Editor: Simon Surowicz
Associate Producer: Krista Kjellman


ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

April 03, 2007 5:25 PM

Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

Iran_militant_group_nr A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. 

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.

A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.

Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

To Blotter Homepage

April 3, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (259)

User Comments

Makes sense...not really a new story, tho. What makes Brian and Chris' reporting fairly incomplete is that they make no mention of Jundullah's objectives (which is half the story here). WHY is this group going into Iran and attacking the Iranian military? Look it up. Anyway, If you are the enemy of my enemy, I'll let you get away with being an ally of another of my enemies.

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 3, 2007 5:41:36 PM

I guess that makes the US a state sponsor of terrorism. Can we invade ourselves?

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 3, 2007 5:42:47 PM

And whats the point of us knowing this and getting out?

Posted by: Seth | Apr 3, 2007 5:45:47 PM

Is he going to turn out like the other figureheads the US once supported, like, oh I don't know, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein??

Posted by: Nick | Apr 3, 2007 5:46:09 PM

IF this is true, doesn't this sound just like the kind of relationship the US had with Osama bin Ladin in the 80s, when he was fighting the Soviets? When will we ever learn to not share the bed with these kinds of people?

Posted by: Blah | Apr 3, 2007 5:46:40 PM

Terrorism against Iran - well they live by the sword, they can die by the sword, too. Fight fire with fire.

Posted by: Rod M | Apr 3, 2007 5:50:05 PM

No wonder the whole world hates the U.S. - the only terrorism we will allow is that which supports our causes.

Posted by: Embarrassed Citizen | Apr 3, 2007 5:57:33 PM

Al-qaeda was the enemy of our enemy, turns out they usually because out enemies also eventually.

Either way we are supporting terrorists in the war on terror.

Posted by: Paul | Apr 3, 2007 6:09:50 PM

More Bush & Cheney mischief at loose in the World--no wonder the Iranians don't trust America. Our tax dollars going down the rathole that may likely come back to haunt us.

Posted by: jude | Apr 3, 2007 6:10:39 PM

A prelude to making the argument for U.S. Iranian intervention: that Sepah-e Pasdaran is operating in Iraq sponsoring terrorism against American and coalition forces. Who better to build the case than captured high ranking Iranian military officers admitting as much?

Posted by: JR | Apr 3, 2007 6:14:32 PM

This story is just part of the pattern. The Bush administration is determined to start a war in the middle east and Iran is just their latest target. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if this was all part of the plan with the British to destabilize relationships, leak warmongering and fear creating stories to the American people in an attempt to finally get their World War III.

Posted by: Shar | Apr 3, 2007 6:15:18 PM

Golly, gee. More of our tax dollars being wasted on state sponsored terrorism, not to mention the blood on our hands. When will the lunacy stop? We're not fighting fire with fire, we're STARTING THE FIRE!!!

Posted by: Gale Ann | Apr 3, 2007 6:17:49 PM

Thankyou ABC News.

At a time when negotiations over 15 Royal nave personnel comes to a critical stage, you decide to publish this.

If the United Kingdom is a friend of the United States, I hate to think what you do when the French are involved.

Is someone suffering from brain fade, or are you acting on Bush's instructions as a lead up to the attacks on Good Friday?

Posted by: Chris | Apr 3, 2007 6:19:14 PM

Which is worse:
1) USA as a sponsor of terrorism or
2) USA as major hypocrit?

Posted by: Opie Dey | Apr 3, 2007 6:21:17 PM

This is exactly what Cheney meant when he referred to the "dark side." Mr. Cheney, some news: you are a state-sponsor of terrorism.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 3, 2007 6:22:44 PM

I'm not sure what the journalists' objectives are for telling a story like this. Is the story even true?

Posted by: ALFRED SISON | Apr 3, 2007 6:23:05 PM

The constant repetition that we supported Osamma in some way is really tiresome. Read "T=the Looming Towers" if you are interested in facts (which I doubt). Osamma was not among the Afghani's we supported against the Russians. He and his 'Arabs' were foundering around in Pakistan and performed very little combat.

As for supporting Saddam that has also been overblown. Only 2 percent of his armaments were from the US and some of those were obtained illegally. Just like the kidnapping of these British "Marines" Iran committed an act of war by holding our embassy personnel. Since we had a President who was missing his male gender, why should we not have taken satisfaction the conflict between him and Iran? He didn't turn into a major head case until later.

Rather than VERY indirectly supporting guerrilla activity (reciprocity for Iran's activities which results in our the death of our troops) would you prefer we just nuke Iran and get it over with?

Posted by: red | Apr 3, 2007 6:25:17 PM

I understand that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it -- but do our leaders have to forget the past so often?

This is pathetic and embarrassing and will bite us on the butt in a couple decades. And then President Jenna will fund the neo-Baathists or Taliban3.0 to get these evil Jundullah leaders "dead or alive."

Posted by: Eric | Apr 3, 2007 6:25:56 PM

The dot the story misses drawing to is that the US is in effect supporting al Qaeda.

Posted by: Disputo | Apr 3, 2007 6:26:04 PM

Congress needs to find the N.S.A intercepts of Cheney's phone calls to Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: K. Trout | Apr 3, 2007 6:29:56 PM

I'm sure Tony Blair is absolutely thrilled with the timing of this disclosure.

Can someone please explain why anyone within our government would admit to ANY affiliation with them?
And I agree with Jazz...WHY are they killing Iranian soldiers?

Posted by: Rick | Apr 3, 2007 6:30:03 PM

"No wonder the whole world hates the U.S. - the only terrorism we will allow is that which supports our causes."

Umm...so we should be equal-time supporters of terror?

Posted by: Bob | Apr 3, 2007 6:30:56 PM

To Embarrassed Citizen:
Get over your moral vanity. This is war.

Posted by: Thucydides | Apr 3, 2007 6:32:36 PM

This is crazy! The US is involved in this? Just because we aren't *directly* funding this does not mean we aren't a part of this action. This administration supports terrorism and has CREATED more terrorists than were ever here on this earth. When will they learn that dealing with slime only results in horrors later. Didn't we arm Bin Laden to the hilt in the 80s? Yeah? and then he came back to bite the hand that fed him? Yep.. BTW, how's that search for Bin Laden going anyway? Still not concerned Mister Bush? YOU ARE PATHETIC.

Posted by: Unbelieveable Administration | Apr 3, 2007 6:33:38 PM

Hey Blah,

Um, the USA had no relationship with OBL, he was not in Afghanistan at the time of the anti-Soviet insurgency, and the Taliban did not yet exist.


What, should we allow terrorism which does *not* support our cause? Why, to make it "fair?"

Maybe the part of the world that you believe "hates" the US does so in part because of misinformation that worked so well on Blah a few comments prior...

Posted by: gringo | Apr 3, 2007 6:36:13 PM

Incidents like this are reminders of the kind of government we really live under, I would imagine our founding father's felt the same way in 1776.

Posted by: Nextgen Patriot | Apr 3, 2007 6:37:18 PM

Let's see, the guy is a Taliban commander, drug dealer, car bomber, and Sunni terrorist who kills unarmed people in cold blood. What's not to love? I suppose we are shipping him stinger missiles as we speak, perhaps along with cartons of box cutters to open them with....

Posted by: Outrage overload | Apr 3, 2007 6:38:05 PM

So, it's fine to support terrorism when it serves your own cause? Doesn't it make the "Global War on Terrorism" even more ridiculous, especially as counter-terrorism activities have proved to be far more deadly than terrorism itself?

Posted by: Wondering | Apr 3, 2007 6:40:13 PM

Nice timing. Weird how these kinds of reports are rarely strung together in any coherent fashion. Perhaps some day ABC will investigate the links between the Pakistani Intel folks and the 9/11 hijackers. Don't hold you breath.

Posted by: Nunya | Apr 3, 2007 6:40:40 PM

To those suffering from MES (Moral Equivalency Syndrome) like Kevin and Embarrassed Citizen, how about this: we'll stop supporting this guy if they'll stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraq insurgency, etc.

Sound like a fair trade?

Then it'll all be sweetness and light.

Oh, Iran will have to declare an end to the war they've been waging on us for 30 years, but that should be no big deal. I'm sure that deep down, the mullahs really want to be good, good friends with us. All that "Death to America" talk is just talk.

Posted by: frosty | Apr 3, 2007 6:42:31 PM

Would someone explain to me WHY and HOW those idiots in the Whitehouse were selected in 2000 and then elected in 2004? I cannot believe that there are that many stupid people in the US, but I guess there are.

Posted by: vicki | Apr 3, 2007 6:45:22 PM

1952 - CIA Ousts the Democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and installs the Shah, who kills hundreds of thousands of Iranians over the next 25 years. Research it.

Posted by: Marco Polio | Apr 3, 2007 6:49:19 PM

And from this we are to draw the conclusions that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists? How can this country claim to be fighting terrorism, when it does all within it's power to keep terror alive -- albeit on someone else's soil.

Posted by: Ginny Albert | Apr 3, 2007 6:50:07 PM

Isn't this the same thing that KSM admitted to to get out of Gitmo? Are we 'supporting' terrorists or are we just plain terrorists?

Posted by: Nunya Bisines | Apr 3, 2007 6:50:37 PM

We have once again legitimized terrorist tactics. We have become our own enemy. I feel like either picking up a carbine, or moving to Canada.

Posted by: Rogue Trick | Apr 3, 2007 6:52:04 PM

Jundullah (Army of God) is a militant Islamic organization that is based in Waziristan, Pakistan and affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: Mary C | Apr 3, 2007 6:52:43 PM

Is it not clear that the British and the Americans are collaborating in order to start w war with Iran -- hence the so-called "hostage" crisis. Agents provocateurs! This is insanity --and all so that the rich resources can be divided up among two greedy nations -- the same two greedy nations (especially Great Britain), who have tried again and again to get a major stronghold on the most resource-rich continent in the world!

Posted by: Ginny Albert | Apr 3, 2007 6:53:52 PM

the united states denies any DIRECT funding. iran contra?? deja vu

Posted by: steve mihalis | Apr 3, 2007 6:54:31 PM

You can argue that the US is being unwise from a pragmatic point. And you can point out that this makes the Iranian taking of the 15 Brits more of a tit-for-tat. But as described in this story, killing "military officers [and] intelligence officers" in war is not terrorism. Killing soldiers, especially in a part of a country whose central government uses soldiers and killing to maintain undemocratic power and keep down a minority ethnic group, is war.

The justness or unjustness of the causes in the war is relevant to the decision of which side we would want to win, or even want to assist, but it is not relevant to whether the guerrillas are terrorists. Iran's calling them so is no more dispositive than Britain's calling them so relative to its colonies, or even Germany's relative to the French Resistance.

Of course, Iran's taking the 15 British sailors wasn't terrorism either, by most definitions. It was, however, an act of war, although Britain has not yet chosen to take it that way.

Posted by: DWPittelli | Apr 3, 2007 6:55:38 PM

I dont know what else to think, no wonder we are hated everywhere. when are we gonna have a leadership that doesnt preach and drink wine?

Posted by: karanja | Apr 3, 2007 6:58:13 PM

Personally I would avoid aiding them because they are executing prisoners, arguably a violation of laws of war, although I doubt this group is a signatory to any Hague Treaty, or that Iran is granting any better status to its prisoners from this group; and one is allowed to reciprocate such practices, for a number of reasons, one of them being so the other side will do the same (as in the American Revolution).

Posted by: DWPittelli | Apr 3, 2007 7:01:16 PM

This is George W. Bush and Dick Cheyney playing the strategy game Civilization IV against the rest of the world. Only, this is the real thing! They have now made a vassal state of Iraq and Afghanistan, encircled Iran and already started covert operations against Iran to destabilize the government before the the final kill. This the classic world domination strategy. Knock out your weaker opponents, make "friends" of them to support your military machine then go after the rest of your enemies. See what happened when the U.S.S.R. fell in on itself? No other country was there to counter balance America's power.

Posted by: Al | Apr 3, 2007 7:01:40 PM

Who is really concerned whether Iran trusts us or not? It's a terriorist based country and should be dealt with accordingly.
Ever since the bleeding heart liberals demanded a stop to covert operations conducted by the U.S., our country's security has gone done the crapper. What better way to destablize an undesirable government. Have a group ZAP the Head of State and/or a group of high ranking officals and save the lives of many, many American troops.
This country needs to step back 50 yrs., and do the right thing again.

Posted by: Dan | Apr 3, 2007 7:02:04 PM


Posted by: JetRanger | Apr 3, 2007 7:02:30 PM

Thanks ABC....without breaking such important stories how else would this knowledge get out and used as propaganda against us. IF it is true.
Truely a patriotic move on your part.

Posted by: Bosk | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:33 PM

Seems the liberals including Brian Ross want it both ways? Werent't they all screaming at the start of the iraq war that we should have armed the people within Iraq to overthrow Saddam? Remember the cries that we should have done this instead of war?
So no matter what the President does, the main stream press and democrats are against it. If we invaded iran, they would have screamed we should have helped those within get rid of the corrupt government.... if we do it there will be investigations. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS AND GET SOME BACK BONE

Posted by: Laura | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:53 PM

This Jundullah terrorist group not only kills the Iranian military personnel but also innocent civilian people. Last year they've attacked civilians between the city of Kerman and Bam and killed one entire family, kids parents and others in the car, they have indiscriminately shoot at any passing car on the road to create terror.

Posted by: Ray | Apr 3, 2007 7:05:54 PM

Well this is certianly going to help the US's efforts to negotiate with Iran. I guess maybe it's not considered supporting terrorism when you're doing things to support your own interests? Yikes, I wonder how Bush is going to (try) and spin this one?

Posted by: Harry | Apr 3, 2007 7:09:52 PM

You libs disgust me! Whose side are you on? This is the most biased peice of bilge I have seen come down the pike to date.

Posted by: Intimidator | Apr 3, 2007 7:14:10 PM

Karanja that is the point

The President is drinking again

Posted by: Chris | Apr 3, 2007 7:17:07 PM

Good work, ABC. The government of Iran thanks you for your services.

Posted by: Beroooz | Apr 3, 2007 7:18:19 PM

So we have intelligence sources, tribal sources, ex CIA officals and a senior state department official. Mmmm... So no one has the nerve to go on the record..This sounds like another bogus MSM report.

Thank you GWB and DC for having the nerve to go after those who want to kill us..

Keep up the excellent work. Who gives a darn if we are liked, if your dead it does not matter anyway...

Posted by: JR | Apr 3, 2007 7:21:30 PM

You know, the funny part of this story is that there is no proof that the US is sponsoring this group. All of the conspiracy theorists out there failed to recognize the one key part of the story. It is the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia (think Sunni) that are sponsoring Jundullah with funds, not the US. The rest is speculation from Paki and supposed "US intel officers" that Cheney and the CIA are doing this. They are not. It is the Sunni nations that are trying to counter-balance the growing Shi'a influence of Iran. The other major part of this story that is missing is that the Jundullah is into major heroin transportation, and that takes place thru Iran to Turkey and on to Europe. These attacks are more likely retaliation against the Iranians who were interfering with the transit route. Everyone needs to stop immediately placing blame on the US. Look at the facts!

Posted by: John | Apr 3, 2007 7:25:17 PM

Tell me the significance of "encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005." Pretty nebulous charge. Encouraged and advised to do what? Lets see...

"A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context."

I'm sure the US is reaching-out to many groups like this throughout the region. Like it or not, this kind of "human intelligence" work is necessary. In that part of the world, there is shortage of "nice guys" to work with.

A leak about this work, with this group, at this time, smacks of another leak from a disgruntled CIA type.

Posted by: edhesq | Apr 3, 2007 7:33:50 PM

Holy Cow, this is Big! Jundullah, or, Army of God, is affliated with Al Qaeda, and their stated goal:
a hardline Sunni Islamist government similar to the Taliban regime. Basically, not only has Bush Regime covertly supported terrorists, they have in effect, supported Al Qaeda TERRORISTS. HOw the heck does this flush, anyone have any idea? :(

Posted by: Richard | Apr 3, 2007 7:37:59 PM

It seems everyone in the world besides 90% of the US population knows of massive CIA involvment in international terrorism, narcotics, and assasinations.

Thank you ABC news for reporting this. It's due time the CIA was turned into an intelligence only agency and any US agression is only taken with the knowledge and will of the American people.

Posted by: JT | Apr 3, 2007 7:38:58 PM

Id beware if I were Iran, didn't they fight Iraq to a stalemate over the course of 10 or 12 years? Didn't we just beat down the Iraqi's not once but twice in the course of a few months each time? Duh? Allied forces control the entire infrastructure of Iraq,that is in no way LOSING a war.

Compare Iraq to even a few battles of the Great Wars, and you'll notice that casualties are few comparatively.(ahem,the Battle of the Bulge) Political bickering always happens at the end of Wars, esp one that has been WON so rapidly.They are killing 100 times each other vs. our troops....think about that..they dont hate us, they hate eachother.

Goodbye Iraq, Hello Iran.

Posted by: Mattthias | Apr 3, 2007 7:43:33 PM

This nation was founded on terrorism...and fast forward, the cia is known to stir the pot in countries, create insurgencies and then kill the insurgents...all just to find out who in the population would be willing to become an insurgent...

Posted by: Aaron C | Apr 3, 2007 7:44:52 PM

Its time for the world to decide take the good with the bad or nothing at all. For every good deed done by our country overseas we have in turn made mistakes and bad decisions costing thousands of lives. Yet when we make the right one to we get the same amount back in praise, NO. So lets stop sending billions of dollars over seas, keep it at home and fix our country. If the US is so corrupt and evil why do millions of people try to move to this country every year? If you are so upset with the goverment elected by the people with all the flaws involved why do you still live here. If you lived in Iraq under Saddam and posted these articles I would laugh when you cried for help while being tortured. Either accept the bad with the good, volunteer to serve and help fix it or shut up and leave. Posting whining articles and all your conspiracy theories dont solve anything. God bless America

Posted by: BDA | Apr 3, 2007 7:47:06 PM

I have just two questions. Is anyone going to tell the American people why Bush and the US government are involved with this type of illegal activity? Why do you think so many groups want us dead or this country broken? We are so arrogant and self-righteous. Bush and crazies are creating another mess they can not finish.

Posted by: johnmag | Apr 3, 2007 7:48:17 PM

The greatest threat to the freedom of American is in Washington D.C.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | Apr 3, 2007 7:50:02 PM

Beautiful story. I am so happy to see that we are using the methods of our enemies -not on innocent civilians but on those directly responsible for the deaths of countless innocent Iraqi's and heroic American soldiers. Let's officially fund them so that we can dispose of more militant anti-Liberty forces.

Posted by: Ernesto Cullari | Apr 3, 2007 7:53:50 PM

The Pakastian group should have been kept in secret and not tell Iran they are coming. Let them do their job and then report it.

Posted by: Richard Cook | Apr 3, 2007 7:54:46 PM

There go the warmongers blaming the messenger once again, after this admin has repeatedly been busted for lying over and over again to the American people. "We don't torture", "We Don't Have Secret Prisons", "We're not doing domestic spying". Uh huh... Don't buy the Neocon hype. They don't care about Americans.

Posted by: Stereo5 | Apr 3, 2007 8:01:22 PM

Another wrinkle in the "Global War on Terrorism": It's not terrorism if it's being used against people or governments our government doesn't like. And when is this punk Regi going to morph into the new Osama? And will we see video of crowds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims chanting, "Reg-i, Reg-i, Reg-i"?

Posted by: DEJA VU | Apr 3, 2007 8:03:01 PM

This is disgusting. Maybe we should all take a little pill. I can't figure out what country to move to between trying to get away from war, poverty, global warming, terrorism and still be able to buy groceries.... It's comments either shooting the messenger for being unpatriotic ot believing every word without proof~where is the middlde ground? Its a sign of the times but rather than getting on the computer why not call up your congressman and have those guys stop the POTUS and DC before they really mess things up (as if they aren't already)

Posted by: Somebody_s Mom | Apr 3, 2007 8:03:14 PM

well, I think this made us terrorist sponsors as we fight it. Not a good sign.

Posted by: eddie | Apr 3, 2007 8:06:57 PM

This is not new and not that disturbing. It's called politics.

Posted by: Iman | Apr 3, 2007 8:07:54 PM

Can anyone give a reason why Bush and Blair would want to start world war 3? It doesn't make any sense. What will they gain from it?

Posted by: Curious | Apr 3, 2007 8:08:03 PM

It's really scary with Bush/Cheney at the helm. More so with Cheney and his half smile half snarly look. If we new even 10% of what these guys are doing behind our backs we would be shaking in our shoes.

Posted by: reggie | Apr 3, 2007 8:13:10 PM

"US officials 'say,' tribal sources 'tell," and the final blow, 'some former' CIA officers "say." Why should we believe any of this? You are , after all, the "news" media.

If you cannot clearly identify your sources, you should not be reporting such inflammatory material.

Posted by: Charlie | Apr 3, 2007 8:14:00 PM

Ahh so... it all suddenly seems so clear. This proxy war and god knows how many others like it are a clear manifestation of the current administration's true foreign policy agenda. The agenda is at least 10 years old and essentially is one of globalization, or spreading American power and influence around the world. Many view this as a modern form of colonialism.

This sort of thing harkens back to the Reagan administration and the repeal of the Clark Amendment in 1985. The amendment made proxy wars illegal, though of course there are always ways of circumventing the law. For example, the Pentagon is not required to report details of activities conducted by Special Operations Forces to Congress. That's necessary to a point but also leaves the door wide open for them to operate with impunity.

90% of the time the ultimate result of proxy wars is to start fires we don't put out. These fires sometimes spark new ones. In 1986, Osama bin Laden worked as a major contractor on the CIA-funded Khost tunnel complex close to the Pakistani border. The complex housed an arms depot, a training facility, and a medical center for the mujahideen. Can anyone tell me which complex President Clinton bombed in 1998?

How can we be living in a democracy when the entire strength of the world's most advanced and (second-largest) military falls under the thumb of a single person making decisions without any sort of real accountability to the public?

Posted by: Jesse | Apr 3, 2007 8:19:55 PM

This is like fighting terror with a knife while on the other hand helping terror by encouraging them. Very good!

Posted by: ED | Apr 3, 2007 8:20:50 PM

The world is and has
always been a nasty,
tough place. Dealing
with groups like this
, although it doesn't
make you feel good,
just has to be done.

Posted by: jonah | Apr 3, 2007 8:21:41 PM

WHy should we beat around the Bush. The entire world knows what is going on with our government.

Who masterminded this idea? I suppose it was Mr. Karl Rove, RIce, Cheney and the President himself. Very sad indeed ...

Posted by: Peter | Apr 3, 2007 8:26:00 PM

The US has done this kind of thing
over and over and over again for
50 years. From Iran in the 50's
to El Salvador to The Dominican
Republic to Chile to Nicaragua to

Anybody that doubts the
Bush junta has a hand in this is
hopelessly naive, a fool or a
willing participant in crimes against humanity.

And 9 times out of 10 it comes back
to bite. But the
American people just never never
learn to recognize when their
patriotism is being perverted by
the puppet masters.

So sad.

Posted by: grennels | Apr 3, 2007 8:28:55 PM

How many of you have done further research into this? The press can be wrong, they have been wrong in the past. If you believe there is a problem let me suggest this, instead of complaining about it on the ABC News website, why don't you tell someone that can do something about it. Why don't you go out and do your own research (if you haven't already). Maybe you can come to your own conclusion instead of taking someone’s word for it. You are all untitled to your opinions, but I just want to know how many of the opinions on here where informed and independently researched, and how many jumped to a conclusion?

Posted by: P | Apr 3, 2007 8:31:32 PM

Funny: the use of the word "guerrilla" instead of "terrorist." I guess "terrorist" only applies when the actions are against the U.S. but it does not apply when the actions are against U.S. enemies. I think this is typical hypocrisy most of the world has come to expect from us.

Posted by: Chris Gibson | Apr 3, 2007 8:33:31 PM

Have you noticed you have never seen Osama, Bush, Cheney and Zawahiri at the same time in the same place. Hmmm makes you wonder.

Posted by: FENDIX | Apr 3, 2007 8:38:23 PM

The problem with democracy is the majority of the people are stupid and emotional. (Hint) Anger is a powerful emotion that most of you thrive on.

If the Administration doesn't keep Iran screaming mad, people will figure out they aren't crazy.

Are we fighting fire with fire, or are they? Think about the dictators the U.S. props up in other countries...Saddam in Iraq...Shah in Iran... In the past the U.S. has given Terrorists control over every aspect of the peoples lives in these countries. Now(?) we are encouraging and advising new terrorist on attacks in Iran.

It's time we take note of what is going on behind the scenes and get control over our government, (of the people?) and (by the people?).

Ask yourself, if the government sets a good example for your children to follow. Is this how you will teach your kids to behave? Is this how you want me to teach my kids to treat yours? The blind support for this type of behavior needs to end. If this country is run by the people, we need to accept responsibility for our actions, and understand why "they" chant "Down with America".

Posted by: James Harold | Apr 3, 2007 8:39:40 PM

The Iranians are really stepping up their propaganda campaign.
I question the sources, & the timing.

Posted by: Guy | Apr 3, 2007 8:39:44 PM

Yeah, I mean if unnamed senior U.S. and Pakistani Government said, I sure as heck believe it, especially if it fits in really neatly with my tidy little view of the way the world works.

Posted by: dog | Apr 3, 2007 8:47:21 PM

It is not terrorism if Jundullah attacks military targets - which is what it does.

The Baluchi's are an oppressed minority in Iran and ar fighting for better treatment or independence.

Good for us if they are killing Iranian military.

However, the Baluchs will not be our friends in the long run.

I'd also like to add that the Blotter has very little credibility - just a step over Debka.

Just a few weeks ago this site was breathlessly reporting a big attack in Afghanistan (against AQ HVTs). It never happened. So I'd take this with a huge dose of salt.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 3, 2007 8:52:56 PM

The Baluchis are not just a tribe, they're an ethnicity with their own language whose territory is divided between Pakistan and Iran.

Posted by: Eric | Apr 3, 2007 9:00:55 PM

This stuff shouldn't be public.

Posted by: Dave | Apr 3, 2007 9:07:16 PM

An example of "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend." Face facts, we are hated for who we are, what we accomplished and how we did so. CIA involvment in international terrorism, narcotics, and assasinations is dealing with those who hate us in a proportionate way. Would you carpet bomb them or try to win their souls to Jesus? The CIA provides the asymetrical threat to those who employ it against our interest. I think they do it well.

Posted by: JTM | Apr 3, 2007 9:08:49 PM

To correct some misconceptions:

1) The USA never had a relationship with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The USA supported the Mujahadeen against the USSR in the 1980s.

2) The U.S. never had much of a relationship with OBL and he wasn't trained by the CIA. OBL was a financier and while the CIA was aware of him, he had few dealings with the CIA.

Posted by: Jeremy | Apr 3, 2007 9:14:45 PM


Posted by: WARMONGERING MAMA | Apr 3, 2007 9:18:51 PM

I posted on the 2/14 op but until now, the op was uncredited by ISI or US Intel sources.

Thanks for the coverage.

Posted by: ebw | Apr 3, 2007 9:20:18 PM

Remember, the Neocons hate it when the truth leaks out in any manner. The doubters here will ask for "sources", when they know how dangerous it would be to reveal a contact in-the-know. Reveal sources and watch the retribution for talking. Don't buy the hype from the Right, they're wrong. Isn't it obvious by now ?

Posted by: Rollerskate | Apr 3, 2007 9:22:42 PM

These terrorists that the CIA is supporting have not only attacked Iran's military. They also harm civilians and have attacked a school of girls in Iran. Its funny how the American government talks about being against extremists and then turns around and funds them. All that talk about freedom or doing good is a crock to get young Americans to unknowingly sacrifice themselves when the objective is really about control and $$$$.

Posted by: Truthseeker | Apr 3, 2007 9:24:33 PM

Here we go again... "intelligence source say...".

I am at least thankful most people reading these garbage disinformation stories are aware of how they are being lied to, and how wars like this and in Iraq are really started.

Posted by: Eric | Apr 3, 2007 9:27:00 PM

These posts are entertaining. Most of you live in a fantasy world. Thank the sheepdogs protecting you halfway around the world so you can post on this site rants crying that America is so bad.

Posted by: Vin | Apr 3, 2007 9:31:30 PM

abc news does every thing to discredit Bush's America?

Posted by: self | Apr 3, 2007 9:31:35 PM

I'm confused...are we still the good guys?

Posted by: Marian | Apr 3, 2007 9:32:06 PM

The US is assisting in the killing of Iranian forces? This is exactly why we reelected George Bush. Let's hope we don't hurt the Iranian's feelings.

Posted by: Ryan | Apr 3, 2007 9:40:39 PM

This story is the biggest piece of propaganda I have seen in my life. It is truely angering. You call yourselves journalists?

Posted by: Drew | Apr 3, 2007 9:53:01 PM

Have to completely agree with the comments around state sponsorship of terrorism.

It is very brave of Mr. Ross to investigate and report this story. Kudos to him for reporting the truth as opposed to the blatant propaganda we receive from maintream media in general.

Posted by: S.M.Zaidi | Apr 3, 2007 10:10:43 PM

Interesting to see that Jundallah is affiliated with Al-Qaeda as per Wikipedia. It's clear who supports terrorism in this world.

Posted by: Masuma Jafri | Apr 3, 2007 10:14:18 PM

Bottom line: so what are we going to do about it? Why are we Americans so complacent? Come on, let the world know that we "finally" figured it out, even though the whole World already knows: we are not going to do a damn thing, as usual! We are hypocrits.

Posted by: Lisa | Apr 3, 2007 10:20:06 PM

Thank God some one is fighting the terrorists in Iran. Iran has been Stiring the pot for a long time and is NOW in the Spot Light. Good , If any of this is TRUE.

Posted by: Fran | Apr 3, 2007 10:27:19 PM


1. Where does one research what someone "would have" done?

2. If GWB was still president in 2011, would it be justified for Iranians to replace a new unelected dictator in his place?

Posted by: Yehuda Cohn | Apr 3, 2007 11:06:06 PM

Is time for US Government to start the winning battle.

Posted by: Giorgio | Apr 3, 2007 11:18:34 PM


Some corrections:

1. Mohammed Mosaddeq was Prime Minister, not "Premier."

2. Mohammed Mosaddeq was democratically elected and served from 1951 to 1953 -- he did NOT "stay longer than the constitution allowed."

3. The US?British overthrow only stopped the nationalization of Iran's oil industry.

Posted by: Yehuda Cohn | Apr 3, 2007 11:19:12 PM

How can the USA claim the high moral ground? The problem is that the American people were misled into the Iraq War. Let's get real since the 1st Gulf War the USA flew over 20000 sorties and never once did Saddam come close to knockning one of our planes out of the sky. But yet Old George W, Dick and the boys got us to believe that the USA was in danger from a nuclear bomb. Now we find out that Old George W and company are using people that are as bad or worse than Bin Laden and Saddam.
How can we profess to be a Christian nation when we sit back and condone these actions which do not serve God or this country well

Posted by: RDL | Apr 3, 2007 11:34:27 PM

Thank God America has wised up and is actually doing something against Iran!

Plz mister Bush we need more of this from every side of their borders OR Nuke them once and for all!

What have we got tactical nuclear weapons for???

Posted by: Paul | Apr 3, 2007 11:37:29 PM

I wonder where that missing 9 billion dollars that can't be accounted for went too?
Inquiring minds would like to know....

Posted by: Hecdawg | Apr 3, 2007 11:41:15 PM

George, You sound so certain that I almost believed you too, but nothing you said was correct about Muhammed Mossadeq. You are wrong Mossadeq was a Prime Minster (nakhost vazir in Farsi) democratically elected by the democratically elected congress he was prime minister for a little over a year 1951 to 1953. The British and American were only after the oil interest as he wanted to nationalize it after trying to get BP to increase the pay for the Iranian oil workers so they could live with the wages they were getting.... amounting to 50 cents per barrel vs 25 cents they were paying. They destroyed a democratic country just because of that and we Iranian never forget or forgive. Now look your country is after creating a second Osama, this dude is in his 20's I think you should really worry about this dude getting his hand on one of Pakistani Nuke rather than Iranian building one. It is scary wake up.

Posted by: Ahmad | Apr 3, 2007 11:42:57 PM

It's nice to see the truth being reported for a change. Dig deeper.

Posted by: concerned american | Apr 4, 2007 12:10:34 AM

Thank God there are still people out there willing to divulge vital intelligence from so called "US officials" in order to push their own messed up agendas across. Simply in order to take a jab at the current administration that happens to think ideologically different from their own. You're suppose to be helping YOUR country, not harming it.

Stop bringing the founding fathers into this also. If they saw how we are acting (disgraceful partisan politics in order to essentially harass the opposition) we would probably be flying the Union Jack and not Old Glory.

Posted by: Chris | Apr 4, 2007 12:13:11 AM

What a wonder! The country who condemns terrorist would cozy up to a terrorist group! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I guess we`ll have to invade or bomb ourselves now!

Posted by: mickss | Apr 4, 2007 12:33:57 AM

If attacking military targets is not terrorism, as some here have suggested, I guess the attack on the Pentagon was not terrorism. Is that right?

Posted by: erge | Apr 4, 2007 12:51:58 AM

If the world hates the U.S. so much then I think it's time the U.S. stops donating the billions of dollars and vast amounts of resources to all the countries it does. People call us the "world police" but never the "world contributor". All the good this country does for others goes over-looked due to the fact that it's administration tries to keep America safe even by the means that it does. A lot of people have forgotten about 9/11 and its supporters and masterminds. You need to reevaluate what's important to you and realize that our leaders and amazing army make it safe for you to go to sleep at night.

They're doing their job right? Since 9/11 has there been an attack on U.S. soil? No. Job well done. Thank you to our leaders and thank you to the soldiers who are doing their jobs so well. We all are in debt to your services.

Posted by: Bryan R. | Apr 4, 2007 12:54:18 AM

I feel so proud to live in a country where hearing the news that we're terror sponsors can be aired. Wait, was there something wrong with that sentence? Ah well, at least there's freedom of the press.

Posted by: Alex Cacioppo | Apr 4, 2007 1:21:54 AM

I love the U.S. But you finnally started the conversation on what people in your goverment do behind the sences. I have allways wanted to know who gives people all over the world money to fight thire wars. Isn't is nice to know that we are supporting and giving money to people that hate us. We "meaning the US" are still fighting the cold war by supporting people that have no problem killing anyone. I guess we should bring back the Mob and support all other Gangters, because if you are not like me you should be killed.
I would really like to know who is supporting and giving money to all the groups around the world that kill as many people as possiable

Posted by: John Poole | Apr 4, 2007 1:25:46 AM

The publishing of this article at this particular moment in time is no great service to the public. In fact, it has the potential to do great harm. Please, Mr. Ross, on a basic human level, there are 15 families in the UK whose loved ones are held captive in Iran. Now wouldn't be a time to inflame tensions with regard to Iran. This could have waited. In fact, it is an old story that Jamestown Foundation wrote about in February and one Doug Lorimer at "The Green Left" wrote about a month ago on the 8th of March. This is not "breaking" nor is it "exclusive". It is a story that Iranian intelligence has been pushing for months.

Posted by: crosspatch | Apr 4, 2007 2:09:01 AM

If u want to iradicate terrorism it has to be done against any group that in involved in terror activities not just when it effects the world leading countries

Posted by: Anujs | Apr 4, 2007 2:09:19 AM

No surprise, the US has a long history of sponsoring terrorism, especially in Iran.

In 1953, the U.S. toppled Iran's popular prime minister. The CIA helped blow up buses and Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home.

What I don't understand is why we allow it to happen? I understand that there is a time when covert ops are needed.. but this business is just plane silly and rather disgusting. The WAR ON TERROR is really just a war on the American people and our way of life.

Posted by: Brad | Apr 4, 2007 4:38:07 AM

To "Bob | Apr 3, 2007 6:30:56 PM"

Your idea - “this is war" - is exactly what Palestinian, Lebanese, Afghani & Iraqi Fighters Think!
But most of Iranian people DO NOT Believe so. This is TERRORE my friend, no matter who are victims, Iranian or American

Posted by: From IRAN | Apr 4, 2007 5:01:04 AM

Few of the comment asked "why ABC is reporting this now, even if it is true!"
Dear people, if you had not heard about this yet does not mean that the rest of the world have not heard about it either. News of this US secret war have been on the international news for at least a month or two.
I can not imagin that some people are asking for sensorship!!!
We should hear all the news without the sensorship and brainwashing and that might help us to understand why the rest of the world feel this way about us.

Posted by: Max Elmi | Apr 4, 2007 5:06:53 AM

"The US/British coup stopped what was essentially a dictator who would have taken Iran behind the Iron Curtain."

Oh, dear, "George". That was the cover story - fifty years on, even the conspirators who did the bidding of MI6 have long admitted how the Brits got the Yanks to protect their oil interests by overthrowing a democratic leader. America is continuing to pay the price, in blood and treasure, of that act of terrorism.

Posted by: drago | Apr 4, 2007 5:35:09 AM

Do you think running this story is not in the national interest? Another chance for the patriots running congress to hold another show trial. Compare it to Iran/Contra in the 80s. He he he, maybe Patrick Leahy can humiliate the administration = never mind it hurt foreign policy and America.

Posted by: Robert Burrow | Apr 4, 2007 7:07:41 AM

To all those that tow the "this is war" party line...

You do realize we're not at war with Iran?

I know Americans have so many wars at any given time, but please keep track of what countries you are and are not invading.


Posted by: Rest of World | Apr 4, 2007 7:26:15 AM

This type of thing will be going on long after Bush and Cheney leave. It doesn't end in November 2008. "Dateline Jan 2010. Just another attempt by the Hillary Clinton administration to invade Iran". Might as well use what we can now because the real confrontation is just around the corner. I wonder how many Americans will show up when faced with extinction.

Posted by: MATT | Apr 4, 2007 7:34:18 AM

It is either us or them. Plain and simple.

Posted by: mark | Apr 4, 2007 8:40:34 AM

I think we were better off when the press didn't put all of our business on the internet or the nightly news. Our government can't make a move, right or wrong, without the press publishing it. No wonder we can't get a handle on this. The other side knows what we're up to before we do.

Posted by: Lisa | Apr 4, 2007 8:42:38 AM

it seems we're trying to get Iran to attack us as a way to go to war. That strategy was predicted by Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas). I think he might be right.

Posted by: Chris | Apr 4, 2007 8:45:15 AM

And Bush says that Speaker Pelosi should not
go to meet with the Syrians because they sponsor terrorism. The Speaker at least met
with the President of Syria on the world stage and not skulking behind the scenes like that
slime Cheney with the Pakistani President.

Posted by: Joanna | Apr 4, 2007 8:49:42 AM

Maybe our country needs to spend more effort and money in educating our children so future generations can figure out how to end all this insanity in our government.

Posted by: Dave | Apr 4, 2007 9:04:19 AM

If these Pathetic Passifist Democratic Leaders only had a clue as to the DANGER they are putting this Country and it's Citizens in it would really be something amazing???
They better wake up and understand the kind of WAR they are fighting or arent fighting.If they only had a DROP OF COMMON SENSE!!!!

Posted by: Frank | Apr 4, 2007 9:04:44 AM

You people are so cauht up in your hatred for Bush and your own country you are blind to many things, one being these guys arent bombing planes or buildings or capturing civilians, their attacking enemy officials and soldiers. Oh and fo rthose of you who keep saying that this is put out to work in conjunction with the British sailor abductions in order to fuel "bush and Blairs" war, get a clue, its put out to DESTRACT people, like you, from the fact that Iran has yet commited ANOTHER act of war. You people need to suffer a little bit, maybe then youll understand how force is needed when your dealing with people who don't believe in peacful resolutions.

Posted by: whatever | Apr 4, 2007 9:13:18 AM

Look at the only cause of this - OIL.
Iraq war and current advance on Iran both have the same single cause - OIL.
Before 2001 all Middle East countries are distancing themselves from US - even Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. With war in Iraq US now has a biggest military presence in the Persian Gulf. This presence combined with Haliburton's, etc. control over Iraqi OIL gives US ability to continue increase in OIL consumption and control gasoline prices.
I guess now some groups in US government/oligarchy wants also to control Iran OIL reserves.

Posted by: Carver46 | Apr 4, 2007 9:20:09 AM

"Thank God some one is fighting the terrorists in Iran...
Posted by: Fran"

Oh, the irony!

Giving funds to Al Qaeda terrorists in order to fight "the terrorists in Iran". Genius! I'm sure this wont blowback in our faces.

You Bush supporters have completely lost all your moral bearings.

Posted by: shingles | Apr 4, 2007 9:25:28 AM

Its certainly not news to anyone with a grasp of history that America is a frequent supporter of terrorism and deeply undemocratic actions to get rid of those that displease it. What is truly revealing is that the more evidence of this that comes to light the more rightwing posters above start saying "well if they can do it so can we..". What the hell? How can you despise what you are no better than? Proof positive of hypocrisy, fear and idiocy.

Posted by: Harkadahl | Apr 4, 2007 9:32:20 AM

I do not believe this story. This is planted by the Iranians propaganda machine to get sympathy and stir up more anti-American hate.

Posted by: John | Apr 4, 2007 9:32:39 AM

As long as I can remember people have called stories like this propaganda. Hell Reagan went to his death saying " well I don't know about that". Look at some of the old news shots, I've seen some top politicians shaking hands with future enemies.
This is one of the main functions of the CIA and they will always feed the problem.
The real crime is when someone in the Whitehouse staff leaks the name of an agent.

Posted by: Dick | Apr 4, 2007 9:38:12 AM

It seems that in America's (our) efforts to protect the country's global interest, I cannot distinguish America from the bad guys. It seems we are either both terrorist countries contributing to each others instability or we are freedom fighters that are lost. Whatever way you look at it "we are the same."

Posted by: americano | Apr 4, 2007 9:41:00 AM

Some have posed the question as to what is Jundullah getting out of this cozy relationship with the Great Satan?
Perhaps it is a U.S. wink and nod regards their drug trafficking activities.
Remember the Hmong, the Afghan Mujahideen of the 1980s? They were all financed with drug money. In Laos as in Afghanistan, DEA activities were subordinated to CIA priorities. Drug traffickers, as long as they were anticomminist were permitted to traffick in opium and were often provided U.S. transport with which to market their illicit products.
This is what transpires when there is no Congressional oversight, when "black operations" are off the books, conducted in the holy name of national security.

Posted by: Bruce Gordon | Apr 4, 2007 9:42:37 AM

The Secret War Against Iran. Sounds like Reagans Secret War Against Russia. America funded, armed and trained Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Look what Our meddling led to.
Remember 9/11 anyone? What kind of monster will be created this time? We are again sponsoring Terrorism.

Posted by: Robakyo | Apr 4, 2007 9:43:11 AM

Osama bin Laden was good actor for CIA.
So, this case is natural also.

Posted by: Tanaka | Apr 4, 2007 9:47:39 AM

I can't believe ABC would divulge this secret operation. What do they have to gain? We want Iran to change leadership and this is an important step. Remember Iran has 1. persued nuclear weapons 2. taken hostages from international waters 3. continues to call for the destruction of Israel. But you Bush haters will rally behind the mantra of "another Saddam, another Osama" What side are you on?

Posted by: Nick Groloupolis | Apr 4, 2007 9:50:19 AM

I believe this is another false story generated by the media for the media. There have been far too many instances of the media doctoring photos, making up sources, and creating invented sceanrios recently (AP, specifically) for me to give this story any credibility. ABC News is looking for the ratings they just don't have and are seeking the attention, bad as it may be, of the public for their profit. My evening news said this was an "exclusive" to ABC. If this is a true story, once again the media has leaked, to the detrement of the United States and to the benefit of the enemy, our secrets. Thanks, ABC.

Posted by: JustFor | Apr 4, 2007 9:50:29 AM

This kind of reporting is irresponsible and anti-American. The timing could not be worse and it only inflames the Middle East. Send your "investigative" reporters inside Al Quaida, Iran Syria, and North Korea, instead of revealing secret US programs learned about from traitors and US law breakers.

Posted by: Rick Driesbach | Apr 4, 2007 9:54:35 AM

The amount of responders that are upset that this story came to light is very disturbing. I would like to think that our country was founded upon high moral principles and that we are the conscience for the world. We will never kill our way to a peaceful Earth inwhich no one wants to hurt us. We must be above playing this tit-for-tat game. We have supported corrupt and/or murderous regimes in the past (Pinochet, the Shah, Noriega, Hussein, etc.) because we saw them as helpful to our political policies at the time. Currently our government is engaged in a war of words with Iran which will do nothing but rally the young majority of that country to their hard-line leaders. We want to spread democracy but when the people of Palestine vote not for terrorism but for change from their corrupt public officials, we abandon them. We say we want to support moderate Arab governments but we allow Israel to devastate Lebanon because of the actions of a few. I have no hope for the current administration to change their warmongering ways. I only hope that the next president can begin to mend these fences and stand up for our American values.

Posted by: TSnow | Apr 4, 2007 10:10:47 AM

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised. This follows the same m.o. as we saw repeatedly during Reagan/Bush when Cheney was SecDef.
When you put the peace in the hands of those who profit most from war. you don't get much peace.

Posted by: Surprised? | Apr 4, 2007 10:11:37 AM

i am in agreement with most of the posters here, it is absurd to suggest that this is about 'fighting fire with fire', but certainly a good number of people in the west only have a general history of ways in which they have supposedly wronged; as many leading scholars have noted, the west's considerable criminal record in the middle east is a nonentity. the majority of dismissive commentary on ahmadinejad's recent press conference revealed as much.

Posted by: rod m s | Apr 4, 2007 10:15:19 AM

I see that most of the people share my feelings on this subject, but why isn't the rest of the country in an uproar?? WE ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM!! Isn't that what we got into this war to FIGHT!! I am appalled!! Why are WE as CITIZENS letting this happen??? Not to be a broken record, but we are getting into the same debacle that we got into with Osama Bin Laden! Whatever happened to him anyway? I was under the impression that he was the reason we entered into what "became" this war in the first place. We spent about a year since 02 looking for him and then magically turned our focus to Iraq!! Coinsidence??

Posted by: Joshua | Apr 4, 2007 10:26:31 AM

Frankly, the U.S. and Britain have been monkeying around in the Middle East for some 300 years, usually with disastrous though profitable results. No reason to stop now, is there, especially when we can convince the scorpion to sting itself to death?

Posted by: Ell-Jay | Apr 4, 2007 10:28:13 AM

Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are 2nd and 3rd world countries and no threat to anyone. Those thinking otherwise are at least delusional.

Posted by: realtime | Apr 4, 2007 11:17:18 AM

This is unbelievable. This shows how stupid our policies are getting. This guy will turn out to be a new bin-laden or al-qadeh in couple of years. We should stop supporting and condemn terorism in all shapes and forms. Supporting terrorism will have have backlash at us in the future. The same thing we did with bin-laden. With killing innocent people we only turn Iranian public against US.

Posted by: Adel | Apr 4, 2007 11:18:08 AM

Thank you, ABC. Don't back down and take back what you said when you are attacked by the administration and the rest of the MSM that fears to tell the truth.

Posted by: sassafras | Apr 4, 2007 11:26:00 AM

Erge, the attack on the Pentagon was done with what? Let me think back.... oh yeah - with a civilian airliner full of passengers. That is terrorism.

Rest of World, you are correct, we are not at war with Iran. However, Iran is at war with the U.S. It only takes one side to have a war. The question is whether the U.S. will join the battle.

From Iran, you wrote: "Your idea - “this is war" - is exactly what "Palestinian, Lebanese, Afghani & Iraqi Fighters Think!" Yes, that may be true, and those Palestinians and Lebanese who act on those thoughts should stop complaining when they receive war in return. Give war, get war.

You also wrote: "But most of Iranian people DO NOT Believe so." Your government has been at war with the West since 1979. One of these years, the U.S. might wake up and join the battle. If you are Iranian, I suggest you overthrow your government because you will suffer for your government's actions, whether you believe in the war or not.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 4, 2007 11:26:22 AM

Blow back, oh its coming.

Posted by: j iurincich | Apr 4, 2007 11:28:02 AM

Lisa, the flow of information (confirmed or otherwise) is what we have a right to access. The Baluch struggle against Iran is not some "secret" scenario that ABC news is exclusively blurting out to the world. Iran and Pakistan know what Jundullah is doing. Stories like these make people who otherwise do not know how to gather information aware of events going on in the world. For many people with their heads in the sand, the events on the morning of September 11, 2001 were the only thing that made them wake up and see what's really happening outside the gates of the United States of Disney...

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 4, 2007 11:30:00 AM

Does anyone really believe that what was reported here is any sort of surprise to the Iranians?

When you put yourself in the position that the sunlight of truth is embarrassing, are you ever doing the right thing? I find myself asking that at every point where the gang in charge is trying to suppress truth.

Posted by: Threegoal | Apr 4, 2007 11:31:21 AM

This is world politics!!! It has gone on for 1000 of years!! So just keep quite and support your president!!! Or better still, LEARN!

Posted by: Eazy Rawlins | Apr 4, 2007 11:32:06 AM

Let me see if I got this right. Iran has pledged to destroy Israel and declared war on the Devil (USA)going on three decades ago. Their popular chant "Death to America" in the '80's, and their cheers during 9-11 should have given the hint that Iran has been at war with the USA for a long time. This is not a war of countries, but a war of tribes, religion and power. Militant Muslims have hijacked Islam and are slaughtering anyone who object (any man, woman or innocent child) that object to their world domination. Iran is but a small piece of this whole tribal attack on America. Personally, I would rather have the true Muslims take back their religion and spread the loving word of Mohammed vs. the hate and senseless torture and murder taught by Satan. Even Mohammed taught respect for Christian and Jewish faiths as faiths of the book and the one true God.

Iran cannot obtain world stature and regain its once great status unless it takes the actions it has taken. It must have the bomb, it must kidnap and publically display it's humiliated captives inorder to re-live history and gain national status. It is time for the World press to wake up and tell the truth about how all of these events interplay.

Now, as far as the Jundullah goes, there is plenty of support in the Arab nation to fund and drive their inter-tribal wars, we don't have to do anything but sit back and watch. I am not surprised that we are not funding the tribal wars, our money and arms are not needed! My greatest fear is that whomever comes out on top as "king for the day" is not more militant and does not live to spread hate, slaughter (kill them all and let Alah sort them out!), and death to America. It is time for the true Muslim faith to take back their religion and teach God's peace and Love. As far as Iran goes, they still have an important lesson to learn on how tens of millions of attacking Muslim soldiers were so decisively beaten back by a few million Jews in the religios wars of the 60's and 70's.

God bless our Troops,

Posted by: tmblweed | Apr 4, 2007 11:48:23 AM

To all those who rely on the fact that there has not been an attack on American soil since 9/11:

Could it be because the Bush administration has had no reason to allow another one yet? 9/11 got us into this whole "War on Terror". Another 9/11 will happen once Shrub and Shooter (Bush and Cheney) realize that all of their taunting hasn't gotten the rise out of Iran that they were expecting.

Especially now with Iran agreeing to release the British hostages. If we were to attack now, we'd really be seen as the "world police". But once there's another attack that the administration can loosely (or even falsely) connect to Iran, the entire coutnry will be calling for retribution.

Viola! Instant WWIII!

Posted by: Doug | Apr 4, 2007 11:53:45 AM

Somebody said:
"Thanks ABC....without breaking such important stories how else would this knowledge get out and used as propaganda against us. IF it is true.
Truely a patriotic move on your part."

This is known to everybody outside US so you should not really worry about "enemies" learning it from ABC.

Posted by: MA | Apr 4, 2007 11:59:01 AM

This is a bad for the US and its highly damaged forigen policy trhat does not have any objective but to create more problems. This is not a kind of news we like to hear when everybody is recommending direct talks. Here is the problem. US call other contries sponsor of terror when we are doing the same thing.

We need to change our attitude toward other counteries and cultures to be much more welcomed and wanted around the world.

Posted by: Alireza | Apr 4, 2007 11:59:06 AM

Al Qaida certainly has made more enemies than only the USA so why any surprise? It is absurd to call Jundullah 'terrorists' when they are targeting Iranian military; that AIN'T 'terrorism'. In contrast Al Qaida primarily targets innocent people - like women shopping in Baghdad or those working at the WTC on 9/11/2001. That IS 'terrorism'.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 4, 2007 12:06:52 PM

A follow-up article might explain how the funding actually works. The article points to Iranian exiles providing funding. What kind of paper-trail results in names being found for this aspect.
Depending how 'funding' is defined any kind of association would be 'funding'.
"Hey you can find x amount of weapons at such-and-such a plave at such-and-such a time." That should also be considered funding.

Via radio, "Hey they just turned left on street xyz" That should also be considered funding.

To be in any country and be talking about things because somebody else (from another country)wants an answer to some info is called spying. Punishment for that kind of activity (treason)seems to vary at the moment.

Posted by: Wayne | Apr 4, 2007 12:06:58 PM

It is so much like us. Dont do as I do, do as I say ! No wonder the US is losing respect globally.

Posted by: Not Confused | Apr 4, 2007 12:13:33 PM

This is all BS! Anyone can write anything about anyone else. There is zero accountability in jornalism. "Sources said ......", "A source close to the situation said...."!?!

In today's absence of responsibility in reporting facts, the only solution is responsibility in reading reports and discerning opinions for one's self. Stop believing everything you read.

Posted by: Adwin J | Apr 4, 2007 12:18:03 PM

Read the article people. There is nothing, reapeat, nothing showing proof that America is in any way 'sponsoring' terrorism. Read what the article says, not what you think it means. So many of the commenters are inserting their own significant bias into what ABC reported. Granted the piece is written with gaping holes that are easily filled with innuendo, but people who wish to think freely and critically should not be so easily manipulated. I'm sure if you were the one on trial by news report, you would demand real proof not potentially made-up or misquoted unnamed sources. Yet so many of you are frothing at the mouth to convict based on this article. Don't allow yourself to be so easily controlled.

Posted by: Dean | Apr 4, 2007 12:23:37 PM

Q: Were Churchill & FDR "hypocrits" [sic] for allying with Stalin against Hitler?

Was Themistocles a "neocon" when he allied with Sparta to repel Xerxes? What about Washington seeking Louis XVI's support against England?


Look, this "debate" is premature. We have one isolated & unsourced report from a shoddy news outfit, so let's not jump to any conclusions either way.

But what I want to know is why, oh why do people insist on using the language of (folk) moral philosophy to discuss matters of foreign affairs?

And why is Reaction #1 to heap scorn on your own fine nation? (Actually, I think I know the answer to that one...)

Posted by: steve | Apr 4, 2007 12:25:48 PM

Posted by: Chris | Apr 4, 2007 8:45:15 AM
And Bush says that Speaker Pelosi should not
go to meet with the Syrians because they sponsor terrorism.

I doubt that picture of her in a scarf did anything to lessen the 'official view' of how improper it was to "make the captive' wear one.

Did she choose a really small one on purpose?

Posted by: Wayne | Apr 4, 2007 12:27:27 PM

Yes, this is terrorism... no better or worse than any other sort. We are partially responsible for acts of terror. And my fellow Americans, if you think this is the first time, you have some research to do. The CIA has ties with most terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Sean | Apr 4, 2007 12:28:28 PM

"I do not believe this story. This is planted by the Iranians propaganda machine to get sympathy and stir up more anti-American hate."

Oh, so now IRAN has enough infuence over AMERICAN press outlets to spread anti-American hate? Lemme guess... Elvis is behind it all!!

Posted by: Duh | Apr 4, 2007 12:31:14 PM

Gandhi and MLK must've had it all wrong. After all, they were assassinated. Perhaps the best way to solve problems IS to kill everyone who disagrees with you... even if you have to hire terrorists to do your dirty work.

Posted by: Sean | Apr 4, 2007 12:32:16 PM

Of course it's valid to question the timing of this "exclusive". But I for one am glad that this news is out. I would ask this of our citizens. How much do you love your country? Do you love it just enough to categorically justify everything our government does (fire with fire)? Or do you love it enough to admit that we have long ago lost our title to the protectors of the innocent, the poor, and the oppressed? Much like the Church, we have sacrificed our beliefs in favor of survival of the organization at all costs. Some things used to be worth dying for...

Posted by: Will | Apr 4, 2007 12:36:42 PM

Truth?... Well let's just for a second assume it is true. Shouldn't a bigger headline read, "Terrorist Strike In IRAN."

After all, I thought it was American involvement in Iraq that caused the terrorist acts there...

Posted by: H | Apr 4, 2007 12:39:12 PM

This is an outrage! Don't they know that the NY Times has the exclusive rights to severely compromise our national security in the interest of getting a news scoop? (Maybe the Times franchised out this one.)

Posted by: njoriole | Apr 4, 2007 12:44:05 PM

Hey people,
This thing with pakistan, or for that matter any other nation not friendly with the U S has been going on a whole lot longer than the Bush Admin has been in office.
Who needs to wake up???

Posted by: sport | Apr 4, 2007 12:56:25 PM

Two muslim extremist groups killing each other and it's Bush's fault. Thanks ABC news. Why don't you go after the real bad guys for a change.

Posted by: Ray | Apr 4, 2007 1:29:25 PM

Assuming this news story is mostly accurate, history shows time and time again that nations must sometimes ally themselves with the less-than-savory in order to achieve a larger goal in the national interest. Have we forgotten that the U.S. was allied with the Soviet Union in WWII in order to defeat Nazi Germany, correctly perceived to be the greater threat at that point in time? I have to assume that some of the commenters here would have refused to fight with the Communists against the Nazis because the Communists weren't very nice people. Such naivete can be fatal to children and other living things ... and nations.

Posted by: Wally | Apr 4, 2007 1:45:01 PM

Rather than attack those who think that this violates international law and illustrates how Bush/Cheney are two-faced liers, why not mention how these actions are legal and legitimate (assuming their validity). Even war is supposed to follow international laws. Which again is why people can be charged with war crimes. I think this adds to the evidence of US leaders committing crimes that they should eventually be prosecuted for, hopefully in the near future.

Posted by: GB | Apr 4, 2007 1:48:54 PM

Sources close to me say that I said this story is a load of crap.

Posted by: Dennis | Apr 4, 2007 1:50:08 PM

Erge, the attack on the Pentagon was done with what? Let me think back.... oh yeah - with a civilian airliner full of passengers. That is terrorism.

Rest of World, you are correct, we are not at war with Iran. However, Iran is at war with the U.S. It only takes one side to have a war. The question is whether the U.S. will join the battle.

From Iran, you wrote: "Your idea - “this is war" - is exactly what "Palestinian, Lebanese, Afghani & Iraqi Fighters Think!" Yes, that may be true, and those Palestinians and Lebanese who act on those thoughts should stop complaining when they receive war in return. Give war, get war.

You also wrote: "But most of Iranian people DO NOT Believe so." Your government has been at war with the West since 1979. One of these years, the U.S. might wake up and join the battle. If you are Iranian, I suggest you overthrow your government because you will suffer for your government's actions, whether you believe in the war or not.

Posted by: Brian | Apr 4, 2007 1:56:18 PM

According to our liberal friends, we are not to fight like our enemy does (i.e. using proxy armies). We are to tie our hands and not work with groups who have common interests and goals. Seems to me the libs want to "go it alone". Their holier than thou attitude will sink us all.

Posted by: Don Lester | Apr 4, 2007 1:58:47 PM

I completely agree with your source Dennis. If this were true, why in the world would the US Govenment allow a covert, illegal and immoral opeation be blasted all over the news with a picture of the ringleader held up for all to see?

Posted by: JB | Apr 4, 2007 2:16:06 PM

Once again, or yet again, it's the us vs. them mentality. The middle east against the u.s. The conservatives against the liberals. We, as people get so caught up in the details of who is hurting, bombing, lying to whom. Take a step back, or a few steps back. We are all people. We are not 'terrorists, neocons, liberals," or whatever label is used. Like it or not, we all live on the same planet. There has always been a struggle for power on this earth. Why? What makes another my enemy, an infidel, an unbeliever? Even within our own affiliations with different sects, religions, parties, governments, countries, that we say we 'belong' to, we don't adhere strictly to any one belief system or ideology. As human beings, with our fragile egos, we perceive threat everywhere. When we stop and realize that we are more than just our bodies, this physical manifestation on this planet, then why fight? There are more than enough resources on this planet to sustain as all. Governments and news media thrive on breeding fear. Why did GW get into office twice? Fear-mongering. What drives ALL news-fear mongering. Why don't we see with regularity everyday citizens doing the work of peace on the news? Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King got it. If we truly WANT a peaceful, balanced world, we need to MAKE PEACE. We need to evolve into peace-mongerers. The way this world belief system is now, if there was money in peace, we'd have peace in this world. It actually takes less energy, less assets to make peace than to make war. Ponder this.

Posted by: Carol | Apr 4, 2007 2:25:05 PM

How many Americans have publicly shouted "Death to Iran" over the past 28 years?

Posted by: hamurrabi | Apr 4, 2007 2:38:05 PM

please stop killing

Posted by: citizen | Apr 4, 2007 2:50:24 PM

THIS IS WHAT WE DID WITH AL QAEDA, TOO. We practically created, Al Qaeda, nurturing them in the beginning as a terror group to go after the Soviets. That was also under Cheney's influence.

And what is the present action accomplishing, if we are truly behind it? Aggitating Iran a little in useless ways. Proving the U.S. is as willing to find ways to sponsor terror as any of the nation's we're fighting. CREATING THE NEXT AL QAEDA?

Posted by: Knave Dave | Apr 4, 2007 2:58:43 PM

Simply put, we as a nation can not claim moral superiority over terrorists and simultaneously recruit aid and abet terrorist operatives to carry out acts of terrorism.
One can imply and insist on gray areas for the sake of justifying moral latitude. But this is a black and white, either/or issue.
We're either different and better than this enemy or the just the same and just as evil.

Posted by: Zach | Apr 4, 2007 2:59:01 PM

The film does not give a complete view about this terrorist group. It is not so that they kill only officials or persons of army, eventhough that is not ok too , but this group has killed many innocent people , many children, they simply close a road and kill in a very unhuman way every body pass in that hour.
US relation with this group is a big harm to the reputation of US in the veiw of Iranians who like most Americans. US should stop this backfiring policy as soon as possible.

Posted by: kambiz | Apr 4, 2007 3:00:02 PM

The US and the UK have always supported terrorism and will continue to do so. Their phony war on terror that has made them terrorists too will haunt them back. Shame on Bush, Channey, and Blair.

Posted by: Jack | Apr 4, 2007 3:05:06 PM

I there any story you won't run just to get ratings? Is there anything left the US can do without you disclosing the information and thwart our objectives? Who's side are you on?

Posted by: S. Green | Apr 4, 2007 3:15:40 PM

>How many Americans have publicly >shouted "Death to Iran" over the
>past 28 years?

Many Americans don't know squat about Iran other than what the MSM tell them to think. If the CIA didn't topple the Iranian gov't in 1952, its people would likely not give a darn about what we did. But well, we reap what we sow.

Of course they hate us now and wish ill of us. They, unlike us, remember what we did to them.

History? Anyone?

Posted by: Netsurfer | Apr 4, 2007 3:19:55 PM

I wish we would do more of this!


Posted by: adam | Apr 4, 2007 3:21:02 PM

The story is not finished, please discuss why they are there, and what they are doing. . .do not blame this on Bush and Cheney and whomever else you all want to use as a scapegoat, before you go judging, it might help if you are educated on what is actually going on there and why they would want to ADVISE this group, don't forget, IRAN is the bad guy here. . .just because Iranians say that it was US involved/supported doesn't make it true. . .way to go ABC, now you have just made the people more stupid with your lies!!!

Posted by: karen | Apr 4, 2007 3:53:32 PM

ABC News is completely irresponsible in reporting this. They are jeopardizing our clandestine efforts to undermine our enemy. Here we are trying to make allies, however we can, and they go and "out" our secrets and our alliances by reporting on it. It's no wonder we can't keep and maintain our allies because our Tokyo Rose media go and out them. THANKS ABC NEWS, WE'VE JUST LOST AN ALLY. Who cares if this tribe goes around and kills and kidnap Iranians. THATS HOW THEY FIGHT IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, and God forbid we, the world's superpower, fight fire with fire.

Posted by: reaganista | Apr 4, 2007 3:58:36 PM

You can now be Officialy recoingnized as "The Terrorists With-in". Why do our enemies need spys when they have Brian Roos and ABC to do their work for them?
What a bunch of stupid idiots!!

Posted by: Jack G. | Apr 4, 2007 3:59:43 PM

Why would Brian Ross and ABC News put the lives of a group of men in jeopardy because they're helping to eliminate Iranian insurgents in Iraq? Whose side are you on anyway? This is treasonous!

Posted by: ag75082 | Apr 4, 2007 4:08:49 PM

Hold On !! this is not terrifing at all coz US has mission to rule over eastern part of the globe, namely: russia, china, and iran, it has fantastically rooted in gulf deserts after kuwait-iraq war, then came US made Taliban against russia that supremely made ground for invasion in afghanistan, during this it has taken Pakisatn in its allaince [under ecnomical pressure], now its turn for Iran to be cruised by USA... i wil not wonder if US stands against China NOSE-to-NOSE!!

Posted by: OR | Apr 4, 2007 4:19:16 PM

There is no end to war(s) when the profit margins are so high. Freedom isn't free, there is a huge financial investment requied(like secret ops against "regimes"). And the huge increase to share value among companies like Halliburton & its many friends, means that we may never see the end of Corporate profits over people. Its become the New American Way.

Posted by: Glen | Apr 4, 2007 4:30:28 PM

GOOGLE 'Iran Contra Affair'. Col. Oliver North, one of the conservatives beating the war drum on Iran, actually covertly, and without constitutional authority, SOLD WEAPONS to Iran in the mid-1980's. He did this at a time when President Reagan was officially supporting Iraq in their war with Iran. So not only did the Iran Contra perpetrators arm the 'enemy', the did it when Reagan was arming the other side. There are a few things to take from this:

- rogue operators exist in the US government, and they enact severe harm on everyone

- Iran is clearly not a threat because we have the government arming them in one form or another. If the government doesn't think Iran is a threat, and can be trusted with weapons, why should anyone else?

Posted by: Eric | Apr 4, 2007 4:45:42 PM

An Iranian writes:

Last year, this group calling themselves Jundullah stopped a bus, took ordinary citizens including women and children off the road, dug up a big hole, and shot them dead inside the hole.

The group is not fighting only Iranian government, but also killing innocent civilians. But I suppose this is called "collateral damage" , right ?

When the report says they're funded by exiled Iranians living in Europe, do they actually mean by the internationally known terrorist organization called "Mujahedin e Khalgh" ??

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization operated from Iraq getting support from former Iraqi government. They fought in the Iran-Iraq war against Iran, also during peace time with odd bombs killing civilians. Now it seems they are funding the Pakistani radical group. And it seems some of you readers support this. Does this mean you support treason ? What if it was against your own country ? Would you still support it ?

Posted by: AN Iranian | Apr 4, 2007 5:54:36 PM

The left believes this story without regard for the questionable sources. The right dismisses it out of hand. "Could" it be true? Sure.If it is, will we likely see this guy pop up as an enemy, sure, extreme Islam DEMANDS tolerance, understanding and absolute submission.

When will we all learn who the real enemies are?They will remain long after Bush is gone. But I suppose truth never did fit well in politics or the new PC world.

Posted by: elwood | Apr 4, 2007 5:59:33 PM

It's a classic case of the US doing what is deemed in its "national interest". This is debatable, of course, but this is how any sovereign nation performs. It should not be much of a surprise. But I think it is obviously evident here that it will probably hurt our already terrible relations with Iran, a nation with a population that, in general, likes the US. Now their terrible executive has another thing to manipulate the people with against the US. Whether we love 'em or hate 'em Iran will always be one of the most important counties in the Mid East, and it is evident that our government has no true area specialists yet on this region (at least that they listen to).

Posted by: Adam J | Apr 4, 2007 6:06:12 PM

lol, we're supporting terrorism now? in the war on terror? lmao. Does that make us the 4th axis of evil?

whatever we do we better not cut funding to the guy, otherwise he might do a 9/11 on us, this is so funny, sort of a keystone cops only with ied's.

Posted by: juju | Apr 4, 2007 6:19:05 PM

all these facts, all the officials speaking out. yep, this one is ironclad. don't bother questioning the report, the reporter, or the sources.

Dan Rather-esque reporting at its finest.

this just in--Brian Ross is a drug smuggler and reveals he prefers sex with potted plants according to unnamed ABC news officials. drunken sources have seen him hanging upside down on the set of the View with RoD, wearing nothing more than a petunia. more after this commerical break.

Posted by: randf | Apr 4, 2007 6:36:21 PM

In 2000, 191 countries signed an agreement known as the Millennium Goals, the first of which is to eliminate global poverty by 2025. I hope that our representatives will uphold this promise made by global leaders.

Posted by: marie2 | Apr 4, 2007 6:38:13 PM

Posted by: Unbelieveable Administration | Apr 3, 2007 6:33:38 PM

Hey Blah,
Um, the USA had no relationship with OBL
Wrong, but then again you righwingers have been dead wrong for years.

The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.

Posted by: lightangel2007 | Apr 4, 2007 6:48:40 PM


Posted by: chephzibah | Apr 4, 2007 7:33:41 PM

The article says that the attacks have been on soldiers and officials. It says nothing about attacking the general population of Iran.

Redefining the concept of terrorism to incriminate the US in this matter is a very weak tactic.

Posted by: Koozebane | Apr 4, 2007 10:36:08 PM

Yes, ABC news, or any news should stop reporting on illegal, unsanctioned, below-US Congress-radar, proxy battles that occur abroad.

C'mon, give me a break!

I'm not a pacifist, but I think at this point in the game we could use a good dose of dialogue. Is illegal clandestine activity democracy or is daylighting illegal clandestine activity democracy? Hmm....

The real question that begs an answer is, why is this story buried?

Posted by: MPA | Apr 5, 2007 1:27:42 AM

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised. This follows the same m.o. as we saw repeatedly during Reagan/Bush when Cheney was SecDef.
When you put the peace in the hands of those who profit most from war. you don't get much peace.

Posted by: Surprised? | Apr 4, 2007 10:11:37 AM

I think you should check the stock portfolio of George Soros (FYE 2006) before you make such declarations about who it is that is profiting financially from the war on terror.

Posted by: JustFor | Apr 5, 2007 2:28:36 AM

This is just another example of why we were warned to beware the military complex. It is another example of why I do not trust the government. The way to peace is through diplomacy, any military strategy leads away from the the direct path to peace and returns, like a boomarang to backfire upon us. Secret prisons, secret missions, sanctioned torture, patriot act, military commissions act,my pride as an American is dieing. Can the republic, with liberty and justice for all be revived?

Posted by: Check Mate | Apr 5, 2007 9:29:19 AM

I think we just discovered where the missing $9 billion dollars went. To think that we aren't funding them becasue that would require "congressional oversight" makes me chuckle. But in a sad way.

We've never had terrorist groups that we supported turn on us before, so this should all turn out well in the end (not).

Posted by: ProfessorPlum | Apr 5, 2007 10:14:58 AM

I'm a proud American-Persian and i urge all true persins youths to join groups such as jondullah which recently has changed its name to Jonbesh-e moghavemate mardome iran rughly translated the persian resistance movement. instead of making useless google bomb against a stupid movie like 300.FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE MY BROTHERS.

Posted by: Steven Arya | Apr 5, 2007 10:21:17 AM

How sad it must be to the anti-free speech, anti-free press and anti-Constitutional rights neo-conservatives that the Brits have averted a war with Iran over a silly border dispute. Poor warmongers! How can you say that you are pro-life and cheer on death?
Those who know nothing of history clamor for war at any cost. Those who know history know that war should always be a last resort.
We know from history that conservatives have gone the route of covert and illegal wars, or wars by proxy, and it has been a disaster every time. The cons have brought about the Shah of Iran and the Iatollah, the installation of Pinochet, the support of Mao Tse Tung, the creation of Pol Pot, the illegal "police action" in Vietnam,the creation of Osama bin Laden, and the propping up and support of Saddam Hussein, and the collapse of a democratic government in Lebanon.
We need to finally declare the stupid policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to be a complete failure now and for all time, and pass laws to prevent it's use. It didn't work with the Shah, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Osama, Hussein, the Mujahadeen, or any other group that this failed policy has been tried with.

Posted by: Reindeer | Apr 5, 2007 10:57:18 AM

Why do we even bother with this covert stuff. Why don't we just Nuke Iran, Pave it over, make it one huge oil terminal and ship all the oil over here where it belongs

Posted by: OilGuzzler | Apr 5, 2007 12:01:57 PM

Since the Bush administration can no longer 'misstate' reasons for invading and occupying a country, it appears that they're reduced to trying to provoke a country - Iran - into a military action that justifies invasion.


It would be interesting to find out where the Iranian exiles providing funding for the Jundullah are getting their money from...Apparently there is no direct funding from the US. Is indirect funding possible?

Posted by: grape_crush | Apr 5, 2007 12:12:54 PM

I thought for sure this story would be huge news...but alas, day 2 after your broadcast and nothing from any other media source. We apparently don't want to hear it, but how bout that Anna Nichole. America, once again a state sponsor of terrorism and the media puts its head in the sand. Nice try anyway ABC.

Posted by: Cliff Coons | Apr 5, 2007 12:40:27 PM

The war against Iran has already started. It seems that the administration hopes to compensate for its disastrous adventure in Iraq by preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Pakistan is our supposed ally in the "war
on terror", yet it provides a home to the Taliban, and other
Sunni extremist groups, such as Jundullah. This report reveals the US government's failure to deal with Musharef's support of extremists who have been provided a
state-sanctioned haven in Pakistan's lawless western frontier.
Using one small group of terrorists to start a war with Iran by proxy, while ignoring Musharef's tacit approval of the Taliban's efforts to destabilize Afghanistan speaks volumes about America’s morally bankrupt approach to spreading
democracy around the globe.

Posted by: Greg | Apr 5, 2007 12:57:35 PM

For those who question the attribution of the article, and those who suggest that we do some independent research into the question, it should be noted that Seymour Hersh recently wrote an article in which he mentions secret US support for Sunni activists, a program run from the Vice President's office.

It too has scant attribution - but Hersh has broken two huge stories (My Lai & Abu Graibh) and so deserves at least the benefit of the doubt...(as opposed to Nowak, who wasn't particularly interested in disclosing his sources, either!)

Posted by: What? | Apr 5, 2007 1:03:35 PM

"Remember the Maine" was the popular battle cry during the Spanish-American War. The truth was, the Maine exploded from within. Yet we were sucked into that war when William Randolph Hearst said: “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.”
Similarly, LBJ sucked us into the Vietnam War with lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and George W. Bush did the same with faulty intelligence concerning WMDs.
That is not to say that this ABC News report is faulty. But I become skeptical with allegations of allegations, which is not unlike saying "informed sources said," which was a catch phrase during the Seventies.
Where is the truth? Truth in journalism seems to be lacking today -- if it ever existed.

Posted by: Doubting Thomas | Apr 5, 2007 2:25:36 PM

The ultimate domination of Iran has been the prime objective since Bush I and his administration; most of those players are now part of the Bush II administration.
Unfortunately for Iran, there's a pipeline from Turkey to the Gulf that needs to be built and secured and nothing short of term limits is going to get in the way of this administration attempting to achieve that goal.
Who doesn't think that this little bit of chicanery and the on going provocation of Iran wasn't part of that little secret and clandestine meeting between Cheney and the still undisclosed captains of the energies industries at the onset of the current administration?

Posted by: Zach | Apr 5, 2007 3:06:51 PM

That abc news would choose to print such a garbled undocumented smarmy piece at a time of war is despicable.

I shall no longer watch ANYTHING on ABC and will spread the word to anyone at every possible opportunity to do the same.


Posted by: carfy | Apr 5, 2007 3:14:07 PM


No one gets a "benefit of the doubt"? Is that like buying carbon credits?
Documentation is the only thing that supports credibility of any individual article, essay or study.

ABC is dead to me.

Posted by: carfy | Apr 5, 2007 3:20:20 PM

On May 6, 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12957 which implemented tight oil and trade sanctions on Iran and made it illegal for American coporations or their foreign subsidiaries to particpate in any contract "for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran." On May 6, 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12959 which banned almost all trade between U.S. businesses and the Iranian government.

A year before, Clinton declared that Iran was a 'state sponsor of terrorism' and a 'rogue state', marking the first time that an American President used that term.

Clinton actually offered to renew diplomatic relations with the country after 20 years of no such relations. However, Ayatollah Ali Khameini refused to accept the offer unless the U.S. formally withdrew its support for Israel, lifted the '95 sanctions imposed on the country, stopped accusing Tehran of attempting to develop nuclear weaponry, and officially ended its policy of considering Iran a "rogue state that sponsors terrorism." Clinton refused to comply with Iran's demands.

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 5, 2007 3:46:13 PM

I love the flag-waving Conservatives who are quick to "defend America" when really, this administration's practices have been no more noble than the "enemy" we've been fighting. The administration got called out for something administrations have done in the past, continues to do, and will keep on doing until the concept of an American Empire is no longer possible (and I fear the day that actually occurs). Oh, and to anyone who thinks that the other party really gives a care, spare me. If your vote didn't matter, then no, they wouldn't.

Even with the infamous "Liberal Media bias", we're not going to hear about this from more news sources until someone ends up dead or tortured, hence why it was shown at 11:45 PM and not during prime-time hours. Go back to worrying about Anna Nicole Smith, American Idol, and Jessica Simpson America. Everything will be fine.

Seriously ABC, I think this was journalism excellence to go somewhere that no other relevant news source would dare.
Freedom? Yeah... Right.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 5, 2007 5:55:54 PM

The administration and the Islamic radicals appear that they may be in cahoots. It is the unifying story behind the story that makes the whole mess make sense.

Posted by: jpecci | Apr 5, 2007 7:47:50 PM

Would bet that this is being funded by Afghan opium money.

Posted by: jpecci | Apr 5, 2007 8:07:00 PM

Congratulations ABC on being on the leading edge of the news.
Makes you wonder where else we secretly support terrorists? Bin Laden to destroy Soviet Union? How are the Bin Laden's doing know? Did they triple their capital?

Posted by: Dan | Apr 5, 2007 9:16:02 PM

It would've been nice if all the alphabet soup stations would've been doing REAL investigative reporting on WTC 1 (1993) and WTC 2 (2001) attacks BEFORE they occurred. I don't understand why they (the liberal media) want to "dig dirt" on their own U.S. but fail to report on the underground/secret operations of radical islam that wants to kill you and me. When does it become "terror" for liberal Americans? Saudi Barracks bombings didn't count. First WTC attack didn't count. U.S.S. Cole didn't count. Second WTC attack didn't count. How many American deaths have to occur before it becomes "TERROR"? One million? Obviously over 3,000 dead still doesn't count for you people. Lucky YOU who hasn't lost a loved one in these TERROR attacks... YET.

Posted by: blacksh!ne | Apr 6, 2007 1:01:22 AM

I wonder what the Cheney Energy Task Force discussed during the second week of hell on earth. Could it be how to start a war and make them all rich? All we needed was a "new Pearl Harbor." What a train wreck this country's political system has turned into.

Posted by: RJ | Apr 6, 2007 9:41:49 AM

This story does not make scence. The National Gaurd that were killed were killed by Iranians whom they are against their government.

Posted by: Susan | Apr 6, 2007 10:15:07 AM

Probably the most interesting thing I've seen emerge in these posts is criticism of ABC for publishing such a story. This really crystallizes the attitude of deliberate ignorance which pervades mass psychology in this country at this point in time.
Secretly supporting militant groups such as Jundullah or the MEK is great for us (in the short-term), because not only do we not have to get our hands dirty but these groups have carte blanche to pursue any 'tactics' they please. None of us can or will be held accountable.

Posted by: Jesse | Apr 6, 2007 12:12:09 PM

>Netsurfer: "Many Americans don't know squat about Iran other than what the MSM tell them to think. If the CIA didn't topple the Iranian gov't in 1952, its people would likely not give a darn about what we did."

Um, Netsurfer, PM Mosaddeq was toppled in August 1953, not 1952. File that factoid under S for "Squat."

"History? Anyone?" You might want to take your own advice. >"But well, we reap what we sow. Of course they hate us now and wish ill of us. They, unlike us, remember what we did to them."Ah, now we see the nucleus of Netsurfer's complaint.

Blame America First.

Always, always Blame America First.

The irony is that the Iranian public is, of course, relatively sophisticated, pro-Western, and pro-American. That reality doesn't really jibe with what Netsurfer claims, does it?

Posted by: steve | Apr 6, 2007 12:47:34 PM

As a journalist (and journalism instructor), it's absurd to see people complaining about a news story automatically is false because sources aren't credited. One of the most important things a journalist can do is protect sources from retribution. If you've spent years cultivating a source, whether they're a high ranking CIA officer or the general manager of a football team, you don't want to cause them trouble by dropping their names when you've told them you're talking off the record.

A good journalist will have a reputation for respecting privacy and that will engender trust with sources. If Brian Ross decides unilaterally to reveal his sources he would never get anyone to talk to him again and nobody would want to trust him with information.

Ironically, most of the attacks on journalists seem to come when they report information that supports arguments on the political left. ABC and AP keep getting assaulted for reporting news unfavorable to the administration while FOX is praised for the exact same type of reporting.

Posted by: JProf | Apr 6, 2007 3:51:52 PM

I was waiting for the Iranians to execute (justified) the British Marines (and sailor). I would not have thought it a provocation of war, rather a sensible act of defense. We've listened to lies upon dirt-barrel propaganda from the United States and Britain for what now, 5 years? It's time to turn around our thinking and aim at the real enemy, the criminal Republican leadership trespassing in the White House.

Posted by: Sid | Apr 6, 2007 5:18:41 PM

hey Mike, they aired it as the lead for the Evening News, then replayed it for Nightline.
I must say I'd all but given up on the major network news, especially since the ousting of Dan Rather. But Brian Ross is a rarity in the field, so thank you to ABC/Disney for keeping him on.
More stories like this please.... America needs to know what kind of dirty deeds are necessary to make our way of life possible...

-just a realist talking

Posted by: Realist | Apr 7, 2007 4:03:16 AM

Sid was hoping that the Brits would be executed?! Sid has no clue.

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 7, 2007 8:02:04 AM

PLEASE give Mike his FREEDOM back!

Posted by: Jazz | Apr 7, 2007 9:32:28 AM

I live in Iran. I hate terrorism and I hate what is being done in the name of Iranians by our government. It is true that majority of the Iranian people are against this government, but our hands are tied and we cant do much. On the other hand we follow the news like this with horror as every day we expect for something worse to happen. Unfortunately we are caught between two worse scenarios, one is remaining hostage in the hands of the current regime and the other is to be invaded by US and to lose the very little we are left with.

Posted by: Mg | Apr 7, 2007 6:31:06 PM

What people fail to understand is that there's very little middle ground between the two extremes:

1. Waging war on your enemies. In this case pretty much anything goes (preferably without the killing of civilians, but this stuff is very hard to manage). Supporting OBL in the 80's made alot of sense for the US, especially so because Al-Qaeda is not nearly as much of threat to America now as the Soviets once were.... Iran is supporting Hezbollah, insurgents of Iraq, building the bomb, threatening to destroy Israel... They are on the top of the list of "Enemies". What happened 50 years ago has little significance to what is happening now. And so Iran has to be "dealt with" and the guerilla/terrorist groups are very effective at hurting the Iranians without a major involvement from the US.

2. Seeking the "universal peace" approach. In this case one should fight no wars on foreign soil, unless directly attacked by a state, and even then the peaceful approach should be on top of the list of solutions. You should fight no proxy wars, have your rhetoric be non inflammatory (don't make threats, direct or otherwise). This approach also prevents "humanitarian intervention" and again diplomacy takes precedence in such a case.

Now, many people will say that it's possible to find a middle ground but the fact is that if you engage in conflicts for whatever reason, you will make more enemies and thus cause more conflicts. On the other hand people will feel vulnerable if they "can't strike back".
I still think that the universally peaceful approach is best from the moral side and from the human side, because in the end, most people will like you, and the others will be more neutral, so you won't have to kill, and hopefully stay alive yourself... oh and you will save an enormous amount of money which could be spent on fighting hunger, transitioning to environmentally friendly energy, finding cures to cancer/AIDS/TB and so on, hell even to exploring space! :)

Posted by: Neutrino | Apr 8, 2007 4:50:10 PM

When will people realize that the war in the persian gulf area is all about the west controlling energy (oil). In 1972 Nixon seperated the U.S. dollar from the gold standard. In 1974 Kissenger arranged with OPEC that all transactions with the purchasing of oil was to be in American Dollars. This really benefits the British banks because London is the centre of the international banking world. In the spring of 2001 Saddam Hussien came out of a cabinet meeting and declared that all Iragi oil was now going to be sold in Euros. Two years later Iraq was invaded by the west. Last year both Russia and Iran issued statements that oil should be traded in Euros. Oil being traded in U.S. dollars is the only reason that there isn't a crash of the almighty buck.

Posted by: Mike | Apr 8, 2007 7:32:43 PM

With as much information as we have at our fingertips about the nefarious machinations of the Bush regime, why are we still so surprised by stories such as this?

Posted by: Anthony | Apr 10, 2007 2:12:38 AM

It is no secret both Clinton and the Bush clan are and were pawns of the US Shadow-gov, and the unconstitutional "Executive War Powers" they used in illegal invasions of foreign nations has been used by DEM/GOP Presidential-pawns for about 65-years now.

Posted by: DeWayne | Apr 12, 2007 10:47:39 PM

nothing like kneejerk reaction liberals to take this poorly written article of proof that the US is in bed with al-qeada.

the world has absolutely lost all sense of rational thought.

Posted by: The SLoth | Apr 13, 2007 3:26:33 PM

I don't see anything in the article that convinces me we are actually funding them. I don't see enough to even convince me that group exists. Some of the comments convince me there are way too many insane people in America however but that is beside the point. Quit reporting crap and stick to facts. I am sick of being expected to believe people who aren't willing to back anything up with facts. If you can't back accusations up with facts, you shouldn't be making them. If you can't provide more than "sources" you shouldn't be reporting anything.

Posted by: Tom | Apr 13, 2007 6:09:26 PM

Is there any truth to some American GIs signaling that if they die in Iraq that they desire to have their remains (ashes) dropped or spread on President Bush's Texas ranch or personally delivered to him by a family member? I've heard that the thinking is, he had them killed therefore he owns them.

Posted by: Margarita Keeferstein | Apr 16, 2007 2:53:05 AM

Quite possible. But the question is what lies ahead? an escalating cycle of terror? It could have been beneficial for US too.. for then, Jundullah would well help out US in tracking Al-Qaeda activists. Jundullah too gets a shot at its sunni sects.

Posted by: Prasaanth Menon | Apr 16, 2007 9:56:50 PM

There are 100 good reasons to kill another human being. Anyone can justify their own ends, and God is always on their side, even the One that recommends turning the other cheek. Whether poisoning the atmosphere, the land and the lakes, or implosively ripping each other apart, we do a pretty good impression of lemmings looking for a cliff. I'm thinking StarTrek will always be a fantasy, cuz we're too busy bayoneting insurgent babies, flushing our species down toilets, writing new memoirs of the ancient practice of the Neanderthal. Rome doesn't have to rise again: It never perished. God is Great! Oh yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Posted by: NileControl | Apr 18, 2007 7:33:49 PM

I haven't read all the comments, someone may have said this before.
This group has not only killed iranian officials (which is terrible in itself, since most of the forces in the east of Iran are there because of drug smuglers), they have also kidnapped and murdered INNOCENT IRANIAN CITIZENS.

The Iranian VOA sattelite channel has even aired a live interview with this guy! Wow! I don't know how the US can do something like this and talk about it so easily.
But, on second thought its not worse than firing at a passenger airplane in broad daylight! Is "terrorist" just a word to call your enemies by, or does it really have a definition?

Posted by: Sara | May 1, 2007 10:10:05 AM

At last some really good news on American terrorism.
Keep it up, ABC

Posted by: Dr Samuel Butler | May 15, 2007 6:08:28 PM

Probably the most interesting thing I've seen emerge in these posts is criticism of ABC for publishing such a story. This really crystallizes the attitude of deliberate ignorance which pervades mass psychology in this country at this point in time.
Secretly supporting militant groups such as Jundullah or the MEK is great for us (in the short-term), because not only do we not have to get our hands dirty but these groups have carte blanche to pursue any 'tactics' they please. None of us can or will be held accountable.

Posted by: John Collins | May 27, 2007 8:35:36 PM

all the information in this article is unfortunately wrong.that the abdul malek is fighting for the sunni,or he is in pakistan,or he is drug smuggler

"He used to fight with the Taliban.
such accusation for one freedom fighter whos is fighting for hes land Balochistan.that is not one singel day as that iranian goverment not killing inoccent Baloch peppole,last weeck one girl only 12 years old, yester day a boy 17 years old.l think first of all that we check and update or source befor we speak.
do you wanna know about abdullmalek
check on the internet,or peppole who is coming from balochistan withe the right source

Posted by: amin | May 28, 2007 5:53:40 AM

Quoted from GOP.com: "President Bush: Fight in Iraq is Essential to American Security". Oh REALLY? Did Saddam Hussien or Iraq attack us on 9/11? I thought capturing Bin Laden was essential to American Security? Is Bin Laden in Iraq? No one apparently knows where he's hiding. I thought that capturing and/or crippling terrorist cells was essential to American Security? Are ALL terrorist cells stationed in Iraq? Whoa! Let's back up a little bit here - WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ? Hussien was captured, tried and he hung...The bad guys is gone.....Bring our soldiers home now....The show is over.

Posted by: Lory | May 31, 2007 2:03:01 PM

Why don't Americans just pour tax dollars into a hole in the ground where it would do a LOT more good than giving it to the CIA or KBR, or invading certain countries which don't need mentioning, or dropping bombs from planes to kill "militants" (which turn out to be children), or trying to catch Osama bin Forgotten?

Actually it would have to be a BIG hole, because a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, and pretty soon we're talking about a lot of money.

Posted by: Miko | Jun 19, 2007 6:13:18 PM

Frosty is right on. Let's make a deal with Iran: if they will stop supporting, funding and direction Hezbollah, Hamas and helping kill Americans in Iraq and who knows what else, then we will stop supporting Jundallah. I would go one step farther, however. If Iran does NOT rein in their murderous thugs, then we will begin not only supporting but also funding and directing Jundallah. (Given our experiences in Afghanistan, however, we should never trust him or let him out of our sight or give him the wherewithal to buy Stingers.) I think that could qualify as negotiating with Iran, in terms to which the mullahs can relate.

Posted by: Sepharad | Jul 9, 2007 7:33:14 PM

Iran is a friend of Afghanistan against Taliban/Al Qaeda and an enemy of US in a war against Al Qaeda.
Go figure!

Posted by: kaif | Aug 8, 2007 1:11:14 AM

The critical issue here, as the U.S. inches towards war with Iran, is the use of depleted uranium in weapons and the DU load the planet can withstand.

In four past wars (two Iraqs, Afghanistan, and the Balkans), the U.S. has used depleted-uranium (DU) weapons, which have not only devastated the civilian populations, condemning them to death by cancer, but have also decimated the soldiers who fought in the wars, their wives, and their post-assignment children.

A DU cloud, similar to the oil cloud after the Kuwaiti oilfields were set on fire, is now circling the globe and threatens us all.

A war in Iran would release tons more depleted uranium into the atmosphere (half life, 4.5 billion years) and contribute to a worldwide epidemic of cancer and around 30 other diseases.

We will kill off life on this planet. So wake up, people. A war on Iran, undoubtedly using DU in weapons from thermonuclear bunker-buster bombs right down to anti-tank shells, will be the death of us all.

No one will win from a war in Iran; all of us will lose.

Posted by: Steve | Aug 29, 2007 1:37:19 PM


Posted by: NUNYA | Sep 26, 2007 12:36:12 AM

Come on, lets live in reality. There have always been secrete ops, coordinated efforts with insiders etc. Is this really a suprise. Do people really think the US doesn't stoop?? That we are any different? Desperate times require desperate measures. That includes lies and deceit! Damn shame we didn't finish AFG in order to fight Bushes war on lies in Iraq. Now the Taliban is back in Southern AFG supporting terrorism with drug trade, nice. And don't think we are not dipping into a little of THAT either! We are phony, fake, fraud hypocrits that live in a Capitalistic Society off of power and greed - and will stop at nothing, now we are paying the price for our BS, gee go figure!

Posted by: DN | Oct 13, 2007 8:44:37 PM

Well done, ABC. Way to report the news! I cannot thank you enough for presenting this excellent piece of journalism.

It's a shame, how dangerously hypocritical this government's actions have been, which includes most Americans by now, if the 2004 election (stolen or not) and , well, most of the foreign policy since the nations inception are to be considered.

We should all be ashamed, but must not even take time out to wallow in such an emotion.

We simply need to correct this very awful state of affairs, before it is too late.

Read; Discuss; Teach; Act; Read......

Posted by: Kurtis Cates | Nov 4, 2007 2:55:03 AM

Post a comment