defense" would look kind of silly.

[dorkulon]

69. Hmm. That sounds like a bunch of speculative horseshit to me.

Saying we have spies in Iran is like saying there are birds in the sky. It's not as though we have, or could have, the kind of influence it would take to mobilize millions. And if there's anything the evil overlords would want, it's to privatize Iran's oil. As long as the regime stays the same, that won't happen.

[FSogol]

2. Treason? n/t

[JackRiddler]

23. What, in Iran?

Please tell us why covert operations to destabilize foreign countries are acceptable. Would this have been okay if Iranians were doing it in the US after the fraudulent election of 2000? You'd say any Americans who helped the foreign covert intervention were commiting the treason, I'd expect.

[ControlledDemolition]

63. The CIA was very likely behind the other colored revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine too. n/t

[Raskolnik]

67. White Man's Burden for the 21st century.

Every event in the world is attributable to puppet-masters in the U.S. We are that all-powerful, and the rest of the world is that lacking in autonomy.

[JackRiddler]

68. These absurd false dichotomies won't persuade anyone either way.

To acknowledge the influence and attempts at influence of a vast world-spanning empire with 800 foreign bases and more spending on military and intelligence than the rest of the world combined is not to deny the rest of the world's autonomy. Did the USG after 1945 arrange or back coups in dozens of nations and invade a dozen more around the world? Are you denying that? No doubt many of its ventures have failed and more are yet to fail.

ON EDIT: Before the lesson is finally learned.

[ControlledDemolition]

72. There's possibly a lethal parasite sucking the 'good, the money, and the future' out of America. n/t

[ControlledDemolition]

71. Your so called puppet masters will dump the USA! USA! USA! as soon as it makes sense to them. n/t

[tekisui]

3. That shouldn't come as a surprise, but probably should be kept

secret, too.

I don't doubt we have spies on the ground in many, many countries.

[lapfog_1]

4. I'm sure this is not a big secret.

But current and former top officials shouldn't be spouting off about it.

Better would have been to say "The US relies on a number of sources for information all over the world." or some other non-comment comment.

[Democracyinkind]

5. Unfortunatly, we have more than just spies on the ground in Iran

gotta love empire.

[arcadian]

6. Not according to some on DU

And that's where I get my news. :eyes:

[Raskolnik]

9. Who said that we don't have any spies in Iran? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Naww. The benevolent and democracy loving CIA is spying on Iran?

Perish the thought. :sarcasm:

[Raskolnik]

10. Isn't it kind of a *good* thing that we have spies in Iran? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. No.

At least not the likes of the CIA's blundering thugs.

[Raskolnik]

16. How do you suggest the U.S. gather intelligence on Iran?

Subscribe to Twitter?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. It would probably be more reliable.

Frankly, I would rather we butt out of Iran. And, a good first step would be to get our thugs out of there.

[Raskolnik]

19. Now that's just sophistry, to be blunt.

I'm not saying we should be pulling the strings on whatever it is that's happening in Iran (because we definitely shouldn't) but we *absolutely* should have spies in Iran that can provide reliable information on what is actually happening.

Your dislike of the CIA is noted, and understandable, but having the situation in Iran (whether its regarding the elections, their nuclear program, or a host of other issues) be a big blank spot on our radar is extremely dangerous.

Knowledge about what is *actually* happening inside Iran is irreplacable when formulating policy, and you don't get that without some spies. I'd much rather have our administration dealing with facts on the ground than speculation, wouldn't you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Why?

IMO the "policy" should be to butt-out of other country's affairs. Our spying has led only to innumerable wars, interference, assassinations, torture and our reliance on a foreign policy that has killed millions. We are not at war with Iran. We have no business spying on them any more than they have any business spying on us.

[Raskolnik]

31. No, spying has not led to those things.

People made policy decisions based on information or, more often, the lack thereof. Spying in and of itself is the gathering of information. What we decide to do with it once its gathered is a separate question, but wouldn't you rather have our nation be making decisions on actual information as opposed to speculation?

For example, let's say North Korea announces that it has developed a ballistic nuclear missile capable of hitting any city on the West Coast. If we have spies in North Korea that are able to tell the administration whether or not that is actually true, we are better able to make decisions based on facts, and not worst-case speculation.

[JackRiddler]

39. You're assuming these mythical NK spies actually know and tell the truth...

Instead of saying what their handlers want to hear, or playing double-triple-quadruple agent. Spying is a pit of deception and counter-deception. Spying by this supposedly reliable human intelligence is one reason the US launched an aggressive war on Iraq. See, because they wanted to know if Iraq had WMD, and "Curveball" told them it did.

[Raskolnik]

43. I'm not assuming anything.

And we didn't get into Iraq because a spy told us something that wasn't true. We got into Iraq because Bush, et al made shit up. Get it straight.

[JackRiddler]

47. Part of the official story and even the liberal critique...

is that the Iraqi spies delivered false intelligence. I'm perfectly aware that this is a cover story, but it illustrates that your neutral information providers are a myth. Spies always have an interest, that's what motivates them to take the risk of spying on behalf of a foreign power in the first place.

[4lbs]

54. We got into Iraq because Bush made plans for invasion pretty much the day after he was sworn in

No amount of CIA information would have changed that.

[JackRiddler]

56. Of course. Nevertheless, "human intelligence" was wielded to that end...

As it will always be instrumentalized. There is no neutral covert information provider. That is a myth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. How has that worked so far?

Information provided by spies have erected a multitude of bogeymen that our politicians and military have acted on. Which resulted in, literally, the deaths of millions.

If NK were to develop a ballistic missile capable of hitting the US, it would have to be tested. Otherwise, it might hit Pyongyang or Lichtenstein. Missile tests are detectable by satellites.

What I'm saying is what Napoleon said, "If you want peace, avoid the pinpricks that lead to war."

[Raskolnik]

51. And you'd apparently rather ask politely what unfriendly nations are up to.

Do you suggest we do that by certified mail, or a polite question during tea?

I'm sorry for being snarky, but you're just being naive. Spying has *always* been a part of realpolitik for a reason: it works. If you don't like what our government has done with a lot of the information its gathered through that process, then you have a lot of company. That does not change the fact, however, that human intelligence has historically provided invaluable information to us, and there isn't really a way to replace it.

[proteus_lives]

70. Every country spies on every other country. Way of the world.

In your POV what type of intelligence-gathering is acceptable?

[Zodiak]

57. We spy on our ALLIES

I do not see what the fuss is over us having spies in Iran, to be honest.

Countries spy on each other because countries lie to each other. It's really that basic.

[JackRiddler]

58. "We" "spy" on our own elected officials, and on millions of other people at home.

And I do see what the fuss is about, because covert power structures automatically tend to create cryptocracies (secret hierarchy) that are answerable to no one and, like any other unaccountable authority, tend to abuse power and undermine any pretense to constitutional government.

This form of activity needs to be strictly limited to cases where only human infiltration can find out information about threats, and under strict oversight of public officials. You can't run covert operations in foreign countries without lying about them at home. That entails misleading the public not only about foreign but domestic issues. Democracy is undermined.

[Zodiak]

59. I am definitely not for domestic spying

But I do believe in foreign spying, and I do believe in the right to keep the American public in the dark about it. Just so long as an elected official accountable to the People is given the power of oversight over the operation.

[ControlledDemolition]

64. ... and destabilize their governments. n/t

[JackRiddler]

44. Of course it would be!

Since when are people who are willing to spy for a foreign power going to be reliable sources? If they're spying, it's because they've been coerced by the foreign handler, or they are against the government and want to bring it down, or otherwise have an interest. Or else, as is often the case, they're double agents feeding bullshit. Spies don't do it because they want to pass on reliable information, they do it out of some interest of their own.

[JackRiddler]

26. Cut a peace deal and get observers.

Commit to mutual observations. Stop supporting the Israeli nuclear state, which is threatening Iran with destruction.

Why does the US have an implicit right to spy inside Iran, and not vice-versa?

[Raskolnik]

34. "Observations" of what?

Stop supporting the Israeli nuclear state, which is threatening Iran with destruction.

If you think you're going to drag this conversation into those shark infested waters, you've got another thing coming.

Why does the US have an implicit right to spy inside Iran, and not vice-versa?

Who said that's what I think? We don't have the "right" to spy inside Iran, but we should do it anyway. I want good, reliable information about what is happening there, and human intelligence is one of the better ways of getting it.

[JackRiddler]

38. "Human intelligence" is one of the better ways to get people killed for nothing.

And it's a myth that observation is possible without intervention.

As for the "shark-infested waters," well I guess you want to ignore the relevant factor that Israel has been lobbying for a military strike on Iran or for the green light for its own strike for years now.

What brought down the Soviets, militarism? Wrong, detente.

[Raskolnik]

41. You're not terribly familiar with history if you think that good spies are not invaluable.

And it's a myth that observation is possible without intervention.

And upon what, pray tell, do you base that little chestnut?

What brought down the Soviets, militarism? Wrong, detente.

I guess it does help to ask and answer your own questions, particularly when they don't have anything to do with the subject at hand.

[JackRiddler]

45. Actually, you're not paying attention if you haven't noticed that most spies are not "good spies"

and most intel operations have resulted in disasters for both the host and the meddling power's true interests.

CIA doesn't protect against enemies. It makes enemies.

PS - "Curveball." Care to come up with actual examples for your thesis, Mr. History?

[Raskolnik]

53. Oh, Jebus. I just realized I'm about to be drawn into a discussion about the CIA

with someone who has some rather...interesting, let's call them...theories about 9/11.

[JackRiddler]

55. Your declaration of intellectual bankruptcy is acknowledged.

I love it when an apologist for the criminal culture of the spook world, cornered on facts and logic, suddenly notices my sig line as a reason to "cut and run."

[JackRiddler]

21. How do you feel about Iranian spies stirring up shit in Washington DC?

Isn't that kind of a good thing?

[Raskolnik]

24. You are conflating spying with "stirring up shit" They are not synonymous.

The former is the gathering of information, the latter is actively interfering with an internal matter. See the difference?

[JackRiddler]

25. How do you know they're "only" spying? They've always stirred up shit in Iran.

Why is it going to be different now? Did Obama order an end to the ongoing destabilization initiated with admissions by the Bush regime? If so, how do you know?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say

Larisa Alexandrovna
Published: Thursday April 13, 2006

The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months.

One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

“The MEK is run by a husband and wife team who were given bases in northern Baghdad by Saddam,” the intelligence official told RAW STORY. “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.”

SNIP - FOLLOW LINK

---

Oh, and would you be okay with Iranians "only" spying in Washington?

[Raskolnik]

33. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a mix of "spies" and "agents"

But we're talking about the former, not the latter. I don't approve of active destabilization of Iran, so there isn't any point in cutting & pasting any more links about Iraq, thank you.

Oh, and would you be okay with Iranians "only" spying in Washington?

I'm "okay" with Iranian spying in the sense that I understand that information gathering is a part of realpolitik, but I also acknowledge that an Iranian agent caught spying should be punished. That's how the world works.

[JackRiddler]

42. You didn't read the passage. It's about Iraq being used as a platform to destabilize IRAN.

So you're all right with the idea that the Iranians punish any Iranians who are working for the USG that they pick up, assuming it's so?

And is it also all right for the USG to deny that these were agents, as they will normally do? (See: "Roxanna")

And is it all right for the Western media to then carry the USG denials, and decry the Iranian punishment of "innocent citizens," and thus in effect to lie and mislead the public, including you?

Why do we bother with the charade of constitutionalism, I'd like to know.

[Raskolnik]

50. And you apparently didn't read the portion of my post that made clear that I don't approve

of destabilization. Do facts matter much to you, or is there just certain information you're going to post no matter what someone else is talking about?

So you're all right with the idea that the Iranians punish any Iranians who are working for the USG that they pick up, assuming it's so?

I'm "all right" to the extent that I understand that this is how the world works, but I believe every effort should be made to get those people out before they are caught.

Why do we bother with the charade of constitutionalism, I'd like to know.

Perhaps you have a different version of the Constition than I do, but my copy doesn't prohibit spying on foreign governments. Could you point out which portion you're referring to?

[JackRiddler]

52. Spying on foreign governments invariably means lying to domestic publics.

And it happens on a vast scale, not the limited way you would ideally have.

Misleading the public makes a joke of constitutional government. We think we have the knowledge we need to make decisions as a polity, but we do not.

[Raskolnik]

11. I sure as hell hope we do.

As wonderful as Twitter is, I hope that there are reliable, informed spies in Iran right now who are able to give the U.S. information about what is happening on the ground.

[Bucky]

12. Well, at least he didn't name them. That's at least progress.

Why, again, exactly do people keep thinking the Republicans are the party of national security?

[JackRiddler]

22. I beg to differ. Naming them might be illuminating for anyone who cares for the truth.

[KittyWampus]

35. Oh, so you're down with Rove naming Plame?

[JackRiddler]

48. I didn't particularly care.

Actually, I would be down with Philip Agee naming the whole CIA, as he tried to do.

Rove was getting payback against truth-tellers, and this was indeed a crime. However, it was a small detail in the orchestration of an aggressive, genocidal war. Part of the left was led down the path of defending the noble CIA against the evil Rove for three years worth of Fitzgerald's laughable investigation, and it was an enormous distraction as the rape of Iraq proceeded unhindered.

[Raskolnik]

36. Do you want any spies in North Korea named publicly as well? n/t

[JackRiddler]

49. I'd recommend starting by naming all domestic operatives of the CIA and Co.

[ControlledDemolition]

65. Don't forget about Division 5 of the FBI! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

13. Oh, great

On the one hand, Scowcroft praises Obama's cautious approach, even as he's cheerily admitting there are spies in Iran.

Here's a news bulletin, Brent: Iranians actually watch Al Jazeera. And this is going to be used by the hardliners to FURTHER persecute the protestors.

What an asshole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. and if you want to prop the khamenei and Ahmamenidad of the world...

that is what you do...

We cannot allow them to fall if you are a neocon.... what to do if the satan goes away?

[Forkboy]

15. Everybody knows this, but you don't announce it, dummy.

[Jennicut]

17. I bet we do but he should shut his mouth. He is right though in that we can do little to stop

anything right now anyway.

[JackRiddler]

27. The reaction on this thread is more revealing than Scowcroft's obvious "admission."

A lot of people seem to think it's anything goes with the national security state, long as they don't tell us anything about what they do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Jack here is one thing I learned a long time ago about nation states

they spy on each other ALL THE TIME

That military atache is your local head of spy ring for insert nation here

The charge d'affairs, same story

And all nations have operatives on each other's soil

What is revealing about it is how Scowcroft who does know about this more directly.

But every state does this, every one.

No matter how small or large they are.

As to the reaction... well Scowcroft is using this to push a certain position and try to manage events on the ground. (Which are very clear to anybody who knows neocons. They cannot afford this relatively moderate movement to succeed, not outside their direct control)

And yes, as I type this there is a low level cyber war ongoing, as well as a diplomatic war, apart of the stones and axes and the rest of the stuff in the streets of Tehran.

[JackRiddler]

30. And are you pretending that all the US does in Iran is to "spy"?

Obviously they're trying to affect events there. By means that are an extension of war, and that began as covert aggression under the Bush regime (support for the former "terrorist" mujahedeen, efforts to sabotage the nuclear program, etc.). Doesn't matter that the USG didn't "create" the Iranian Green movement, they would like to exploit it and they are driving the media about it.

And this in a situation where there is no strong evidence that the election was actually stolen! It's just the consensus belief in the Western media, but almost all arguments are based on belief about what should have been the results, not evidence of what they actually were.

And notwithstanding that Scowcroft is normally presented as the loyal opposition to the neocon faction within the Bush mob, how are you inside his head or the neocons' heads to know exactly what they're hoping out of this situation?

Scowcroft's statement is the plain fact, no doubt understated. He says there's "not much" the US operatives can do, but he clearly implies they should if they could. Thus giving some truth to the more exaggerated Iranian accusations of US meddling.

That a practice of statecraft is common or even universal does not make either right or even productive for the interests of the states who engage in it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Wrong, it started in as soon as the revolution succeeded

and what scowcroft did will get people killed, even people who have NUTHING to do with it.

And if it wasn't productive, well you can go have a talk with Tzun Tze, who first wrote of the role of the spy and the double agent millenia ago

[JackRiddler]

37. The current phase started under the Bush regime, but you can go back to 1946 or 1953...

The 1953 example is especially instructive, as it is still reverberating to this day with suffering for Iranians and damage to any real US interests.

At any rate, did Obama suspend the Bush regime's richly-funded authorization to destabilize Iran? You don't know, but it's unlikely to the point of near-zero chance. Is this destabilization program having an effect on Iranian events now, especially how they are reported? Unclear how much, but also without a doubt.

[leftstreet]

40. They're still part of the 'Axis of Evil' - right?

Unless the current administration has un-said that disgusting phrase.


No, I didn't think so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Having some front line knowledge from the CA wars

I know that the HUMINT networks went the way of the dodo during the revolution, and it took decades to rebuild them.

I'll leave it at that.

Suffice it to say, what Brent did today will get thousands killed, phase two after Plame.

[ControlledDemolition]

66. Operation Paperclip got the original ball rolling. n/t

[JI7]

61. we had spies in Soviet Union during the collapse also

people think it's clear cut. it doesn't mean the people of Iran don't want a change. it doesn't mean the US is so powerful and behind everything.

i'm sure there are Al Qaeda here also. it doesn't mean we are in danger of getting a terrorist attack anytime soon.

[jeanpalmer]

62. Of course we do

Although Iran rolled up a few of them when Chalabi ratted them out. Obama has only denied kinda that the CIA has been involved in the turmoil in Iran. He has not denied having spies on the ground. If we had a real White House press corp, instead of the sorry excuse that showed up the other day (and every day), someone would have asked him, "Is the US involved in Iran in any way?" Obama belittled the idea that the CIA was involved, but didn't deny it. But the involvement could come in any form, not necessarily the CIA. For example, Radio Free Iran or the NED. But since we have a bunch of dufuses in the WH press corp, we'll never find out. That was an obvious question, after Obama denied "CIA" involement. But this media is part of the government psyops on the American people, so what can you expect?