tehranbureau An independent source of news on Iran and the Iranian diaspora

Who supports Jundallah?

by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles

22 Oct 2009 04:0617 Comments

[ analysis ] On Oct. 18, 2009, the Jundallah (God's Brigade) terrorist group mounted two terrorist attacks inside Iran's Sistan-Baluchestan province. One was a suicide attack, and the other was an ambush on a car carrying a group of soldiers. The coordinated attacks killed 42 people and injured dozens more. Five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Iran's elite military unit, were killed, including Brig. Gen. Nourali Shoushtari, deputy commander of the IRGC's ground forces.

Jundallah was formed in 2003 and is believed to have about 1000 members. Its base of operations is in Pakistan's Baluchestan province. Jundallah is led by Albolmalek Rigi, a Sunni fundamentalist. Jundallah is a Sunni Salafi group, the most extreme sect of Islam, of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda variety, and has links to both groups. Jundallah has been involved in drug trafficking as well.

Drug trafficking from Afghanistan and Pakistan through Iran to Europe has been a major problem for Iran for the past 20 years. During this period, at least 3000 Iranian policemen have been killed by drug traffickers in that region alone. This has been acknowledged by the United Nations, which has commended Iran's efforts in stemming the flow of narcotics.

Jundallah has carried out several other terrorist operations in Iran that have killed many policemen and civilians.

Jundallah's first major terrorist attack inside Iran was in the fall of 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was visiting Baluchestan. His motorcade was attacked; at least one person was killed, and many more were injured. Then in March 2006, Jundallah terrorists blocked a road near Tasooki in Baluchestan and murdered 22 people.

Jundallah has also taken responsibility for the bombing of a bus carrying IRGC soldiers in February 2007. At least 11 soldiers were killed in that attack.

Sixteen policemen were abducted in June 2008 and taken to Pakistan, where they were murdered (some beheaded). Earlier, in August 2007, 21 Iranian truck drivers were abducted and taken to Pakistan, but freed later by Pakistani military. There were two attacks in Saravan. One, a suicide attack, occurred on December 29, 2008, which killed 4 people. The second one, on January 29, 2008, was an ambush on a group of policemen, resulting in 12 deaths.

To justify its acts of terrorism, Jundallah has renamed itself the People's Resistance Movement of Iran. Rigi claims to be fighting to improve the lives of Iranian Baluchis (who number about only 1 million). The claim rings hollow.

There is a movement in the Pakistani Baluchestan province to fight against the discrimination of Baluchi people by the central government. However, that movement has no connection with Jundallah. It is also true that the Baluchi minority in Iran has been discriminated against. But this is an old problem, spanning decades. In fact, Iran's central government has been trying to improve the economy in Baluchestan.

All of Jundallh's attacks have been well-planned and well-coordinated, which raises the question: Who supports and fiances Jundallah?

Over the years, Iran has blamed the United States for supporting the terrorist group. It has accused the United States and Britain of trying to create ethnic tension and instability in Iran. In the aftermath of the most recent attacks, Iran blamed the U.S. again for having a hand in the attacks. Ali Larijani, the Speaker of Iran's parliament, said "If they [the U.S.] want relations with Iran, they must be frank [admit their responsibility]. We consider the recent terrorist act the result of a U.S. measure."

Is there any truth to Iran's allegations against the U.S. and Britain? The mainstream media here has been dismissive of Iran's charges. One unfortunate result of Iran's rigged June 12 presidential election is the loss of legitimacy. Even when there is truth to what the Iranian government says, the world is inclined to dismiss it, simply because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has proven to be highly untrustworthy.

But there is evidence to suggest under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. was deeply involved in funding Jundallah terrorists. It is unclear what the policy of the Obama administration is regarding Jundallah. Both Britain and the U.S. State Department flatly rejected Iran's accusations and condemned the terrorist attacks. But there is more than meets the eyes.

The Bush Administration and Terrorist Groups

In February 2007, Dick Cheney traveled to Pakistan and met with then Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. Pakistani government sources said at the time that the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when the two met. In an interview later that month, Cheney referred to the Jundallah terrorists as "guerrillas" to give them legitimacy.

But despite Cheney's efforts to present them as legitimate fighters, Jundallah is a sectarian terrorist organization. It is made of Sunni extremists who hate the Shiites and its goal is to foment a conflict between the two sects of Islam. Because of its Sunni Salafi roots, it is likely that Jundallah is also supported by Saudi Arabia. I will return to this point shortly.

On Feb. 25, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that "America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program. Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the northwest, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the southeast. 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."

According to the Telegraph, Fred Burton, a former U.S. State Department counter-terrorism agent, supported the assertion by saying, "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilize the Iranian regime."

In April 2007, ABC News reported that, according to Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials, the Jundallah group, which is "responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005."

According to the report, "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. The money for Jundullah was funneled to its leader, Abdelmalek Rigi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states." The Iranian exiles are the Mujahedin-e Khalgh (MKO).

In an interview with the National Public Radio on June 30, 2008, distinguished American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh explained how the Bush Administration's policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" led the U.S. to support the Jundallah and MKO (the MKO is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department).

A week later, in his July 8, 2008, article in The New Yorker, Hersh quoted Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East. "The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda. These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers -- in this case, it's Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we're once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties," Baer was quoted as saying.

Baer was referring to the CIA providing arms, and Saudi Arabia supplying funds to the Afghan Mujahedin in the 1980s, who were fighting the occupying forces of the Soviet Union. After Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Afghan Mujahedin branched out into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In a symposium on U.S.-Iran relations that the author co-organized in October 2008 at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Baer repeated his assertions about Jundallah.

Former Pakistani Army Chief, retired General Mirza Aslam Baig, also said that "the U.S. supports the Jundullah terrorist group and uses it to destabilize Iran. Baig was deeply involved when the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) created the Taliban."

In his July 2008 article Hersh also said that the MKO received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the U.S., and that the Kurdish party, PJAK (Party for Free Life of Kurdistan), "which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States," has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. PJAK, the Iranian branch of the Kurdish PKK group active in Turkey, has used Iraq's side of Kurdistan as its base to carry out many raids into Iran which have killed many civilians, as well as soldiers and policemen.

Britain and Terrorist Groups

There is still more. In the fall of 2005, there was a series of bombings in Iran's oil-rich province of Khuzestan, which borders southern Iraq, which was occupied by British forces. The bombings killed many innocent people. The Iranian government accused Britain and the U.S. of being behind the terrorist attacks. In his article, Hersh also mentions possible U.S. support for the so-called Khazestan separatists (who exist only in the imagination of some U.S. policy makers).

"Arabization" of Khuzestan and separating it from Iran has always been a goal of Britain, going back to the 1940s. British Arabists have always supported Arab "nationalist" activities against Iran, and in particular in Khuzestan.

For example, in September 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran, Saddam Hussein's declared goal was to annex Khuzestan. The BBC news network, as well as Western mainstream media, provided full overage of the Iraqi invasion in the first week. For several days, the United States and Britain prevented the UN Security Council from convening an emergency session to look into the possibility of calling for a ceasefire.

Their goal was twofold: (a) to show that Iran's resistance would collapse quickly. In fact, the U.S. was hoping that the invasion and rapid advances of the Iraqi army into Khuzestan would provoke a coup in Tehran by the remnants of the Shah's army; and (b) to show that the Arabs of Khuzestan fully support the invasion and can act as a fifth column.

Neither scenario materialized. In fact, not only did the vast majority of the Iranian Arabs not support Saddam, but were at the forefront of resistance to the Iraqi invaders. By spring of 1982, Iraq had been driven from almost all of Khuzestan.

Clearly, the Bush administration and Britain tried very hard, through covert programs, to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic and religious minorities.

The policy of the Obama administration toward the program is not clear. But President Obama has always stated that when it comes to Iran, "All options are on the table." So, why should anyone believe that this particular option has been taken off the table?

Saudi Arabia-Jundallah Link

There may still be another angle to the Jundallah terrorist attacks. Since Jundallah is a Sunni Salafi group, it means that it may have some links with Saudi Arabia, the center of Salafism. At the same time, relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have been very frosty.

Iran is particularly angry that it has not received a definitive response from Saudi Arabia about the fate of the Iranian nuclear physicist Shahram Amiri, who disappeared there in May. The Saudis may have helped Amiri defect. If that is true, the revelations about the Qom uranium enrichment facility may be linked with Amiri's defection.

Saudi Arabia is worried about the possibility of improved relations between Iran and the U.S., as well as Iran's nuclear program.

The Geopolitics of Energy

Another important but hidden aspect of the strife stems from the transportation of natural gas from Central Asia, a land-locked region, to the international markets. Iran possesses 15.8% of the world's natural gas reserves, second only to Russia.

The most economical route for transporting natural gas from Central Asia, particularly from Turkmenistan to the international markets, is through a pipeline that runs through Iran to the port of Chah Bahar. However, because the U.S. desires to limit Iran's financial resources and integration within the region, it has, since the 1990s, supported the construction of an alternative pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean.

The pipeline does not make much sense, due to the political instability of Afghanistan and its mountainous terrain. But this is not the first time that the U.S. has supported an uneconomical pipeline purely due to its animosity toward Tehran. The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which transports the Republic of Azerbaijan's oil from its capital Baku to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, is another example.

All Azerbaijan had to do was construct a short pipeline on its border with Iran to connect it to Iran's pipeline network, which runs from the south to the north. But the Clinton administration prevented that from happening.

Here is an interesting twist. Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan native and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations during the Bush administration, was a consultant to the Unocal Oil Company in the 1990s. With Khalilzad's help, Unocal lobbied the Clinton administration very strongly to give it permission to construct the pipeline. The Clinton administration supported the project. But just when the agreement was going to be signed, the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996.

The Clinton administration was still interested in reaching an agreement with the Taliban about the pipeline. But when the horrible treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban became publicized around the world, the Clinton administration and its Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, were too embarrassed to proceed with the project.

On the other hand, Iran and Pakistan have signed an agreement to construct a pipeline from southern Iran to Pakistan for transporting Iran's natural gas to Pakistan. Initially, the pipeline was supposed to continue to India, but under pressure by the Bush administration, India withdrew from the project. Pakistan, however, resisted U.S. pressure and signed the agreement with Iran.

If constructed, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline, which has been dubbed "the peace pipeline," will be in direct competition with the pipeline through Afghanistan, if and when that pipeline is constructed. The pipeline will run from southern Iran through Baluchestan to the border with Pakistan.

Instability in Iran's Baluchistan province, perpetrated by Jundallah, will scare away potential investors in the Iran-Pakistan pipeline, and may prevent its construction altogether. In my view, these facts, hidden from the public, play an important role in Jundallah's attack on Iran. Neither Saudi Arabia nor the U.S. wants the pipeline to be constructed.

Although I believe that Ahmadinejad's government has no legitimacy in Iran, the fact remains that the U.S. and its allies have been trying for years to incite Iran's ethnic and religious minorities to destabilize the country. To do so, the U.S., Britain, and Saudi Arabia appear to have turned to terrorist groups such as the Jundallah and PJAK. This is, of course, in total contradiction to the so-called "war on terror" that the U.S. is supposedly waging.

Photo Credit: Scott Eells, Redux Pictures.

Copyright © 2009 Tehran Bureau

SHAREtwitterfacebookSTUMBLEUPONbalatarin reddit digg del.icio.us


Professor Sahimi,

Thanks for this article, especially for going further than just the possible U.S. links, discussing Saudi Arabia and Britain as well.

But the Obama administration is negotiating with Ahmadinejad after all. So this is only hypocrisy at work here (on the part of the U.S. government) to cry "the loss of legitimacy" of the government when the Iranians accuse it of involvement in the terrorist attacks ... and then sit at the negotiation table with the Iranians at the same time.

So it's not the case that "Even when there is truth to what the Iranian government says, the world is inclined to dismiss it, simply because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has proven to be highly untrustworthy."

It's because no matter who the president is in Iran, they are ruthless hypocrites and terrorist-supporters so long as it is to their benefit, "highly untrustworthy" as well.

Pedestrian / October 22, 2009 7:37 AM

Good overview, Dr. Sahimi.

Depending on what side of the fence you belong on, America's "war on terror" can actually be a "war OF terror".

Mahan Abedin had some interesting details from the perspective of Iranian intelligence, in today's Asia Times Online. Although I disagree with some of his conclusions, it's well worth the read.

There is one thing: I feel you needn't qualify your views on Iranian national security with a disclaimer about Ahmadinejad. Just tell it like it is, Professor.

Pirouz / October 22, 2009 8:43 AM

add to the list of Jundallah's victims:

Dr Sadeghi, who was serving his mandatory military service in Sistan & Balouchestan was killed by Jundallah terrorists in 2007 when his ambulance was hit by a RPG fired at it from close range.

They are obviously terrorists and criminals.

Amir / October 22, 2009 3:42 PM

Unfortunately this article is a load of hot air and a regurgitation of various false and untrue reports.
The real point about this attack is the undeclared war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - which has been taking place in Yemen and on the boarders of Saudi Arabia and Yemen for many years.
Iran supply Funds and armaments to the Shia Yemenites and the Saudi's fund and support Sunni's in Bluchistan and Ahvaz - It is called TIT for TAT ......

Bahramerad / October 22, 2009 7:12 PM

Thank you Mr. Sahimi for this insightful piece. I really think that the media in the U.S. should start thinking about their coverage of the world. All people hear from them is how Iran is a big threat to the world and how it should be suppressed. What they don't realize is how behind the scenes, their own government has been the biggest threat to world peace.

SH / October 23, 2009 1:02 AM

Everything in this article could be true, but how would we ever know? Aside from a few quotes, it is very thin on evidence.

The interpretation is a bit over the top: 'Hersh quoted Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East. "The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda. These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers -- in this case, it's Shiite Iranians."'

Well, it has been some time since I was in Iranian Baluchistan, and even then Islamic intensification was in process, but I would have to hear more to believe that the Baluch have become "fundamentalists" and "Salafi." Recent reports that I have indicate that the Baluch deeply resent the imposition of Shia norms and practices, as well as the discrimination they suffer for not being Shia. But their complaint is against the heavy handed, Shia Islamic Republic government, not "unbelievers."

The Jundallah are al Qaeda? What nonsense. Their focus is Baluchistan, not beyond. Furthermore, remorseless guerrillas they might be, but their attacks are almost exclusively on I. R. security services. They have not targeted the civilian population. We might not agree with Jundallah activities, but let's try and be clear about what is actually going on.

PCS / October 23, 2009 3:01 AM

One further point, apparently unknown by the "experts" quoted in the article, is that the Baluch are tribesmen, and tribes are never fond of government impositions. Abdolmakek Rigi is from the Rigi tribe, located in the Sarhad region, as apparently are a number of his followers. So the confict is "overdetermined," as the psychologists like to say: the Shia/Sunni conflict is superimposed on the longstanding and structurally inherent state/tribe conflict.

PCS / October 23, 2009 5:40 AM

Dear PCS:

I did not say that Baluchies are Sunni Salafi, but that Jundallah group is. There is a vast difference between the two.

Yes, Jundallah has focused on security forces, and that WAS INDEED THE POINT. It is being used by Saudi Arabia, and quite possibly the U.S., to pressure Iran.

The goal of the article is to make people think about this in more ways than one. At this point, I have brought up all the evidence that exists. Surely there will be more in the future.

Muhammad Sahimi / October 23, 2009 8:52 AM

Mr. Sahimi, is there any direct evidence that the Jundallah is Salafi? For example, have any Jundallah pronouncements specified Salafi beliefs? Have members of the Jundallah studied at Salafi madressas? Has the Jundallah proclaimed Shia heretics? Sure, they hate the Islamic Republic Regime and its enforcers (increasingly its rulers) the Revolutionary Guard. But do they hate Shias? I haven't seen anything to indicate such views. If you have, I would be grateful to know about them.

Philip Carl SALZMAN / October 23, 2009 6:30 PM

The NEFA Foundation http://www1.nefafoundation.org/index.html translation of the Jondallah acknowledgement of its attack is as follows:

'The statement indicated that the bombing attack was a response to the “crimes of the Iranian regime against the Baluchi people; the unarmed and oppressed, who loses everyday a number of its children sacrifices to the crimes of this regime that murdered throughout the last year alone hundreds of young men from this province… amongst them were the pious Ulama Hafidh Salahadin and Mawlawi Khalilallah Zare’i—who were executed for defending the rights of our oppressed people. Additionally, they executed the brothers Tariq and Asad Wafa’i, and three others from the city, and those are: Thabihalla Naro’i, Hajji Noti Zahi, and Ghulam Rasul Shaho Zahi, and all of those were guilty of Baluchi and Sunni. These crimes left to the Baluchi people no other choice except resistance and responding in the same manner to the Iranian regime.”'

I do not see any indication of extreme religious beliefs here; rather the motivation appears to be the oppression of an ethnic and religious minority.

Philip Carl SALZMAN / October 23, 2009 7:52 PM

Dear Phillip:

The statement by the culprits themselves cannot be indicative of anything, can it? Of course, they say what they say. What did you expect? Taliban say the same. Even al-Qaeda says the same!

Since posting of my article, others have written other pieces, touching on the same points that I raised. Pepe Escobar, Mahan Abedin, Justin Raimondo, just to name but a few.

Muhammad Sahimi / October 24, 2009 2:52 AM

Dear Muhammad,

Alright, if we cannot take the Jundallah statement as evidence of their true orientation, at least it provides no hint of extreme, Salafi views. So far there is no direct evidence of that whatsoever.

It appears to me that some commentators are saying, why would they do that? and answering, they must be Sunni fanatics. But that is just guessing. And a way of dismissing Jundallah actions, distasteful to us, as unjustified. The alternative hypothesis, which appears to me better grounded in evidence, is that this is a reaction by tribesmen and Sunnis who have been oppressed and beaten up by the I.R. and who decided to do what tribesmen conventionally do: fight back.

How come the very same people say, when the Palestinians fight the Israelis, it is because they are oppressed, but when the Baluch fight back in exactly the same way, they are religious fanatics?

Philip Carl SALZMAN / October 24, 2009 5:28 PM

Dear Phillip:

With all due respect, there is absolutely no comparison between the Palestinians and the Baluchis.

The Palestinians fight to force an occupying power evacuate their land. Jundallah, on the other hand, is only fomenting tension between two sects of Islam, Tasannon (Sunni-ism) and Shiism.

Why would a group that claims to be only fighting for the rights of the people that it supposedly represents attack an ambulance? Why would such a group be involved in drug trafficking - a well-documented fact? Why would such a group behead policemen?

As I said in the article, it is true that ethnic minorities have been discriminated against in Iran for decades, both under the Shah and in the IRI. But, Rigi and his group are nothing but stooges of foreign powers.

Muhammad Sahimi / October 24, 2009 6:52 PM

Dear Muhammad,

I am sure that you will recall that Reza Shah conquered Baluchistan with artillery and areal bombardment (primitive though it was) during a campaign in 1932-35. (See General Hassan Arfa, UNDER FIVE SHAHS.) Since then Baluchistan has been increasingly occupied and controlled by Shia Persians under the direction of the IRI. The IRI has tried the Chinese tactic of flooding Baluchsitan with Persian Shia, e.g. by building universities (US&B is the second largest in Iran, after UTehran) and sending Persian Shia students from all over Iran. In the meanwhile, Sunni are excluded from jobs because they are deemed not to accept the Shia authority structure of the IRI. So, yes, it is a full blown Persian occupation. Generally the Baluch resent the Persian Shia who have taken over, and the bitterly object to their domination by the IR regime. Abdolmalek Rigi and his followers have plenty of legitimate reasons to resist the IRI.

Philip Carl SALZMAN / October 24, 2009 8:36 PM


I am sorry, but you seem to have misread history of Iran, and you also seem to support disintegration of a country that has exiosted a long time.

Reza Shah did not conquer that region the way you describe it. S & B has always been part of Iran, for thousands of years. Rostam-e Zaal, the mythical figure, was from Sistan. It is that old! What happened was that at the end of Qajar rule in early 1900s, due to the weakness of the central government there were a lot of local rulers that did not obey the central government, and S & B was one of them.

If we were to go according to your misinterpretation of Iran's history, then, Khorasan, Gilan, Mazandaran, Azerbaijan, Fars, and Khuzestan should all be independent countries, because they were all "conquered" by Reza Shah. Even Rigi has said repeatedly that they do not have that goal! But, you seem to be more enthusiastic than them for "freddom" for S & B.

I also note that Rigi and his terrorist group emerged just when Bush and company were after Iran. It is not a coincidence that they were not around earlier!

Muhammad Sahimi / October 26, 2009 4:37 AM

Dear Muhammad,

You are right: Rigi is not a separatist, and accepts that Baluchistan should be part of Iran. I have no opinion on the matter one way or the other; such things are up to Baluch and Iranians to decide.

You are right: Baluchistan has in many periods been included in Iran. As has Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia. Political entities, such as Iran, expand and contract over time according to power.

But the current problem in Baluchistan is not that it is part of Iran, but that it is being oppressed by the Islamic Republic regime.

Let us look at a parallel: China claims that Tibet has always been part of China. They invaded militarily and chased the Tibetan authorties out. But that wasn't enough. China decided to assimilate Tibet, and, to do so, flooded it with ethnic Han Chinese to overcome the Tibetans.

The I.R. has done this in Baluchistan, flooding the region with Shia Persians, appointing only Shia Persians in positions of political authority, suppressing in various ways Sunni observance.

The Baluch generally are very irritated by all of this, feel unfairly oppressed, and resent being second class citizens in their own homeland. The Baluch generally feel "occupied," rather than equal citizens of Iran.

Philip Carl SALZMAN / October 27, 2009 7:33 PM

I have a few remarks.

Article is saying that Jundallah terrorists acts were well planned and well coordinated. If, Jundallah, as article claims, has been involved in drug trafficking, article itself gives an answer to the questions "Who supports and finances Jundallah?" Author himself must know that drug trafficking is a very profitable venue, and Iran have a large population of addicts. So if Jundallah is involved in drug trafficking it does not need money from elsewhere, it has enough money from trafficking operations. If they have trafficking links with Pakistan, everybody knows that in Pakistan there exist a large, well organized, international traficking transportation mafia who knows very well its territory.Why should they not help Jundallah with their expertise? They would got much more money in return, if Baluchistan became separate from Iran. What's more Jundallah probably have a backing of Baluchi population on both sides of the border because, lets face it, they are suni and as such they have less opportunity to get good jobs in Iran, to break the glass ceilling.

It is irrelevant how many Baluchi live in Sistan Baluchistan province. Rejecting someone's claim of fighting to improve the people condition only because that bad conditions existed for quite some time and only because there are not many of these people is funny. It presupposed that because something did not happen before it can not happen at all.

Article quotes retired general Mirza Aslam Beg [not Baig] who supported selling nuclear technology to Iran and who claimed that this strategy was an "act of defiance" of the USA. Why would he not say that Jundallah was supported by USA if it would be detrimental to his enemy - USA?

Finally, as other people noted, the article does not give any supporting facts for reaching its conclusions, only conjectures dated mainly from 2007 where anti-Bushmania was at its height..

Mind you, I did not give much support to my Jundallah - transportation mafia story but it has the same level of conjecture as the article has.

ella / October 30, 2009 5:04 PM