IRAN : THE JUNDALLAH, THE CIA’S FAREWELL PRESENT
Tehran has just announced that it intercepted on board a flying plane above its territorial waters Abdol-Malek Riggi, the leader of the armed Baluchi separatist group which is financed by Americans. In a press release they broadcasted on the net, Riggi’s supporters state their leader was handed over by the CIA due to some Iranian-American political wheeler-dealing. We share such opinion because it’s not the first time Washington hands over a combatant of this group so to contribute in the resumption of dialogue with the mullahs whom it needs to establish its authority in the region.
In March 2006, Iranians discovered the name of Jundallah when the group attacked a Pasdaran convoy in the East of the country and captured 29 national and regional leaders. The latter were lined up and kneeled down and they were shot dead in the neck. Then they were left unclothed on the spot. The assailants made images in order to broadcast them on news channels and accredit their action. After the blow, they sheltered in Pakistan. Later the Jundallah appeared to be often linked with withdrawal to Pakistan right after attacks were carried out. Those attacks, which are often deadly and involve mortal hostage takings, have always aimed at Pasdaran, the militia which is in charge of the regime’s security and stability. Consequently, they represent an intimidation message which would be meant for the mullahs. By verifying the dates of those deadly warnings, we discovered that each time they were preceded by an American request of dialogue resumption that was rejected by Tehran. Then it appeared clear that the Jundallah was a instrument of pressure on the mullahs in order to force them to negotiate with the United States. But it appeared clear as well that the Pasdaran were very vulnerable and could turn quickly overworked all the more that Washington implemented while it was at it the same kind of measure in the West of Iran with the Pejak, a Kurdish armed group which used to move back in Iraq after each blow. Despite such possibility, there were never any simultaneous attacks that would be susceptible to make the power collapse but we always noticed very punctual intimidation strikes.
The reason of such choice is the absence of choice : in order to weaken China, Washington needs to dispose of an ally which would be able to make the local Muslims revolt against China and such strategic ally must be a Muslim State that would lay claim to Islamist activism : the mullahs’ regime. Washington cannot overthrow such regime : it needs it. Washington has another problem as well : it supported the emergence of an Islamist ally in Iran in 1979 but at the end of the Islamic Revolution which was organized by Islamist groups or parties Washington financed, the mullahs who were part of the coalition kept the power. If they accepted an entente with Washington, they would have to democratize and accept to let their pro-American accomplices come back to Iran. Thus the latter would defeat them easily in future democratic elections which would be encouraged by Washington and then the mullahs would loose their power and be at the mercy of Washington. The bigwigs who are behind bomb attacks or terrorist actions would have to pay for their crimes and the others would turn unable to negotiate their services’ fees and they would be susceptible to take the same rap if they refused to serve again. Any entente would mean for a certainty the end of the people who are in power. This is the reason why the mullahs avoid any reconciliation and do their best to make any entente collapse. In order to overcome such resistance, Washington harasses them but it remains very careful not to overthrow them and this has always prevented it from taking advantage of the Pasdaran’s weakness faced with the Jundallah tramps. In parallel, the absolute necessity to obtain an entente with such regime has always stopped the adoption by Americans of sanctions that would be susceptible to induce a popular revolt that would cause the regime’s end. This leads us to tell about the Jundallah issue.
The regime Washington wants to ally with is exhausted. It doesn’t have money anymore but it cannot surrender because the offered entente implies some death sentence. As days go by, bigwigs make an additional step towards their fatal surrender. In reply to such desperate situation, the regime bigwigs are looking for a way out through the provocation of a warlike escalation that would imply some disruption of Europe’s oil supply with the mad hope to make Washington surrender. The latter has managed to skirt their provocations and is expecting for their ineluctable capitulation. Henceforth Washington’s priority is nor to harass the mullahs neither to reinforce sanctions but to wait by implementing economic or politic measures in order to avoid any collapse before the mullahs’ surrender.
From this point of view, Iraq injected recently 600 million dollars into Iranian economy in order to cater for the procurement of the both main banks which were about to go bankrupt and avoid any break of the Bazaar support, a fact which could lead to the end of the regime and of the Islamic model. Yesterday, the director of Turkey’s Central Bank -member of the FATF-GAFI, an organism which is in charge of the struggle against money laundering- went to Tehran and offered a financing to the Iranian Central Bank while the FATF-GAFI has suggested pronouncing it outlaw !
It’s again from this point of view that Washington decided to cut short the Jundallah contract : it was conceived to harass and it doesn’t have anymore any reason to be. That’s why Washington asked the Pakistani flunkey to do the cleaning. The warrior was put in a plane which had to land in the Arab Peninsula but in landed in Iran. This version the Jundallah suggested is questioned by Pakistan which stated that it delivered the parcel a week ago. No matter what is the exact version of such atypical extradition, the country’s former enfant terrible should prepare for hard time.
For its part, Tehran is exulting but it should not do so because it’s the sign that Washington takes the capitulation for granted or even considers it’s in sight. However the future may be full of unpleasant surprises such as what happened in 1979 to Russia, the ideal victim of its alliance with the mullahs. Thus Washington may appear constrained to search for a new Jundallah.