Iranian Sleeper Cells, and British Arms Accusations

The Telegraph reports today that Iran poised to strike in wealthy Gulf states:

Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear programme, a former Iranian diplomat has told The Sunday Telegraph.

Western interests in Dubai could be attacked the Iranian regime's agents Spies working as teachers, doctors and nurses at Iranian-owned schools and hospitals have formed sleeper cells ready to be "unleashed" at the first sign of any serious threat to Teheran, it is claimed.

Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf's ruling Sunni Arab clans.

Furthermore, it appears the U.S. are not the only one's accusing Iran of exporting arms to insurgents. The Telegraph further reports that Teheran agents smuggled in missile that shot down RAF helicopter in Iraq, inquiry finds:

A missile which brought down an RAF Lynx helicopter and killed five British Service personnel was smuggled into Iraq by Iranian agents, an official inquiry into the attack will reveal.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that a British Army Board of Inquiry (BOI) into the events surrounding last May's attack will state that the weapon, a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile known as an SA14 Strella, came from Iran.

Additionally, Wesley Clark weighed in on Iran a few days ago:

But they're building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it's not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they're offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That's not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.

And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don't want to pay the price with their domestic -- our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don't want to legitimate a government that they've been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you'd probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we've asserted that their government needs regime change, and we've asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq -- Iran. And if we're not doing it, let's put it this way: we're probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it's not surprising that we're moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.

My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys -- they're not -- but that you shouldn't use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it's a bad one.

Clark made a number of curious comments, not least of which openly accusing the U.S. of operation inside Iran. Why does he gain by doing so, whether it's true or not? He can only speculate, in any case. And before Wesley Clark suggests we sit down and talk to Iran, he should pay attention to the news. Ahmadinejad just abruptly cut short talks with Saudi Arabia because they tried to broach the nuclear issue. Iran doesn't like to talk, they like to posture.