More Anti-Iran Propaganda
One could start a profession of running down the relations of the various U.S. financed disinformation campaign entities. But unlike the millions spent on these, I have to keep doing it for fun.
A good start for such a run is always the British Telegraph. Today it has this story: 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.
...
The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry.
Now comes a long list of alleged Iranian perfidies from paying Hisbullah to running brothels and spy infested hospitals all over the Middle East. Among the junk there are some facts on the Telegraph's source:
Mr Assadinia, who fled Iran after whistle-blowing on corruption among the country's all-powerful theocrats, said: ...
...
Mr Assadinia, 50, served for two years at the Iranian consulate in Dubai, ...
...
He left his post in Dubai in 2002 and was granted asylum in Europe a year later, having undergone "intimidating" interrogations by Iranian intelligence agents in Teheran. Mr Assadinia plans to give more detail of his claims at a meeting later this month at Westminster, organised by the British Awhazi [sic]Friendship Society, which lobbies Parliament, the European Union and the United Nations.
Google news currently has seven links to stories mentioning "Assadinia". The oldest one is the above Telegraph story, then comes one by the British Ahwazi Friendship Society and among others, the Israeli Ynetnews:
According to Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, 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 Tehran.
The Ynetnews site has the first name of Assadinia, Adel, even though the Telegraph never mentions that name. But the site of the British Ahwazi Friendship Society earlier today published the full name. Ahwaz is the very oil-rich Iranian province next to Basra. That piece also contains these paragraphs:
The BAFS and the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) will be holding an event in the House of Commons where Assadinia and an Arab Shia cleric will speak out against Iran's terrorist activities in the region and in favour of secularism and reconciliation with Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
BAFS Chairman Daniel Brett said: "The Iranian regime outlaws each and every organisation that contradicts its dogma and reveals its true intentions.
According to the organization's About page:
Prior to its annexation by Iran in 1925, al-Ahwaz used to be an autonomous, and at times, independent territory, inhabited entirely by indigenous Ahwazi Arab tribes.
...
Iran has intensified the militarization of the Al-Ahwaz area. According to a Human Rights Watch Report, “Millions of landmines remaining from the Iran-Iraq war in the province of Khuzestan kill and maim indigenous inhabitants of Khuzestan in southwestern Iran every day”.
How old mines from a former war are an example for a recent "intensified militarization" is beyond me. Anyhow, the Society essentially calls for regime change in Iran. Other than a P.O. box and a info@-email address there is no information on this organization on their website or elsewhere. The group is not a charity nor is any information of its finances public. But I doubt they can pay their operation through PayPal buttons alone.
Asking "Who Daniel Brett works for? CIA or MI5?" an openDemocracy forum entry has a Daniel Brett entry. LondonYank at DailyKos wrote about him in two diaries about a forged Iranian letter that led to some trouble in Ahwaz and was first published by the BAFS back in 2005.
In February 2005 on his now defunct website Brett explained his specializations:
Defence and security issues have economic as well as political implications at a global, regional and national level, from geopolitical intelligence to risk assessments for businesses and industry. I write regularly on terrorism and insurgency threats in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Central Asia, and the effects of conflict and political instability on the markets. Whether you need an assessment of regional security organisations and multi-national peace and stabilisation enforcement forces, insight into anti-insurgency operations in eastern India or a thorough analysis of democratic reform in the Persian Gulf, I can provide accurate and authoritative analysis tailored to a client's requirements.
Brett has published with the Henry Jackson Society. As he claimed above there will be an event in House of Commons sponsored by the BAFS and the Henry Jackson Society, though the invitation of the Henry Jackson Society, copied here, does not mention BAFS. Still there seems to be a connection. So who is HJS?
The Guardian lists as HJS aims:
The Henry Jackson Society is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote the following principles: that liberal democracy should be spread across the world; that as the world¹s most powerful democracies, the United States and the European Union under British leadership must shape the world more actively by intervention and example; that such leadership requires political will, a commitment to universal human rights and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach; ...
The list of patrons of the Henry Jackson Foundation includes Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle and James Woolsey - an obvious neocon haven.
On wonders how this all connects. A mysterious Iranian exile alleges some nefarious Iranian meddling in the Telegraph. He is supported by an organization run by a former freelance journalist with self-claimed defense and oil specialization. There is no visible funding for this operation even as, as it claims, it is channeling grants to Ahwaz TV. According to my Google searches, the man has not published much - his pieces at the HJS site stand out. HJS is a neocon offshoot in Britain.
So my main question is: Who finances Daniel Brett and his website?
The start of an answer may be in this 2005 Department of State statement:
The Administration is appreciative of Congress’ support for the resources that enable us to implement the President’s Freedom agenda and reach out to the Iranian people. Our commitment of funds is tangible evidence of the United States’ support for a better future for the Iranian people. Through our public statements, internet, radio and TV in Farsi, we will continue to reach out to the broad range of Iranians pressing for change.
Posted by b on March 4, 2007 at 18:51 UTC | Permalink
Ah, the masters of war, they never stop, do they?
As the man once said:
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
(Performed lately by Ed Harcourt at the No Trident/Don't Attack Iran demo in London in late February.)
A propos of Iranq, coming up in London in April-May, a Richard Norton-Taylor/Philippe Sands joint effort to put Bliar in the dock. One of the crims "cross-examined" for this project was Richard Perle. Sands said he was keen to hang about after "for a chat" to gauge the intl legal eagle view of the attack on Iran.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Mar 4 2007 23:11 utc | 4
Snip:
SWANSON: What is the Iran Directorate?KWIATKOWSKI: I have heard that it is much like what we knew as the expanded Iraq desk, the alternative nomenclature for the Office of Special Plans directed by Abe Shulsky in 2002 and 2003. Incidentally – the OSP, when formally separated from our spaces in late August 2002 was described to us by our boss Bill Luti (now at the National Security Council under Elliot Abrams) as the "expanded Iraq desk." However, within weeks, the two people working the Iran desk (Larry Franklin and Ladan Archin) were moved permanently into the OSP, indicating that in practical terms, Iraq and Iran policies were unified. I have heard Abe Shulsky runs the Iran office or Directorate today. Ladan Archin, a political appointee who worked with former Iran desk officer Larry Franklin, is reported to be working for Shulsky in the same capacity as she did in OSP in 2002. When observers note the similarities between the thoroughly discredited OSP and today's Iran Directorate under Shulsky, in terms of leadership, leakage of falsehoods and talking points designed to demonize Iran's government, and promote ideas of a Iranian threat to the United States, the "need" for the U.S. to foment "democracy" in Iran, and a warmongering agenda, they are on track. It's a real shame.
[]
SWANSON: How does intelligence gathering on Iran compare to that on Iraq?KWIATKOWSKI: This I don't know. Judging from what is coming out of the Pentagon, there may be some good news. Peter Pace, as well as many other active duty generals, seem to be trying to put the brakes on the hysterics coming from the political side of the Pentagon. They seem to be saying go slow, and seem to be somewhat willing to contradict the propaganda, to stray from the political appointed talking points that demand urgent war and destruction of Iran's current government, and its infrastructure. However, this hesitance on the part of military leadership may be overridden by the nature of our intelligence on Iran. In Iraq, we were great in technical intelligence, having bombed, overflew, tested defenses and sanctioned Iraq for a dozen years. But we had no reliable intel on the human side, and the politicized fantasies of Wolfowitz, Feith and Chalabi and others filled a gap that the CIA had little solid HUMINT to combat. Iran, on the other hand, is not a dictatorship, and it is a place we and the Europeans trade and do business. It is a country known for working with Israel and ourselves when it is profitable to do so (Iran-Contra, efforts to weaken Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s, and our own efforts supporting the Iranian terrorist group MEK to weaken the mullahs). Thus we have lots of HUMINT on Iran – and so we think that means we know something. But our HUMINT is incomplete, heavily skewed to those we deal with – the westernized, the religious wackos in the MEK, and political opportunist elements within Iran. What I am saying is we may know a lot less about Iran than we did about Iraq in 2002 – but we may be deluded on both the CIA side and the political fantasy side into thinking we understand Iran better, and hence won't repeat the mistake we made in deciding to invade Iraq.
SWANSON: If White House claims on Iranian nuclear program were true, would they be grounds for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: Most of the world understands that the White House is making false statements on Iran's capabilities and intentions. But even if those claims were true, our own track record is not only to not bomb or invade a country that is developing a potential for a nuclear weapon, but to assist them in proceeding openly and as safely as possible. Pakistan, India, even North Korea and our recent moves of assistance – this is how we usually react. There is only one country that we do not demand sign the NPT, only one country where we do not require transparency in their nuclear programs. That country is Israel. Thus – we have two functional models for dealing with Iran. We can treat them like we do Pakistan, India, Russia, China. North Korea, or France, or we can treat them like we do Israel. Either way is fine with me, and neither way requires attacking them and killing innocent people.
[]
SWANSON: Do you believe the Air Force and Navy want to attack Iran, while the Army and Marines do not?KWIATKOWSKI: I do, but I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong here. My opinion is based on my twenty years in the Air Force, and how we are in the military. It is a big game, and there is indeed competition between the services. For budget and for glory. Plus, we can't buy new stuff unless we test and use up the old and current stuff. Everyone wins in the military industrial complex by pressing forward aggressively. So yes, I believe the Air Force and Navy are working hard to please the administration's desire to trample Arab and Persian countries by saying "We can do it!"
[]
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to prevent it?KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice. It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view, traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
[]
SWANSON: Did you expect that the new Democratic majority would investigate the Iraq fraud?KWIATKOWSKI: Not really. They should have done it in the first hundred hours, and started impeachment hearings, too. They did neither because those who devise our foreign policy in the Middle East politically own many Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation is meaningless, as we have seen already.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 5 2007 3:08 utc | 6
England will prevail!
Are you talking about cricket? I don't think so!
Posted by: DM | Mar 5 2007 10:55 utc | 7
dear sir
i very would like to coprate with your organization anti Iran
and iranian .
Posted by: julio ellizabeth . pre korosh a rokni pilot which they shoot | May 9 2007 12:31 utc | 8
The comments to this entry are closed.
Nice catch.
So much disinformation, so little time...
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Mar 4 2007 20:01 utc | 1