The particular bad consequences? Not foreseeable. *Some* sort of bad consequence? That's a different story.

Post-1979, it was not really possible to say that we couldn't foresee bad results from helping Islamic fundamentalist militants overthrow a government, even a bad, Soviet-imposed gov't.

From what I've been reading, Jundullah is, at the very least, Taliban-aligned, with the goal of creating yet another ethnic state (Baloch-dominated) controlled by sharia law, opposed to the west, etc.

Even if they are not al Qaida, it is still a dumb idea.

Can't argue with that.

Get with the program man. The part that Carter did led to the bad consequences. The part that Reagan did led to the good ones. Dont you understand how this is supposed to work?

Y'know, like the way Reagan managed to solve the economic woes that plagued the seventies by solving the inflation problem - by having Paul Volcker as Fed chairman. Unlike Carter who so messed things up, including his appointment of Volcker.

Even if they are not al Qaida, it is still a dumb idea.

When you hire thugs to fight other thugs, and the first thugs take over, you should hardly be surprised that they continue to act like thugs.

Is this alleged action in support of Iranian dissidents wise? Hard to say, since we don’t have much information.

Well, if you think funneling money and resources to Sunni terrorist organizations with ties to al-Qaeda is a good idea, I'd love to hear an explanation as to why. Because I thought the whole purpose of the War on Terror was to STOP terrorists from getting access to money and resources.

Were the unintended consequences, IE Pakistan's support of the Taliban to de-stabilize an already unstable Afghan government foreseeable? Hardly.

Is this alleged action in support of Iranian dissidents wise? Hard to say, since we don't have much information. In fact we don't even have proof that it's happening.