ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions

If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.

The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identify terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.

The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...

What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.

Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.

In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.

“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.

Fast Cars, Women, and Cash for Iran

If you drive a DaimlerChrysler vehicle and fuel it at Shell gas stations, you are supporting pornography, terrorism, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

That may sound like a harsh accusation, and you likely were not aware that your purchases were benefiting pornographers and terrorists, but the sad truth is that DaimlerChrysler and Shell Oil Company are engaged in profitable business contracts with purveyors of lurid magazines and the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

Let’s start with the double offender, Shell Oil. Shell’s cozy business relationship with Iran is well documented, and has grown in scope despite U.S.-led international efforts to isolate the radical Iranian government through anti-terror sanctions. Shell thumbed its nose once more at President Bush in January when it completed a multi-billion dollar deal with Iran to develop a massive natural gas field in that country, which the American government views as the world’s primary sponsor of global terrorism. While financial analysts applauded Shell’s pluck in forging ahead with the deal despite political pressure not to financially aid the mullahs, it should be noted that Shell’s fiercest competitor, BP, made the morally correct decision to not bid for the Iranian contract. If you have a choice between Shell or BP stations in your area, remember that the IEDs and suicide bombs killing Iraqi and American troops in Iraq are funded and manufactured by Iran, from oil money flowing into its coffers from Shell.

Ignoring international sanctions and doing business with terrorists would be reason enough to withhold your patronage of Shell. However, Shell appears to suffer significant moral bankruptcy fueled (no pun intended) by profit greed, and contracting with unsavory elements to increase already record revenues is a price Shell is willing to pay. Shell’s decisions may have given it the decidedly dubious honor of being the world’s only corporate joint sponsor of Islamic terrorism and pornography.

Major oil companies in the U.S. have long supported the policy of not selling pornography, including Playboy and Penthouse magazines, at branded gas stations. These oil companies have strict contractual arrangements with third party operators such as Circle K that prohibit the convenience stores at branded stations from selling pornography or face costly fines or breach of contract proceedings. As reported by World Net Daily, when the Florida Family Association contacted Shell to complain about the sale of Playboy and Penthouse magazines at Shell branded Circle K stores in the Southeast, Shell responded to the family organization by declaring that Playboy and similar magazines are not pornography. WND interviewed David Caton, Executive Director of the Florida Family Association:

The request, Caton told WND, has been made to more than a dozen major oil companies supplying fuel to nearly 150,000 outlets in the United States. And until now, Caton said, there has been virtually a 100 percent positive response.

"However, Shell Oil Company has decided instead to change their definition of pornography, unlike all other major oil companies, to exclude Penthouse and Playboy magazines which are sold by Circle K Stores," he said.

The confirmation came in an e-mail from Otto O. Meyers III, a Shell executive, who told the Florida Family Association those stores selling "Penthouse" are not selling pornography.

"In regard to your inquiry about specific Circle K locations, our investigation has concluded that these stores are not selling pornography as one would think the general public defines it, but rather 'adult sophisticate' magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse," Meyers wrote.

Caton said that puts Shell in a crowd of one among companies who "no longer consider the hardcore content of Penthouse and explicit nudity in Playboy to be pornographic. No other major oil company has taken this position". . . .

Caton said the new policy by Shell probably had been influenced by Circle K Store's recent purchase of 240 Shell branded retail locations.

After receiving this surprising rejection from Shell, Caton initiated an email campaign to encourage Shell to abandon its new liberal magazine policy:

"The e-mail calls on Shell Oil Company to follow the standards and definitions established and enforced by all other major oil companies regarding the sale of pornographic materials by strictly prohibiting the sale of Playboy, Penthouse and other magazines that feature full nudity and explicit sexual conduct at all Shell branded stations including Circle K Stores," Caton said.

The Florida Family Association previously has had positive responses from Amoco, Chevron, BP, Citgo, ConocoPhillips, Mobil, Murphy, Sunoco, and Texaco in its requests to ban pornography. An estimated 35,000 7-Eleven stores also have cooperated, as have another 20,000 locations run by Albertsons, Cumberland Farms, Eckerd Drugs, Farm Stores, Kash n Karry, Swifty mart, Tom Thumb and other companies.

Take note of these names of oil companies who are helping maintain community standards, make sure they are complying with their own policies, and give them your business. Most importantly, communicate to them why they are receiving your patronage rather than Shell. Pornography, in all its forms, has eroded the moral values of America for decades, and in today’s era of Internet subscriptions there is no reason for such products to be available or on display in convenience stores or any establishment often frequented by children and families. Circle K would be well advised to get on the values bandwagon and act unilaterally to remove these magazines regardless of whether Shell allows them or not.

Ironically, Islamic terrorists, according to Dinesh D’Souza’s book, allegedly want to kill us because of our decadent culture, yet they are gladly pocketing money from the only American oil company that offers pornographic magazines (which it does not consider pornography at all) to customers. I suspect that Ahmadinejad would accept money from Hugh Hefner himself and spend a weekend at the Playboy Mansion if it would help get more centrifuges online.

Now that you have decided to fuel your vehicle somewhere other than Shell, you may want to drive that DaimlerChrysler to your favorite dealer and trade it in for a truly American car, i.e. one whose maker does not provide Iran with vehicles and heavy machinery used to intimidate pro-western demonstrators.

Last month, FrontPage Magazine’s Ken Timmerman linked to some excellent photos of DaimlerChrysler’s investments in Iran that clearly demonstrate the uses to which the mullahs are putting this prized equipment. Timmerman wrote:

DaimlerChrysler has been expanding its operations in Iran in recent years, and recently opened an assembly line to build E-class vehicles in Iran. It also owns a factory that builds Mercedes-Benz diesel engines for trucks and buses under license.

In 2004, DaimlerChyrsler sold through a Saudi affiliate 270 Mercedes Benz commercial vehicles to Iran in a $22 million contract. Those vehicles have since been used by law enforcement authorities in Iran for riot control. A German prosecutor in Stuttgart opened an investigation into the sale.

DaimlerChrysler AG is the parent corporation of what used to be Chrysler Corporation here in the United States. The U.S. company has no legal or corporate responsibility for the sales of its parent to Iran.

Those sales are perfectly legal. But they are wrong.

Indeed, companies willing to ignore currently imposed sanctions against Iran are wrong to do so and are actively increasing the capabilities and resolve of a terror sponsoring nation, all in the name of profit margin. In December I wrote about “Terror-Free Investing,” and Timmerman recently encouraged readers to look into “Divest Terror,” a similar effort to demand that mutual fund managers, private industry 401k plans, and government retirement funds stop investing in companies doing business with terror sponsors. If you have not checked with your fund manager about whether your funds are invested in Iran or other state sponsors of terror, let this be your call to action.

You can start small by not buying gas from Shell or buying DaimlerChrysler products. Lest these companies not associate their declining sales with their ill-advised partnerships with Iran or pornography, make it clear to them through email, letters, or telephone calls why you are no longer a customer and how they can win back your patronage.

America's Quiet Cold War with Iran

President Bush has long declared that winning the war in Iraq is critical to keeping America and its allies safe from terrorism and Islamic extremists. The President’s critics have long rebutted this statement by arguing that there was no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, or any other terrorists for that matter. Those who find themselves in the latter camp call for “redeploying” our troops from Iraq as Speaker Nancy Pelosi constantly demands. Regardless of the motivations cited or intelligence used to make the decision to invade Iraq, now that we are committed there is an important reason for staying in Iraq until the nation is sufficiently stable and capable of self defense: Containment of a much graver threat to the world, Iran.

Containment of Iran’s aggressions and drying up its terrorist funding are two features of what is clearly a multi-faceted non-military war being waged by the U.S. against Iran. Critics of the President miss the mark when they focus solely on whether we have succeeded in ridding Iraq of terrorists. No nation is ever completely free of existing or potential terrorists. That is not the point of the war in Iraq. As the President frequently states, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we will not be forced to fight at home. That may sound like a mere campaign style platitude, but it is not. The number of actual terrorists in Iraq is undoubtedly smaller than the number would be if we were militarily engaged in Iran, or even Pakistan. That is precisely the point. By conducting this war in and eventually securing a stable non-terrorist Iraq, we are quietly squeezing Iran’s oil-dependent economy through investment pressure while simultaneously denying Ahmadinejad of something he covets and will need desperately in the future: Iraq’s oil fields.

The Bush Administration should be given credit for recognizing long ago that forcible regime change, while clearly feasible in Iraq, was not a viable option for halting Iran’s rapid march toward nuclear weapons and its penchant for financing terrorist training and operations worldwide. Rather than bragging about America’s might and capability to remove Ahmadinejad, President Bush has followed the Reagan Cold War approach by working to force an enemy to use all of its natural resources to sustain its own needs and the likely result of this tactic may be that Ahmadinejad’s Iran will spend itself into regime change. How is this quiet war being waged? The major fronts are economic pressure and securing Iraq and its resources for the Iraqis, not for Ahmadinejad, and are detailed below:

1. Discourage foreign investment in Iran - In a nation-state version of the Terror-Free Investing strategy championed by Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman as detailed in a previous post, the Bush administration has relied on strong personal trust and good relations between the President and his fellow heads of state in key nations, such as Japan, to wield significant financial power in Iran and withdraw from contracts for Iranian oil. L.A. Times writer Kim Murphy, in an article titled "Health of Iran's Oil Fields in Question, Analysts Say," published in today’s NY Sun, cites oil industry analysts who agree that America’s quiet efforts to dry up foreign investments in Iranian oil and natural gas development projects are creating a significant burden on the Iranian economy. This is evidenced by Iran’s increasing embrace of Russian and Chinese investments in Iranian oil field development, although the Bush Administration is pressing both nations to reduce or abandon such investments until Ahmadinejad complies with UN sanctions related to the Iranian nuclear program.

These analysts further observe that the cancellation of foreign contracts for oil and gas development is forcing Tehran to divert increasing amounts of the oil it produces for use in its own oil consuming infrastructures. Thus, Iran, through America’s quiet war to keep money out Ahmadinejad’s hands, is keeping him from funding terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States. Of equal if not greater importance, the decreasing flow of oil revenue into Tehran’s coffers also hampers Iran’s suicidal quest for nuclear weapons. As Iran’s oil consumption eventually overtakes its production, Iranians themselves, as the former Soviet states did, will demand fundamental changes in leadership and economic priorities.

2. Remain in Iraq - By remaining in Iraq until the Iraqi government expresses confidence that it is prepared for our withdrawal. The similarities between Iraq’s establishment of democracy and that of America itself are striking. In the founding of both democracies, geographic and religious groups united in the overthrow of tyrannical government, then squabbled for years over representation in the new government. It took America more than a decade to agree on a constitution. Iraq has one already and is working to hold the diverse elements of the government together, and like our own Civil War, there will be failures and setbacks. The difference for America was that after defeating the British, America was capable of defending itself from foreign aggressors until the governmental creation phase was completed. Iraq has not reached that stage or military independence and may not for several years. America started Iraq on this path which Iraqis have now embraced, and America must not withdraw at this point and leave Iraq’s fate in the eager hands of its neighbors.

Remaining in Iraq until the Iraqis no longer need us will prevent Ahmadinejad from taking aggressive actions to acquire the prized Iraqi oil fields. As America’s financial pressure on Iran continues through diverted investments and Iran’s own rising domestic consumption of oil creates more strain, Ahmadinejad will need additional sources of revenue to fund the projects most pressing to him, i.e. the Iranian nuclear program and funding of global Jihad. Should we leave Iraq ill-equipped to defend itself or unstable in its government foundations, Ahmadinejad would seize the Iraqi oil fields and exponentially increase revenues for his nuclear and terrorist ambitions. In that sense, the mantra that the war in Iraq is a war for oil is true, but only as one aspect of a complex multi-front war to contain a much more dangerous and powerful enemy, Iran.

Instead of militarily engaging and attempting to disarm a heavily armed Iran on its turf as it grows stronger, we are engaging small pockets of terrorists in Iraq, building an Iraqi government capable of sustaining itself against Iran, and preserving the Iraqi oil fields as the key revenue producer for the fledgling Iraqi democracy. The cost of 3,000 American casualties seems too steep to the war-weary Democrats, like Pelosi, but the cost in American casualties had this war been militarily waged in Iran would have been much greater.

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the abandonment of American goals there would render impotent any American-led financial pressures on nations who continue to enter oil contracts with Iran. In Murphy’s article, the following paragraph should receive close scrutiny from those who oppose the war in Iraq and want to see it ended:

If Iran were suddenly to stop exporting its 2.4 million barrels of oil a day, such as in the event of a military strike, world oil prices probably would skyrocket. But a gradual decline probably could be offset by other OPEC members, analysts say, particularly as Iraq increases its oil production [emphasis added] and Saudi Arabia carries out plans for significant increases in its production capacity.

By establishing a stable Iraq exporting oil more efficiently and profitably than under Sadaam, we lessen the world’s dependence on, and thus also its investments in, Iran’s nuclear weapon-seeking Mullahs. Battling Tehran on these fronts, rather than in its streets, is a strategy clearly calculated to achieve containment and eventual disarmament at minimal loss of life and should be applauded for its similarities to Reagan’s Cold War economic tactics that strained the Soviet economy until it reached critical mass. Iran’s once robust economy, though strained now, will not crumble overnight, and America should not expect immediate gratification from this strategy any more than it did with similar efforts to curb the Soviet Union. Yet the approach is tactically sound, minimally costly in casualties, and has proven in the past to be most effective.

Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad Sarah Steelman Reagan Iranian Oil Iraqi oil fields Cold War Nancy Pelosi Bush Administration Civil War Iranian nuclear program investing in Iran Iraq War War On Terror