|
Opinion Change: War On Iran Is Indeed The Plan
Until today I was convinced that the U.S. under Obama would not attack Iran. The move would be irrational as the consequences would be too severe. But today the Leverett's at their blog Race For Iran point to a conference in Washington D.C., organized by the mercenary company Executive Action LLC in support of the anti-Iranian marxist terror cult MEK.
Several speakers there argue for attacking Iran. One of them is Gen. James Jones, until recently National Security Adviser in the Obama administration. The way he explains the Obama administration policy towards Iran makes it clear that the intend and logic conclusion from this policy is indeed an all out military attack on Iran.
You can see Jones' seventeen minute long talk in this video starting at 1:15h.
In it Jones says all the same scary stuff that was said about Saddam Hussein before the war on Iraq. That war was, as again confirmed in the Palestine papers today, for the benefit of Israel:
Secretary Rice inserted, "At this time there is no threat from the east [to Israel] because our forces are in Iraq and will stay there for a long time." Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat added, "For a very, very long time."
Jones' in his talk is arguing that Iran could give a nuclear bomb to some terrorist organization. Exactly the same nonsense was said about Saddam's Iraq.
But just like Iraq, Iran does not have any nuclear weapons nor does it want any. Predictions that Iran will have a nuclear weapon "in three years" have been made about every year since at least 1984. All have been false and untrue just like today's predictions about Iran's "nuclear weapons program" are.
What Jones confirms is that the Obama administration's policy on Iran, like most other Obama policies, is simply a continuation of the Bush policy. There is no change at all and with regards to Iran the policy was and is directed to a military solution.
What might hold back the Obama administration is a recent series of events in the Middle East which all point to a harsh decline in U.S. standing there.
The people in Tunesia threw out their U.S. supported and Israel friendly dictator setting an important example. In Lebanon the opposition is interrupting the U.S. plans for the Special Tribunal to viably accuse Iran and Syria. The Palestine Papers expose the hollowness of the "peace process" and the Abbas regime. Muqtada Al-Sadr's support for the new Maliki government in Iraq means the U.S. military will have to leave. The unwillingness to support Karzai's peace talk attempts with the resistance in Afghanistan will pull the U.S. deeper into the maelstrom there.
Thinking rational it seems unlikely that with all these troubles, add in additional Wikileaks and the unsolved economic problems, Obama would think of starting another war. But tossing over the Middle East chess board plus inducing another patriotic wave for war may also be seen as the easiest short term way out of these problems.
After all, Obama does not stand for anything. He will do whatever gets him reelected. If he thinks what he needs is a war on Iran, and from Jones' talk it is obvious that war is indeed the plan, he will launch it.
First this disclosure: I approach anything by the Leverett’s with some prejudice.
Here is a snippet of Flynt Leverett’s bibliography from his website:
“Dr. Leverett is a leading authority on the Middle East and Persian Gulf, U.S.
foreign policy, and global energy affairs. From 1992 to 2003, he had a distinguished career
in the U.S. government, serving as Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National
Security Council, on the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff, and as a CIA Senior
Analyst. He left the George W. Bush Administration and government service in 2003 because
of disagreements about Middle East policy and the conduct of the war on terror.
Maybe it’s just me, but anyone who has supported for 11 years, at such high levels of power,
the many U.S. foreign atrocities as the people of the world have witnessed, should not
expect a warm reception from any rational human being, much less, financial support as his
web site requests. Leverett left the Bush administration not because of the war itself, but
because he disagreed of the “conduct”? This is change to believe in?
The “change” is worrisome on so many levels. As Senior analyst for the CIA, Leverett’s boss
would have been George Tenet. (You remember, Mr. ‘Slam Dunk’!)
“Tenet had a high-minded sense of what the DCI’s job is, to provide the best intelligence
to the president without a political agenda,” says Leverett.
Geesh, no wonder Tenet gave a strong endorsement to Leverett’s latest book, “Inheriting Syria: Bashar’s Trial by Fire.”
This from amazon.com:
No matter what your point of view, this is a well-written and solidly argued
book that could not be more timely. – George J. Tenet
Leverett obtaining an endorsement from George Tenet on the Middle East, is like
‘The Bernank’ giving an endorsement to Ron Paul!
More recently, Leverett sure played his hands ‘close to the table’ when testifying in the
Canadian Court proceedings regarding the rendition and torture of Maher Arar.
There are alarming tidbits in this story:
Ashcroft May Have Personally Ordered Arar Deportation.
Mr. Leverett, who is also a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency,
conceded under cross-examination that his old employer must have been involved at
some level if Mr. Arar was flown from the United States to the Middle East on a CIA aircraft.
[Emphasis added in above quote.]
And in that same story:
Mr. Leverett said yesterday that he was a source for some of the information
appearing in news reports about the Syrian connection with the CIA.
But he said could not account for other parts of the news accounts that said Syrian
intelligence had helped thwart an attack on the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.
A National Post story in July of 2003 quoted Mr. Leverett as a source in this regard.
Mr. Leverett said he had no direct knowledge of the alleged bomb plot and that all he was
really confirming to the Post reporter was that he had heard the same information that had
appeared in U.S. media.
He said he was interviewed by the Post shortly after leaving government and “I was still
learning how to talk to the press in a nuanced and clear way.”
Well, he must have been “learning how to talk” also when
he spoke with Seymore Hersh for the ‘The New Yorker’ on the same topic:
Syria also provided the United States with intelligence about future Al Qaeda plans. In one
instance, the Syrians learned that Al Qaeda had penetrated the security services of Bahrain
and had arranged for a glider loaded with explosives to be flown into a building at the U.S.
Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters there. Flynt Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst who served
until early this year on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the Saban
Center at the Brookings Institution, told me that Syria’s help “let us thwart an operation
that, if carried out, would have killed a lot of Americans.” The Syrians also helped the
United States avert a suspected plot against an American target in Ottawa.
Quite simply, it appears Leverett has more allegiance to the elites than to the whole truth.
Or to put it another way, using lyrics from an old song “Whose your Daddy, is he rich
like…?”
There are other examples to mention, but some words on the actual topic of this thread are
in order. After listening to Frank Gaffney
(yeah, this Frank Gaffney)
this evening verbally attack Putin on CNBC’s ‘The Kudlow Report”, the stage frame is now set in my mind.
The Headline from Leverett’s website reads:
WITH “ENGAGEMENT” FAILING, WASHINGTON VOICES URGE OBAMA TO EMBRACE THE MEK AND REMOVE ITS TERRORIST DESIGNATION.
Exactly what would a ‘SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT’ consist of? Successful to whom? After all,
these talks meant nothing to the Israeli/U.S. Neocon elites. There has been no secret that
the original desires of the Israeli/U.S. Neocons at the onset of the Iraq War was to proceed
with similar goals/destruction to the current government/people/culture of Iran. These
desires have not lessened, but why ring the alarm bell now? The headline and article sure
appear alarming, so much so, that it seems an attempt at furthering intimidation of Iran in
any future talks. But the Leverett’s would know better than that. Iran is more secure than
ever, Iran has grown as a trading partner with other nations, and Iran has grown in economic
terms despite sanctions. Today, for example, PressTV has a headline that “Iran signs $4
Billion worth of gas contracts” during the last 10 months. Another headline today: “Iran
constructing 5,000km railway”. All this in the background of closer ties with Syria, China
and Russia, while the U.S. relations with these nations are strained. ‘Embracing the MEK’
appears nothing more than words of desperation instead of a reality of choosing other
options, whether they be peaceful talks or military aggression.
I agree regarding ‘War on Iran’, that is “This can’t be true, it would be utter madness.”
Posted by: Rick Happ | Jan 25 2011 8:00 utc | 7
Some may remember I have *always* said that the US would not, will not, attack Iran. 10 years about.
I’m surprised b changed his mind!
In a way, it is less likely than ever.
The US has been getting steadily weaker, its image is slipping, tumbling fast.
Gvmt. Obama has been a crashing disappointment world-wide. Ppl feel fooled, and have examined US political structure and function more closely and have not liked what they found. The healthcare boondoggle astonished many – it appears Dems are even worse than Reps, – arguments along that line. One major factor: Obama is a lousy diplomat, he does not engage, is slow, bored, boring and haughty. Bush reputedly was obnoxious and sometimes rude, also dense, unsophisticated – these are flaws that can be worked with. Bush delegated a lot, stood by his ppl, Obama fails to even fill posts.
(Opinions from Int’l com. around here. fwiw)
Economy. Stiffing the world with securitized sub-prime toxic sludge did not go over well. Bail outs “appear” to originate in the US. Dollar hegemony is increasingly under attack, or at least questioned. The smooth picture of the US as the number one economic power-house is completely eroded. Its poverty, misleading stats, unequal wealth distribution, staggering debt, opaque Fed, oil consumption, waste, prison system, offshore tax havens, are all coming under scrutiny, where before they were invisible, ignored or explained away as particularities.
Security, anti-terrorism. (Also, immigration and the Patriot Act.) From Western Europe, on this point the US is: a laughing stock or a pre-fascist State, above all a country to be feared – not respected, but disdained. When ppl no longer want to visit a country because they expect they will be mistreated, as individuals, there is trouble ahead.
Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt broke the taboo of speaking out against Israel lobbies or being publicly anti-Zionist. The barrier that holds Israel / a Jewish State / Jews as some sacrosanct exception is crumbling, though ‘leaders’ uphold it still.
Foreign policy. Bush ..>.. Obama. Enough said. Gitmo. More could be added.
Now, weakness, shredding of image and status, economic power, can lead to inconsiderate lashing out, absolutely.
But not in this case I think, hope.
Internally. The weakness mentioned are, I think, keenly felt, if not digested and tackled. They do, however, signal a fork in the road, a choice between re-trenching and blasting aggression.
Where is the appetite in the US for more war? What is the result of Afgh. and Iraq invasions that ppl support, today, beyond the rah-rah or tinselly propaganda sound bites? How can an overstretched and extravagantly, ruinously expensive military embark on other forays?
Budget cuts? Something has to go. Moreover, Iran is not the deliberately weakened Iraq or the wild mountain west of Afgh. What happens to the world energy market when the Straits are shut, who is going to suffer? What would the backlash be world-wide for the hegemon?
Lastly, one has to admit that the US and Iran are more rivals than opponents, and the US has in fact by its actions strengthened Iran in the ME, much of the aggro action is symbolic and wordy, even hypocritical, and serves internal discourse, flag waving, etc.
Against Iran….The US policy of funding, hiring, encouraging proxies of any kind as long as they are against the enemy is so empty, lame, short-sighted, it is crazy… supporting the MEK? The power-house US, is to support a minuscule group of islamist communist terrorists ? Gimme a break. It is vaudeville.
(Ok the MEK is now sorta secular or whatever, and this is not the first time the MEK was up for re-hab.)
No. The US will not invade Iran.
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 26 2011 15:56 utc | 19
|
