According to a report in Foreign Policy, agents with Israel’s Mossad spy agency posed as CIA operatives as they tried to recruit members of the Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist network Jundallah to launch attacks against Iran. The alleged revelations come at the tail end of a week where an apparent covert war against Iran’s nuclear program made headlines when a bombing in Tehran killed an Iranian nuclear scientist, the fourth such assassination in two years.

The latest report surfaced through a U.S. intelligence memo on Mossad’s work to recruit members of the militant group. Foreign Policy learned of the memo, which was prepared at the end of the Bush administration’s tenure, and launched an 18 month investigation.

In what was known as a “false flag” operation — posing as another country’s operatives — the Mossad agents sought to build contacts with Jundallah, which is now designated by the U.S. as a terror organization. Human rights groups have long documented repression of Iran’s Balochi minority, both on the basis of sectarianism (Shia constitute the majority of iran) and ethnicity. Still, the designation of Jundallah, which commits atrocities such as bombings of Shia mosques, bars U.S. contacts.

When President George W. Bush was briefed on the memo about Mossad’s activities, he “went absolutely ballistic,” according to Foreign Policy reporter Mark Perry’s sources. Other current and former intelligence sources corroborated Perry’s report.

It’s not clear whether or not Israel’s relationship with Jundallah persists, and Perry does not disclose Mossad’s involvement in any particular Jundallah attack inside Iran. In 2008, before Jundallah’s 2010 terror designation, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the U.S. also had ties to the group: “According to [former CIA agent Robert] Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.” The U.S. has consistently denied any ties, and Perry cites an incident where a Jundallah leader was shipped by Pakistan to Iran without objection by the U.S.

The latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist comes as Iran and Western countries, through contacts via Turkey, are on the verge of restarting long-stalled talks on Iran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the West contends, with some supporting evidence, is aimed at weapons production.

Various Obama administration officials, Afghans and NATO have condemned a group of U.S. Marines for urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters after video surfaced of the incident this week. While Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the act was “deplorable,” the Atlantic’s Steve Clemons wondered yesterday “how long it will take for a movement to grow inside the United States that embraces the soldiers.” The answer? Not too long. And the movement is growing. CNN’s Dana Loesch said today that she would “drop trou and do it too.”

“Give me a break,” the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol complained earlier today about the Obama administration’s condemnation of the incident. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said the soldiers should be punished, but said people should “shut up” about it:

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

Yes, according to West, only if you literally fight for freedom of speech will you be allowed to exercise that right.

And as for Kristol. He accused the Obama administration and even the Republican candidates for president of not sufficiently saying enough good things about U.S. troops. Of course, it is the ever-so-eager-to-support-sending-troops-to-needless-wars Bill Kristol who is the arbiter of who does and does not love the troops.

With the ink barely dry on her contract, Liz Cheney took up her new role as a Fox News contributor in an interview with Fox and Friends‘ Eric Bolling. Cheney came out swinging, telling viewers that President Obama’s proposed cuts to military spending would damage the U.S. military in ways that the Taliban and al Qaeda had been unable:

ERIC BOLLING: Let’s talk about these drastic cuts in military [sic]. Weigh in on that. Do we become a much more vulnerable nation?

LIZ CHENEY: There’s no question. I think in fact what President Obama is doing is something that America’s enemies — the Taliban and Al Qaeda — have been unable to do, which is to decimate the fighting capability of this nation.

Cheney went on to conflate Iraq and Iran — asserting that “Iraq is months, not years, away” from enriching the uranium required for a nuclear weapon — and claimed that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey hadn’t clearly stated that the U.S. would respond militarily if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. Watch it:

Indeed, Obama proposed a $487 billion cut to military spending, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told a Duke University audience yesterday, “This is something we the Joint Chiefs have endorsed as best for America.” He did not comment on whether the cuts in defense spending would serve the interests of the Taliban and al Qaeda but he also said last week that the military’s leadership is supportive of Obama’s plan and, not as Liz Cheney suggests, suffering a “decimat[ion]” of their fighting capability.

Cheney also got it wrong on the statements issued by Dempsey about the Strait of Hormuz. Yesterday, the New York Times reported:

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this past weekend that the United States would “take action and reopen the strait,” which could be accomplished only by military means, including minesweepers, warship escorts and potentially airstrikes. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told troops in Texas on Thursday that the United States would not tolerate Iran’s closing of the strait.

While Cheney is broadening her professional credentials, her debut appearance as a Fox News contributor showed her as a commentator who pays very little attention to the administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s actual positions on the issues she covers.

Last night, the Atlantic hosted Sen. George Mitchell, formerly President Obama’s top Middle East envoy, to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the end of the event, co-host Jeffry Goldberg asked Mitchell what the consequences are of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Mitchell said there are “too many imponderables,” adding that those who advocate for attacking Iran should ask themselves, “What about the next day?” “I don’t think the case has been made,” he said:

MITCHELL: Clearly there is no benefit to taking options off the table until you’re forced to do so. I don’t think anyone who is a proponent of a preemptive strike has so far made a sufficient case to justify it at this time. I think there are too many imponderables in terms of uncertainty about a status that they were in, second, what the effect would be.

Secretary of Defense Gates [sic], who is widely respected both in and outside the United States has said very clearly, emphatically, that we could not assure the full termination of their program. That the best we could do is to set it back. And you always have to ask yourself, “What about the next day?” … It’s awfully easy to get into wars. It’s very hard to get out of them. … I don’t think the case has been made.

Watch the clip:

It looks like Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and co. have some more work to do.

Drones have constituted the sharp edge of U.S. global counter-terror strategy — flying high over hot spots, surveilling suspects and occasionally launching missiles down at them. Now, scaled down versions are being used right here in the United States. The L.A. Police Department is already using them. And civilians want to harness the power and efficiency of unmanned aircraft as well. The L.A. Times reported last year, “Farmers think drones could aid in spraying their crops with pesticides.” The federal government appears poised to allow it. But civil liberties groups have raised alarms about potential pitfalls in domestic drone use, including violating the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Now, a lawsuit against the federal government places in the crosshairs the complete lack of public information about just who, exactly, would be operating these drone aircraft over the U.S.

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) took the issue to the U.S. District Court in Norther California, reports the Washington Post. EFF is suing the U.S. Department of Transportation for information about domestic drones. The suit follows a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which went unheeded by the Department and its subsidiary, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), that regulates airways and therefore domestic drone use. The complaint asserts: “There is currently no information available to the public on which specific public and civil entities have applied for, been granted or been denied certificates or authorizations to fly unmanned aircraft in the United States.” EFF spokeswoman Jennifer Lynch told the Post:

Drones give the government and other unmanned aircraft operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans’ movements and activities. As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveil United States citizens.

Lynch said a good start towards increasing public knowledge about the programs — and the risks they pose to civil liberties — would be to know who wants to use drones, and who is getting permission to do so. “In my mind, the first step is to get the information from the FAA about who has authorization,” she said. “We don’t really know very much right now.”