U.S. to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization

[BrainGlutton]

Story here:

The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group’s business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran’s nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said – a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that “provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists.”

But, we’ve already got sanctions on Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” What practical difference will this make?

[Malodorous]

@BrainGlutton

But, we’ve already got sanctions on Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” What practical difference will this make?

Yea, I can’t imagine Iran has any assets in the US to seize, so I doubt this will have any practical effect.

And it further dilutes the already long-suffering definition of “terrorist”, which now basically means “someone we don’t like”.

[BrainGlutton]

Still, a lot of commentators I’ve heard today think it will matter – because the Revolutionary Guard Corps is not just a military force, it is a kind of “state within the state” that owns its own industrial operations and has widespread business dealings. (Some of them openly compare it to Hitler’s SS, at least in that regard.)

[Sam_Stone]

It might also mean the U.S. will feel more free to use military force against them in places like Afghanistan.

It’s a way to attack Iran without attacking Iran. Split off the Republican Guard as their own entity, and you remove them from state cover.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

It might also mean the U.S. will feel more free to use military force against them in places like Afghanistan.

It’s a way to attack Iran without attacking Iran. Split off the Republican Guard as their own entity, and you remove them from state cover.

How does that “remove them from state cover”? It does not legally – an attack on the RGC remains as much an attach on Iran as would be an attack on a regular army unit – and I can’t see how it does so politically, either.

[BrainGlutton]

Presidential candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich has somewhat to say:

“The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable,” argues Kucinich.

“This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts,” he adds. explaining that, “This new label provides further evidence for Iran’s leaders that there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States if our actions point directly to regime change.”

[BrainGlutton]

The U.S. military says three gunmen killed by U.S. troops in Iraq this week have been identified as members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

[marshmallow]

What branch do we have running around in Iran’s backyard right now? I think it’d be a delicious irony if Iran designated them as terrorists. As for the pronouncement, it’s very useful because now if we capture them we don’t have to treat them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

It might also mean the U.S. will feel more free to use military force against them in places like Afghanistan.

It’s a way to attack Iran without attacking Iran. Split off the Republican Guard as their own entity, and you remove them from state cover.

Which isn’t going to fly in anyone’s eyes. It’s like attacking a U.S. warship and saying you’re attacking the U.S. Navy, not the United States, because you’ve split them off as a terrorist organization.

[tagos]

@RickJay

Which isn’t going to fly in anyone’s eyes. It’s like attacking a U.S. warship and saying you’re attacking the U.S. Navy, not the United States, because you’ve split them off as a terrorist organization.

And we’ll be hearing no bitching if the CIA is hit?

CIA arming terrorists

In a move that reflects Washington’s growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran’s border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

<snip>

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now “no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

<snip>

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to “unleash” the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: “A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage.”

[BrainGlutton]

Tom Englehardt notes that an attack – even an airstrike – on Iran would drive up the price of oil and have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy.

[glee]

Isn’t this another step down a frightening path?

Bush can already announce any individual is a ‘terrorist’ and stick them in Guantanamo Bay for life. Now he can designate any organisation as same and attack them without regard to any other laws.

One scenario - what happens if other countries do this?

[RedFury]

Prelude to an Attack on Iran

Guess these bastards don’t ever tire of killing…even if many of the dead end up being their own country man and women.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@glee

Isn’t this another step down a frightening path?

Bush can already announce any individual is a ‘terrorist’ and stick them in Guantanamo Bay for life. Now he can designate any organisation as same and attack them without regard to any other laws.

One scenario - what happens if other countries do this?

We get a third World War…a Global Insurrection.

[Eva_Luna]

@BrainGlutton

we’ve already got sanctions on Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” What practical difference will this make?

For one thing, membership in a terrorist organization is a bar to receiving a visa to enter the U.S.:

"Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads:

(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

…(3) Security and related grounds.-

(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-

[snip]

(B) Terrorist activities-

(i) IN GENERAL.-Any alien who-

[snip]

(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of–

(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or

(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,

(V) is a member of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary under section 219, or is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity."

Being an Iranian national just makes it a pain in the ass to get a U.S. visa; being a member of a defined terrorist organization makes it an actual statutory bar.

Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal

[Uzi]

@glee

Isn’t this another step down a frightening path?

Which doesn’t answer the question is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, in fact, a terrorist organization?
If it is then it is correct to label them as such and not stick our heads in the sand. If they are not then obviously this is a wrong move.
So, which is it? Are they or are they not a terrorist organization?

[tagos]

@Uzi

Which doesn’t answer the question is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, in fact, a terrorist organization?
If it is then it is correct to label them as such and not stick our heads in the sand. If they are not then obviously this is a wrong move.
So, which is it? Are they or are they not a terrorist organization?

No. Even if they are supporting insurgents in Iraq. If they are then every intelligence agency supporting armed oppositions are terrorists. Look at what the CIA do around the world. I’m cool with calling them a terrorist organisation too, if we want to go down that route, but this IRG thing is just one-sided name calling that presages an attack on Iran.

I’m also happy to designate the US and Israeli air forces terrorist organisations for their callous and cavalier attitude to civilians if we want to start designating an org we don’t like as ‘terrorists’.

[Uzi]

@tagos

No. Even if they are supporting insurgents in Iraq.

Please, as the US (and Britain) are involved in Iraq to implement and support the new government there they have every right to claim that people supporting the opposition who blow up soldiers and civilians willy nilly are terrorists if they don’t declare themselves openly.

I’m also happy to designate the US and Israeli air forces terrorist organisations for their callous and cavalier attitude to civilians if we want to start designating an org we don’t like as ‘terrorists’.

Sorry, you seem to have forgotten to add Britain to that list as they fly planes, too. When did Israel get involved in Iraq? Although after Saddam shooting Scuds at them some time ago, I’d think they might have a good reason.

[tagos]

@Uzi

Please, as the US (and Britain) are involved in Iraq to implement and support the new government there they have every right to claim that people supporting the opposition who blow up soldiers and civilians willy nilly are terrorists if they don’t declare themselves openly.

Sorry, you seem to have forgotten to add Britain to that list as they fly planes, too. When did Israel get involved in Iraq? Although after Saddam shooting Scuds at them some time ago, I’d think they might have a good reason.

You are shifting the debate. The question is not whether people blowing up civilians are terrorists it is whether an outside org that arms and trains them can be called a terrorist org.

If the answer is ‘yes’ then that principle must be universally applicable and so applies to the CIA and the US Govt in general. Personally I think it is an abuse of the language to call the CIA a ‘terrorist’ organisation. Same for the Revolutionary Guard.

Israel routinely assassinates suspected ‘terrorists’ by attacking vehicles and houses without any particular concern for the deaths of anyone else in the car or dwelling or in the street nearby, willy-nilly.

As far as I know the UK is not flying bombing missions in Iraq or Afghanistan but I’d happily add them to the list if they are targetting with the same callous abandon.

[Uzi]

@tagos

You are shifting the debate. The question is not whether people blowing up civilians are terrorists it is whether an outside org that arms and trains them can be called a terrorist org.

Is the Taliban a terrorist organization? They provided support for Al-Qaida and we invaded the country they ran because of that support. So even if they are not ‘terrorists’, they were pretty much subject to the same consequences as those they supported.

BTW, I agree that the term should be used as accurately as possible. But, I do think that the people who supply the money and support to terrorists are little to no different from those they support even if they do it at arms length. But I also have a realistic view of the world in that lots of governments support lots of things directly and indirectly that could aid and abet terrorists and all other such forms of scum.