On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

updated 5:05 p.m. ET July 3, 2008

WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.

The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.

It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.

“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”

Not ruling out use of military force
President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.

He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”

Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”

The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.

But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”

In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein's regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.

An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.

Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they're paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.

“The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”

In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.

But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.

Good for the military. I am glad they have decided that diplomacy is equally as valuable as violence. I am not sure if their opinion would be the same if they weren't bogged down, discredited, injured, and under-resourced by wars in two Southwest Asian countries (not that I am blaming the military itself for that). But it is refreshing to see the institution warn publicly against aggression. It almost sounds like a plea to the current (and future) administration: "Please God don't commit us to another war. You're killing us here George!"

Iran hardliners condemn Khatami

Members of Iran's parliament have made a formal complaint to the intelligence minister over remarks made by former President Mohammad Khatami.

On Friday Mr Khatami said the Islamic republic's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, had not wanted to export the revolution by armed force.

The MPs accuse him of jeopardising national security and want to know if he had clearance to make the remarks.

They say his comments implicate Iran in events it has had no role in.

'Sabotage?'

Mr Khatami's remarks have been interpreted as suggesting that Iran supports insurgents in other countries.

"What did the Imam [Khomenei] mean by exporting the revolution?" he asked in a speech on Friday to university students.

"Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries? The Imam was vehemently against this and was confronting it," he said.

His remarks have been condemned in Iran's conservative media as an attack on the country's Islamist system of government.

Mr Khatami has said his words were not directed at Iranian policy.

from BBC.co.uk

Let me reiterate how much both Clinton and Bush II blew it when it came to Iran. Khatami was a reformist, willing to open dialogue with the West, and not keen on armed expansion of Iranian regional power (or beliefs). But rather than pursuing anything by way of diplomacy both presidents remained stalwart in their refusal to deal with the country and increased pressures on the regime. The Iranian Hostage crisis was 30 years ago--get the Hell over it already. Anyway, the point is just that the US missed a great opportunity to support reformists...and the window is now tightly shut since Amadinejad has been elected (along with scores of other hardliners throughout the government). Oh well, maybe in another 3 decades....

Obama again calls for talks with Iran

Shifting the focus of the presidential race to the Iraq war, John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton bickered during Senate hearings about bringing troops home, while Barack Obama repeated his position that a dialogue must be held with Iran if the US seeks to improve the situation in Iraq.

According to Obama, while he wants US troops out of Iraq, he would not initiate a precipitous withdrawal. And he said talking regularly to the Iranians is critical to getting to the point where it would be safe to end American involvement.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without them," Obama said.

Commanding Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker faced largely deferential questioning from Republican nominee McCain, who backs a continued US presence in Iraq, and Democratic rivals Clinton and Obama, both advocates of getting out of the oil-rich country after five years of war.

Petraeus and Crocker, both highly respected for their conduct of the conflict since taking over last year, responded gingerly, knowing one the three senators was likely to be the next commander in chief.

In the Foreign Relations Committee, McCain said promises to withdraw forces "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

"I fundamentally disagree," Clinton said later, when it was her turn to speak. "Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

From his seat on the Foreign Relations panel, Obama prodded the two officials to redefine success as a means of closing down the conflict.

The Illinois senator and Democratic front-runner said he worried that the goals - completely eliminating al-Qaida and Iranian influences - might be impossible to meet and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort.

"If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an al-Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe," he said.

Both Democrats contend the five-year-old war has made the United States less safe and is a crippling drain on the American economy. McCain said U.S. forces are succeeding.

Petraeus also acknowledged in questioning from McCain and committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, that the Iraqi military operation against militia forces in Basra late last month was poorly planned. He said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who ordered the assault, did not consult sufficiently with American forces.

"Suffice to say it was a disappointment," McCain asked.

Petraeus responded: "It was. Although it is not over yet, senator."

In opening remarks, Petraeus said he would recommend to U.S. President George W. Bush that the current drawdown of troops be put on hold for 45 days after July, when the so-called "surge" force is to have left the country. He refused to commit to a date for restarting the withdrawal.

While McCain is virtually guaranteed the Republican spot in the race, Clinton and Obama continue battling in a close and historic battle for their party's nomination. She is seeking to become the first woman president; he aims to be the first black president.

Obama has accumulated more delegates, won more primary and caucus contests and leads in the popular vote against Clinton. The latest AP tally of delegates showed Obama with 1,638 to Clinton's 1,501, including superdelegates _ party leaders and elected officials who are free to vote for whichever Democrat they want.

On Wednesday, Obama will be returning to the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, which holds the next primary contest on April 22, offering the largest remaining prize of 158 delegates. Clinton hopes to replenish her campaign coffers with a fund-raising concert in New York featuring Elton John.

A new Quinnipiac University poll of Pennsylvania voters showed Clinton's previously large lead over Obama had shrunk to 50-44. Clinton's lead has dropped from a 9-point advantage a week ago and 12 percentage points in mid-March.

Seeking to assure a victory in the upcoming balloting, Clinton is targeting Pennsylvania media markets with five new television ads that deliver specific messages to different regional and ethnic audiences.

Her campaign began airing the ads Tuesday, three in the expensive Philadelphia market where polls show rival Obama has been gaining support.

The ads come as Obama has been outspending Clinton in Pennsylvania. As of Sunday, Obama had spent $3.6 million (€2.29 million) in the state to Clinton's $1.3 million (€830,000), according to data compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Obama updated his ad mix in the state as well. A new ad features some of the women in his life - his half sister, his grandmother and his wife - in what is an obvious outreach to women voters who form a core of Clinton's support.

As the ads began airing, the Clinton campaign also issued a fundraising appeal to counter Obama's spending advantage in the state.

"They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz," an e-mail to supporters says. "Don't let a sea of Obama ads overwhelm our powerful message in Pennsylvania. Contribute now."

US Mid-East commander steps down

The commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon, is to retire from his post early.

He cited the "embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy" as the reason for retiring.

He was the subject of a recent article by Esquire magazine, which said he was opposed to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The 63-year-old admiral became head of the US Central Command a year ago.

'No policy differences'

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to take early retirement was entirely Adm Fallon's, added that he agreed it was the right thing to do.

"I have approved Admiral Fallon's request to retire with reluctance and regret," he told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that he would be sorely missed.

I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Adm William Fallon

President George W Bush said the admiral deserved "considerable credit for progress that has been made... in Iraq and Afghanistan".

The Esquire article suggested Adm Fallon was standing up to a president supposedly contemplating war with Iran.

He is described in the article as "the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran".

Mr Gates said the idea that Adm Fallon's departure indicated that the US was planning to go to war with Iran was "ridiculous".

He said "there is a misperception" that the admiral disagreed with the Bush administration's policies towards Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Mr Gates said.

The Bush administration's official policy towards Iran is to use diplomatic and economic pressures to resolve differences while retaining the possibility of military options.

The US and other Western nations suspect Iran is using its nuclear programme to develop atomic weapons - a charge Tehran denies.

In a statement released through Central Command's Florida headquarters, Adm Fallon said: "I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command.

"The simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

Central Command covers an area from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia and includes responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From the BBC.

Not sure what to make of this, but it is concerning to me. I have thought that the Bush admin might try to use military force in Iran during the last days in office as a means to "lock in" the neo-con vision of US military presence in the Middle East, and this might sadly support this fear...but let's hope not.

Iran's clerical old guard being pushed aside

New generation replacing clerics who had sought better ties with West

By Thomas Erdbrink

The Washington Post

updated 2:15 a.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 11, 2008

TEHRAN - After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers toppled a U.S.-backed autocracy in Iran, he brought to power a coterie of politically engaged clerics who sought to create the world's first Islamic republic. Nearly 30 years later, a new generation of politicians is sweeping aside those clerics, many of whom had become proponents of better relations with the West and gradual steps toward greater democracy.

The newcomers are former military commanders, filmmakers and mayors, many younger than 50 and only a few of them clerics. They are vowing to carry out the promises of the revolution and to place Iran among the world's leading nations. This rising generation has the support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader in Iran's political system, who backs the government's assertive foreign and nuclear policies.

Last month, local election councils disqualified scores of clerics and their allies -- including Khomeini's grandson, Ali Eshragi -- from seeking election to parliament March 14. Such candidates have been disqualified before, but analysts said the absence of members of the clerical old guard from other institutions of power in Iran means they will find it difficult to mount an electoral comeback.

"These newcomers are pushing the followers of the imam out of power," said cleric and political veteran Rasoul Montajabnia, using an honorific to refer to Khomeini. "We are being dealt with disloyally."

Ahmadinejad strengthened
Analysts say the purging of those clerics strengthens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most prominent leader of the new generation, and will result in a smaller political class that is more beholden to the supreme leader and less tolerant of even internal dissent.

"The newcomers don't have the same power base as the old guard," said Mehrdad Serjooie, a political analyst and former journalist. "They have no reputation dating from the time of the revolution, no direct access to oil money and no important supporters.

"The old factions often could operate more independently because they were powerful" in their own right, Serjooie added. "The new generation depends more on the leader."

Khamenei two weeks ago publicly vetoed a decision by Ahmadinejad to ignore certain laws passed by parliament. "This was a signal to show who is in charge," Serjooie said.

The newcomers say their emergence is part of a generational change. "For the last 30 years we have seen the same names in Iranian politics. It was natural that clerics took control of the country's affairs after they led the revolution, but as time goes by it's natural that younger non-clerics take over," said Saeed Aboutaleb, 37, a member of parliament since 2004.

He said clerics would remain important. "We need them for guidance, just as the late Imam Khomeini wanted. In the end, this is just a change in clothes," he added, referring to the overcoat and turban worn by clerics and the suits worn by younger politicians. "The newcomers are just as religious."

If the clerics have a chance at regaining the political prominence they enjoyed in the years following the 1979 revolution, analysts say, it will be under the leadership of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an ayatollah and former close aide to Khomeini who lost the presidential election to Ahmadinejad in 2005.

During Rafsanjani's two terms in the 1990s, his faction controlled several important executive and economic institutions in Iran, among them the Oil Ministry. He helped bring cleric Mohammad Khatami to power as his successor in 1997.

Khatami's supporters, known here as reformists, included many onetime revolutionaries, such as former students who came to regret their 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, which led to the severing of ties between Iran and the United States. Rafsanjani's political allies teamed with the reformists and together they began arguing that Islamic law is dynamic and adaptable. They also favored reestablishing relations with the United States through compromise and proposed minor democratic reforms. Later, political fights broke out between the two groups.

Although they held executive power, Khatami and his supporters were prevented from carrying out most of their plans by the judiciary and the Guardian Council, a 12-member body that answers to the supreme leader. Both were dominated by opponents of relations with the United States and of political or religious change.

Most of the candidates disqualified last month belong to Khatami's broad reformist coalition, which sought to compete with the newcomers in this year's parliamentary elections. The Guardian Council is considering appeals and will announce its decisions March 5.

Rafsanjani's supporters, whom the newcomers have accused of corruption, a lack of revolutionary zeal and even spying, decided not to stand in the upcoming elections, although they have not given an explanation.

"We believe we should open the atmosphere in the country, give more freedom and practice detente in the international arena. The newcomers are dogmatic and don't believe in the wishes of the people," said Montajabnia, the cleric, who is a member of the National Trust Party and part of the reformist coalition. "This is a power struggle for the political direction of this country."

The struggle began almost four years ago with the surprise election to parliament of a majority representing the newcomers, and it continued with Ahmadinejad's presidential victory and the subsequent replacement of tens of thousands of experienced government managers.

Important positions taken over
The newcomers, some of whom had spent years in secondary positions in the Iranian system but had no prominent role in the revolution, have taken over important positions traditionally held by clerics. Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, a former student of physics and deputy minister of education, became the first non-cleric to head parliament following the 2004 election.

The top negotiator on nuclear issues, cleric Hassan Rowhani, was replaced by Ali Larijani, a former head of Iranian state television. Larijani was replaced in October by Saeed Jalili, another non-cleric and a close ally of Ahmadinejad.

Among the newcomers are a few clerics, almost all of whom studied at a religious school in the holy city of Qom known for its strict interpretation of Islam.

Ahmadinejad's faction, which calls itself "principalist," consists of newcomers who say they want to act according to the principles of Islam and the revolution. Many members are former commanders in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a force created after 1979 to protect the revolution. Members of another, more technocratic group have similar ideals and backgrounds but are at odds with the government on how to implement those principles. Larijani, who is seeking election to parliament, is emerging as the head of that faction.

"After a purge, the remaining faction divides. The split in the newcomers group will finally result in two main new groups in Iranian politics," said Iraj Jamshidi, political editor at Etemaad newspaper.

‘A lot of abuse of power’
The newcomers say the politicians who preceded them haven't realized the goals of the revolution. "There has been a lot of abuse of power," said Aboutaleb.

Jamshidi, whose newspaper is considered reformist, said the "clerics who used to hold high positions are being held responsible for the current problems in Iran."

Still, Rafsanjani holds one last trump card. In September he was chosen as chairman of the Assembly of Experts, an elected council of 86 clerics that selects, supervises and can dismiss the supreme leader.

"We don't know what's happening in the assembly," Serjooie said. "But we can be sure the new generation is now trying to get as many other institutions as possible under their influence, to cement their newly attained power."

Jamshidi said there is little likelihood that the cleric-politicians who gained power after the revolution will rebuild their standing. "They are not a part of the decision-making process anymore," he said. "I don't see any chance of a comeback."

The US missed a great opportunity to improve ties with the US and promote democracy in the country when Khatami was president. Sadly, the US, under Bill Clinton, rebuffed the regime and a few years later the window had closed and Ahmadinejad was elected. Like this article points out, a number of power players in the Iranian regime were disenchanted with the outcome of the 1979 Revolution and wanted to liberalize the country and better ties with West. And they were in a better position to do it than anyone else. Khatami, for instance, is a trained cleric and had clout among both the political and religious communities. It was therefore easier for him to push through reforms that might have been seen as anti-revolutionary had they been attempted by other politicians. But now these figures are being sidelined and populist radicals like Amadinejad are running the show. The window may soon not be only shut but nailed closed. I am not saying the US (or the West in general) is to blame for this. However, the US should get over its grudge over the Embassy hostage issue and seek to engage Iran in a more positive way. If there is a country in the Middle East that is democratically-minded and enjoys a rich civil society (other than Turkey and Israel) and history of political participation it is Iran. It is certainly an illiberal regime and has miles to go, but the underpinnings of democracy exist. Sadly, I think most policy makers and most American terribly misunderstand Iran on about every level.

Romney tells U.N. to Reject Ahmadinejad

Romney tells U.N. to Reject Ahmadinejad

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to address the U.N. General Assembly next week, but instead should be greeted "with an indictment under the Genocide Convention," Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said Monday.

"The Iranian regime under President Ahmadinejad has spoken openly about wiping Israel off the map, has fueled Hezbollah's terror campaign in the region and around the world and defied the world community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons - capabilities that make these threats even more ominous," Romney said in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon posted on his campaign Web site, http://www.mittromney.com .

In New York, Romney told reporters: "I think the invitatiom should be withdrawn. I think instead, Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the Genocide Convention."

Romney routinely talks about the threat the United States faced from "radical jihadists," and he has staked out a hard-line position against Iran in particular.

In January, he called for economic sanctions against the Central Asian nation "at least as severe" as those imposed on South Africa during its apartheid era, aiming to isolate the country and convince it to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Last September, while still serving as governor of Massachusetts, Romney ordered all state agencies to refuse any assistance if requested when the former president of Iran visited Massachusetts. Romney said Mohammed Khatami oversaw torture and the murder of dissidents, as well as Iran's secret nuclear program, while in office from 1997 to 2005.

"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said at the time.

Opponents of the current Iranian regime including Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz have previously called for Iran's explusion from the United Nations.

(Original AP story click here)

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

(Originally from here)

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.

A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."

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.

"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.

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.

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."

The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years.

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.

"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.

Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding.

"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.

The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran.

Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks.

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.

Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

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

"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah.

The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.