Perhaps the strangest aspect of the strange case of Shahram Amiri is the behavior and public statements of U.S. officials since Amiri returned to Iran. These officials are talking to the media about Amiri in a way that makes one think they are out to goad the Iranian government into prosecuting Amiri for espionage. Why would they do that? Are they simply immature and unprofessional? Or, could it be that Amiri told them something they did not want to hear?
We wrote last week, see here, that
“along with trying to figure out details of Amiri’s trajectory over the last year, journalists ought to be focusing on what the [CIA’s] willingness to pay $5 million to a hyped-up source signals about the U.S. Intelligence Community’s desperation to make a prosecutor’s case against the Islamic Republic. Indeed, the CIA and the rest of the Intelligence Community seem sufficiently desperate to make their case that they will pay taxpayer dollars to gotten-up defectors who might be prepared to say—for the right price—what Washington elites want to hear…
Some have speculated that Amiri may have helped the United States learn more about Iran’s second enrichment site near Qom—a site which, in any event, Tehran disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency last September, well before the introduction of any nuclear material. But it would seem that the U.S. Intelligence Community, even in the wake of Shahram Amiri’s return to Tehran, continues to have no evidence validating claims that there is a secret, parallel, military nuclear program in Iran, aimed ultimately at the fabrication of nuclear weapons.”
Now Gareth Porter has published an interesting piece, see here, reporting that
“contrary to a news media narrative that Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri has provided intelligence on covert Iranian nuclear weapons work, CIA sources familiar with the Amiri case say he told his CIA handlers that there is no such Iranian nuclear weapons programme…revelations about Amiri’s reporting debunks a media narrative in which Amiri provided some of the key evidence for a reversal by the intelligence community of its 2007 conclusion that Iran had not resumed work on nuclear weapons…In creating that false narrative, journalists have evidently been guided by personal convictions on the issue that are aligned with certain U.S., European and Israeli officials who have been pressuring the Barack Obama administration to reject the 2007 estimate. For the Israelis and for some U.S. officials, reversing the conclusion that Iran is not actively pursuing weaponisation is considered a precondition for manoeuvring U.S. policy into a military confrontation with Iran.”
We, of course, do not know what Amiri said or did not say to the U.S. Government or anyone else during his time in America. We have always been skeptical about claims that Amiri was a major intelligence breakthrough. As we wrote, in April, see here,
“[H]ow could it be that Amiri, who would have been 31 years old at the time of his defection, would have had meaningful access to anything sensitive about Iran’s nuclear program—much less to have had such access “for at least a decade”? Unless Amiri completed his doctorate as a teenager and was given a senior position in Iran’s nuclear program with high level access at the age of 20 or 21, this claim literally does not add up.”
As we have noted previously, see here, we believe, like Porter, that some want ultimately to maneuver the United States into a military confrontation with Iran. Certainly, Israel and other parties have been working since the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program was released to see that the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) toughened up its bottom-line judgments about the Iranian nuclear “threat”. Undoubtedly, this pressure has helped to fuel what we described as the IC’s “desperation” to make a prosecutor’s case against the Islamic Republic over the nuclear issue.
But even “desperate” intelligence collection efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies may not be paying off. As we wrote last week,
“Whatever information the CIA obtained from Amiri is supposedly being incorporated into a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program–an estimate that was supposed to be released earlier this year but which, according to Newsweek, will probably be delayed for several more months. The delay strongly suggests that the Intelligence Community cannot reach a consensus on whether and how to revise the previous NIE on Iranian nuclear matters, released in December 2007–which famously concluded that Iran had stopped working on purely weapons-related aspects of its nuclear program in 2003.”
If Gareth Porter’s report is accurate, Amiri did not simply fail to produce a “smoking gun”—he created a real roadblock for those who are determined to redirect the IC’s judgments about the Iranian nuclear program. As Porter writes,
[I]nformation from Amiri’s debriefings was only a minor contribution to the intelligence community’s reaffirmation in the latest assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) finding that work on a nuclear weapons has not been resumed after being halted in 2003. Amiri’s confirmation is cited in one or more footnotes to the new intelligence assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme, called a “Memorandum to Holders”…but is now being reviewed, in light of Amiri’s “re-defection” to Iran.
An intelligence source who has read the “Memorandum to Holders” in draft form confirmed…that it presents no clear-cut departure from the 2007 NIE on the question of weaponisation. The developments in the Iranian nuclear programme since the 2007 judgment are portrayed as “subtle and complex”, said the source.”
It will be fascinating to see just where the much anticipated and already overdue National Intelligence Estimate comes out—and whether the U.S. government, even in its internal deliberations, has a real case that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
- Individuals who commence drinking early, say at age 15 or earlier, are higher-risk prospects for alcohol addiction.
NeilM,
I agree that one reason for Israel’s 2006 rampage in Lebanon was the mistaken hope it would demonstrate Israeli total domination and control of the battlefield. The murderous rampage in Gaza was primarily driven by domestic political concerns related to the elections.
To me, the utter imbecility of US policy in Afghanistan arises from the simple fact that the very presence of American troops causes more unrest (and worse) than it dampens down. The US is the wrong country to be taking such a high profile in Afghanistan, and sadly this is a fact Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates seem incapable of conprehending.
James Canning,
It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that America’s attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, were undertaken to create an illusion of military superiority.
Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza were the softest of soft targets, having virtually zero capacity to defend themselves from the type of attack deployed against them. Afghanistan was slightly different in that it was perceived as a soft target because it lacked a centrally coordinated Western-style military force incorporating air defenses and heavy/long range weapons. But the resistance has mobility, is dispersed, and has hundreds of years of skirmish experience which has numerous advantages over the base + bunker mentality of a conventional WWII-style occupying force.
Afghanistan also illustrates the tendency of colonisers to create the impression that they believe their own propaganda. This is best illustrated by the fatuous claim that the people losing the ‘war’ in Afghanistan, us, must stay there to teach the people who are winning, Afghans, how to defend themselves. Needless to say, this training is expensive, irrational and fruitless. Similarities between the Afghanistan and Vietnam triumphs of enthusiasm over commonsense outnumber differences by 3 or 4 to 1.
There is simply no recent (~~30 years) precedent for either Israel or America attacking a target with its conventional and unconventional defenses intact – let alone a record of success in so doing. From a political standpoint, neither can afford to fight an optional war as if it were a cause worth dying for – whereas the targets don’t have the luxury of an alternative perception. For them, it’s do or die.
The grossly incompetent American foreign minister, Condoleezza Rice, called the Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 2006 “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”! What an idiot!
Amnesty International determined that Israel killed more than 1000 civilians during its rampage in Lebanon in 2006. And destroyed 15,000 houses, 120 bridges, 94 roads, 24 fuel stations, and 900 factories.
Neil M,
I agree with you, obviously, that Hezbollah would not attack Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon (and Hezbollah) first.
Joe Klein, in his Time-CNN piece July 15th, asserted that if Israel attacked Iran, Hezbollah would “certainly” attack Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia! Astounding rubbish! Hezbollah has made clear it IS NOT the enemy of the US.
Klein says the US has been foolish enough to bring the Israelis into the planning for a possible attack on Iran. Sheer idiocy by CENTCOM. But not such a surprise, given that David Petraeus was in charge of CENTCOM.
R S Hack: “But if I was Nasrallah, I would NOT launch an attack on Israel UNLESS there was an attack on Iran.”
Well, it’s lucky for the Lebanese that RSH isn’t Nasrallah.
Hezbollah is a defensive force. The notion that it would launch an unprovoked attack on Israel because Israel attacked Iran, or any other reason, is the fanciful and uninformed product of Israeli group-think. Beirut is a sitting duck for the IOF Air Force and the Lebanese would be very reluctant to forgive them for inviting Israel’s Goths and Vandals to bomb it again.
Shame – USrael ‘crippling sanctions’ are not going to work after-all.
London-based energy think tank, Energy Market Consultants (EMC), has released a report which has predicted that by upgrading some of its refineries, Islamic Iran not only will be able to meet its domestic gasoline needs but by 2015, it will be able to begin exporting some of its refined products.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/israeli-crippling-sanctions-are-not-going-to-work-after-all/
Richard Steven Hack,
Excellent points. I think Hezbollah will stick to its stated programme of not attacking Israel unless Israel attacks first, not least because this is the position the Lebanese PM relies on when he says Lebanon needs a strong Hezbollah for protection against another Israeli mauling of the entire country.
I too very much doubt Hamas would attack Israel, unless Israel launches another insane rampage.
While I can see the strategic thinking in which Iran would not retaliate for an Israeli attack, I think it is certain or virtually certain Iran would launch a counter-attack.
I continue to doubt Israel would attack Lebanon and Iran at the same time. I think Israel was considering attacking Iran back in 2006, but wanted to get rid of the “threat” posed by Hezbollah, and that this is the reason the flimsy pretext was used to launch the insane smashing of Lebanon. Fortunately, the effort to destroy Hezbollah quickly failed.
Mr. Canning: “Hezbollah has made clear it will not attack Israel unless Israel attacks first. I don’t think Iran would expect Hezbollah to attack Israel as a response to an insane Israeli attack on Iran.”
I agree with both statements – but not unconditionally. As I said, Nasrallah would be foolish to believe that if Israel attacks Iran, it will not attack Hizballah (and perhaps Syria) at the same time.
An attack by Israel on Iran – even just a one-time minimal attack on a couple of nuclear facilities – is a game changer. It will invite a serious Iranian retaliation, unless the Iranians are extremely calm and the damage is so minimal as to enable them to use the attack as a PR move against Israel. Much more likely is that such an attack would ignite a fire storm in the region.
Because of this, Israel has to cover all its strategic bases. It CANNOT assume that Hizballah won’t retaliate. The odds therefore are that Israel WILL attack Hizballah either before or during an attack on Iran.
Therefore Hizballah has to take that into account. The question is whether Nasrallah will see an attack on Iran as an attack on an important ally, and therefore will he score points with the Arab street by initiating an attack on Israel in retaliation. and whether that calculation overrides the opposite problem of being blamed in Lebanon for initiating an attack on Israel which will result in hardship for Lebanese.
Also there is the issue of initiative. As I said, Nasrallah must assume that Israel will attack Hizballah before or during an attack on Iran because ISRAEL must assume that Hizballah will attack Israel. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem that won’t go away absent Israel declaring that if it attacks Iran, it will not attack Hizballah first. If Israel declared that – and if Nasrallah believed it – then Israel could attack Iran with some reason to believe that Hizballah might not attack Israel in retaliation.
I leave Hamas out of it because they have more to lose than anybody and attacking Israel just because of an attack on Iran would be risky, especially if Hizballah doesn’t automatically retaliate. That would leave Gaza in a pickle. So I believe Hamas will NOT attack Israel in retaliation for an attack on Iran UNLESS Israel attacks Gaza at the same time OR Hizballah makes a deal with Hamas to retaliate.
My expectation is that, unless Israel intends a minimal attack on Iran – just a pin prick to get Iran to retaliate and drag the US into it, Israel will go for broke in an attack on Iran. By that I mean Israel will try to roll up all its enemies in one go. Israel will attack Hizballah and probably Syria as well – because to take out Hizballah, Israel will have to occupy the Bekaa Valley – which will entail Israel either fighting its way up Lebanon against Hizballah’s determined opposition, OR swinging around through Syria – which entails a conflict with Syria. So Israel will do it all – they will attack Syria, degrade its military, then launch an attack on Hizballah in Lebanon. This will occur DURING its aerial attack on Iran which will be conducted as a separate contained operation.
My expectation is that the end result will be Israel being attacked by Iranian missiles, while Hizballah blunts the IDF’s advance into Lebanon, and the remnants of the Syrian army conduct harassing attacks on Israel’s rear as the IDF tries to get into the Bekaa Valley. The end result will be a stalemate, just like the 2006 war. And the consequences will be that Syria’s attitude will be much hardened and far more likely to be supporting Hizballah in Lebanon. Indeed. once Israel has withdrew back to its borders, Syria is likely to re-occupy Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israel will have been hit by 20-30.000 Hizballah missiles killing hundreds of Israeli civilians, lost a significant number of IAF jets to the new Hizballah and Syrian man portable AA missiles, taken one to two thousand IDF casualties – and gotten nothing in return.
All that will be overshadowed by the US Iran war, however.
Richard Steven Hack,
Hezbollah has made clear it will not attack Israel unless Israel attacks first. I don’t think Iran would expect Hezbollah to attack Israel as a response to an insane Israeli attack on Iran.
It is in the best interests of the US for Hezbollah to be sufficiently strong to deter another insane Israeli smashing of Lebanon. Saad Hariri, the Lebanese PM, says Hezbollah should be seen as an element supporting stability in his country, by preventing yet another rampage by Israel.
Mr. Canning: “I agree with Richard that you are dead wrong to say Israel can attack Lebanon and Iran at the same time.”
That’s not precisely what I said. I agree with you that it seems the Israeli military has that view, or at least the view that it would be better to attack Hizballah first – but that does not mean that Israel COULD NOT attack both countries at the same time. As I said, Israel isn’t really going to be fighting Iran at all (except for a few missiles). They’ll just start the war, then let the US fight it. It’s Hizballah missiles that could be the problem for Israel if it attacks Iran. Not an existential problem, of course, but a PR problem for its relations to its citizenry.
Therefore I think the evidence indicates the IDF wants to “take out” Hizballah before taking on Iran. Unfortunately for them, despite their revised strategy and tactics, I don’t think they can do it. How this will affect their planning for the attack on Iran is a question I don’t have a good answer for. But if they fail to take out Hizballah, then if they ever do want to start a war with Iran next, they’ll have to take on both Iran and Hizballah at the same time.
All this speculation assumes Nasrallah would actually attack Israel in retaliation for an attack on Iran without the IDF first attacking Hizballah. It’s not clear that this is a certainty. OTOH, I suspect Israel WOULD attack Hizballah as PART of an attack on Iran, just on general principle, because the IDF would ASSUME or wish to prevent Hizballah from having the initiative in that case.
Which leads us back to the probability that Israel would rather do it BEFORE an attack on Iran.
And also leads us back to the “chicken and egg” problem that if I were Nasrallah, and I saw Israel launching an attack on Iran, I’d go ahead and attack Israel because I’d have to assume, based on the above logic, that Israel is going to attack me as well.
But if I was Nasrallah, I would NOT launch an attack on Israel UNLESS there was an attack on Iran. Why? Because in Fourth Generation War, credibility is the main goal. And I would want Hizballah to be able to credibly state that they did not start another war with Israel. Let Israel take the blame – because in fact it IS Israel and its aggressive policies that are to blame.
Although this gives the IDF the initiative, the whole thrust of Hizballah’s military strategy is to let the IDF make the first move, then, like a good martial artist, finish the fight on one’s own terms, taking advantage of the enemy’s mistakes and lack of good intel on what Hizballah is capable of doing.
Neil: “My remarks about Israel’s nuclear arsenal are the self-explanatory results of deductive reasoning and require no further proof.”
I’m giggling, excuse me.
“The arsenal is, after all, only a rumor. However, I regard the highly-publicised Vanunu story (about Israel’s “secret” arsenal) as too conveniently unverifiable; being a wholly Israeli contrivance.”
Ridiculous. If you broached that nonsense to anyone in Western intelligence, they’d laugh you out of the room.
“The bomb-Iran chatter is a diversion from something else. I’m not sure exactly what…”
Your humility is endearing, but misplaced. Israel and the US are very serious about the non-existent Iranian bomb program, just as they were about the non-existent Iraqi bomb program.
Based on your “ethnic cleansing” comment, I assume you mean that the US government is doing all this – including moving fighter bombers, heavy ordinance, and other facilities to Diego Garcia within range of Iran, and conducting covert operations inside Iran – solely for the purpose of assisting the Israelis is driving out the Palestinians.
More nonsense. While the Israelis certainly would like to drive the Palestinians away (or alternatively use them as compliant slave labor), the reality is that Israel wants IRAN to go away as well. And the nonsense about an Iranian bomb is intended to persuade the US to do that for them. If this is obvious to a fifth grader, I can’t comprehend why you can’t see it.
There isn’t a shred of “deductive reasoning” – or inductive reasoning, for that matter – anywhere in your comments.
re: James Canning (July 21, 1:21 pm)
“Are you saying that the Israeli kidnapping of Vanunu was part of a scheme to pretend Israel had nukes when it did not?”
Yes, James.
I contend that Israel has fewer big, quickly deliverable, nukes than could be thought of as a deterrent. If the fabled 100 to 600 nukes fell into that category Israel would say so. That’s what deterrence is all about.
But the pro-Israel crowd sells existential fear of a future nuclear armed Iran by asking us to believe that Iranians are insane.
But it’s irrelevant. The bomb-Iran chatter is a diversion from something else. I’m not sure exactly what, but the fact that Israel is stepping up its ethnic-cleansing in Palestine is a strong possibility. Inviting the world to fearfully ponder the logic of destroying a country with 70 million inhabitants, to ‘protect’ 6 million social engineers, works for me as a conspiracy plot.
Some Iranian circle fear that Amiri could have become a double agent or a Sayanim (helper in Hebrew) for CIA and Israeli Mossad – because he was interogated by both CIA and Mossad agent. Reportedly there could be as many as one million Sayanim around the world.
Daniel Pearl immortalized
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/daniel-pearl-immortalized/
paul,
I agree with Richard that you are dead wrong to say Israel can attack Lebanon and Iran at the same time. This is not the view of the Israeli military.
The head of Cuba’s parliament, Ricardo Alarcon, said recently that “The US tries to hide facts [regarding Iran's nuclear programme]. It sursues an illlogical attitude to Iran.” Right on target, in my view.
Fiorangela. You write “several major US government agencies are behaving like the then-19 year old Hurst, deluded and seduced into acting tough without understanding either the nature of the gangster ideology that’s exploiting them, and heedless of the harm that is being inflicted on others.”
Nicely phrased, but seriously, how can they be that ignorant? The gangster ideology is “exploiting” them? They are “heedless of the harm”?
If Sheehan can call it like it is, if you can write what you write, why excuse these people with ignorance?
This is a conceptual problem I have: do you think that Madeleine Albright was “not well informed”? Or that Condi Rice was “ignorant of the harm of others”? Or that Hilary is somehow unaware of the colonial enterprise?
Fiorangela,
The true interests of the US and Iran mesh closely, in a “geopolitical” sense. They are natural allies, but for the Israel lobby. Trita Parsi is dead wrong on this issue. The development of the South Pars natural gas field, in the Gulf between Qatar and Iran, would be in the best interests of the American people, but the sanctions are making the project much more difficult.
Richard Steven Hack,
and let’s remember that Lyndon Johnson prevented the FBI from investigating the theft of more than 600 pounds of enriched U from a facility in Pennsylvania, because the nuclear materials- – sufficient to build 20 or 30 nukes – - went to Israel.
Rehmat,
Bret Stephens has put out “pro-Israel” propaganda in the Wall Street Journal for years now. He relentlessly promotes the insane neocon vision of world “order”.
Neil M,
Are you saying that the Israeli kidnapping of Vanunu was part of a scheme to pretend Israel had nukes when it did not? Or an effort to punish someone for letting the world know Israel had numerous nukes? The best count I have seen is 200-300 nukes.
Arnold (and others):
It’s off-topic here, but I’ve posted a lengthy response to some of your “nuclear issue” questions in the earlier “march to war” thread:
http://www.raceforiran.com/israels-long-march-to-war-with-iran-via-the-u-s-flynt-leverett-on-antiwar-radio#comment-14631
Neil you sat :
“The [Israel's] arsenal is, after all, only a rumor.”
You are not the first, nor the last who thought, they are dealing with a bunch of idiots here. Your impression is wrong my friend. How do you want us to take your further claim? AS jokes? like this one?
Professor Bret Stephens, a fellow with the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, wrote an apologetic column in the Israel Hasbara (propaganda) Wall Street Journal (July 20, 2010) – to provide some ‘genuine’ excuses for Israeli fears to start its most deadly war with the Islamic Republic alone…….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/wsj-why-israel-hasnt-bombed-iran-yet/
Neil M, I was tempted to stop reading your comment at this phrase: “Rational contingency planning.” What a quaint notion.
This morning’s news reported that Hillary Clinton stood in Korea’s DMZ and declared a new round of sanctions against N. Korea, but, she assured the suffering people of N. Korea, the sanctions were not intended to harm them. Supporting news reports noted that various forms of militarized threat are being put in place around N. Korea, whose presence is related to the “judgment” that N. Korea was responsible for the blast that destroyed a S. Korean submarine.
Clinton later observed that it was not expected that sanctions would be effective.
What is rational about any of this performance?
N. Korea did not sink the sub, the US did; it is known that sanctions won’t work, it is known that sanctions are a form of collective punishment that DO harm innocent civilians. Rational?
Hillary Clinton’s presence at Korea’s DMZ brought to mind the iconic photo of Patty Hurst assuming a gangsta pose, outsized weapon in hand, in a San Francisco bank. The US State Department is a latter day Symbionese Liberation Army, rampaging about brandishing weapons and threats and displaying a profound misunderstanding of how power is wielded.
Yesterday, John McLaughlin, former deputy director of CIA, observed that the US has only had an intelligence gathering organization since 1947, but China has records of intelligence operations reaching back over 600 years. A similar observation could be made about every other major institution of US government and projection of power; the US is the new kid on the block, not the mature, elder, “rational” exemplar. Unfortunately, several major US government agencies are behaving like the then-19 year old Hurst, deluded and seduced into acting tough without understanding either the nature of the gangster ideology that’s exploiting them, and heedless of the harm that is being inflicted on others.
Regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal, you may wish to view a video by Prof. Ian Lustic of University of Pennsylvania, (www dot edmaysproductions dot net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv ) who discussed Israel’s “Third Temple,” and noted that discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is so thoroughly controlled by Israel that his friend, Avner Cohen, was forced to leave Israel for the safety of the United States after he wrote Israel and the Bomb.
Richard,
Thanks for leading your response by debunking something I didn’t mention; Russia/China.
My remarks about Israel’s nuclear arsenal are the self-explanatory results of deductive reasoning and require no further proof. The arsenal is, after all, only a rumor. However, I regard the highly-publicised Vanunu story (about Israel’s “secret” arsenal) as too conveniently unverifiable; being a wholly Israeli contrivance.
Neil: No, China and Russia are not going to attack the US over Iran. Get serious.
“An attack on Iran is so impractical and unlikely that we really should be looking for the real reasons behind the hysterical hype.”
Well, when you find those reasons, do post them here.
“pretty persuasive evidence that Israel’s “huge” nuclear arsenal (deterrent) exists only in the minds of Israel’s wishful thinkers.”
Apparently you aren’t familiar with the assessments of the world’s intelligence communities that Israel has at minimum 200 nuclear weapons of various sizes. Estimates range as high as 600. Israel had nuclear weapons back in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s and has been cranking them out for the last thirty years.
If you think that’s bogus, produce some evidence.
Pauk: “I think it’s got to be perfectly obvious that Israel can attack Hezbollah simultaneously with attacking Iran,”
I did say it was not a certainty that Israel MUST attack Lebanon first – but from Israel’s point of view it would make sense to do so. The problem for Israel is how much military and geopolitical damage they might take which might cause them problems in attacking Iran. Most military forces the size of Israel’s is not in a position to engage in a two-front war. In the case of Iran, Israel doesn’t even have to fight ANY war with Iran, other than shooting down Iran’s missiles. All Israel has to do is START the war and the US will take it from there.
However, IF Hizballah decides to take the side of Iran, this poses a problem for Israel’s leaders in that Hizballah MAY – IF it has the missiles Israel claims it has – be able to cause Israel enough damage to cause its citizens to be unhappy that Israel initiated an attack on Iran.
Therefore, it is more logical for Israel to try to take out Hizballah’s arsenal before attacking Iran. Now, it IS likely that they will fail in that effort just as they did in 2006. And that might or might not cause them to postpone any pending attack on Iran until they are able to spin that failure.
So I think it’s not unreasonable to view any attack on Lebanon in the near future as a bellwether on an Israeli attack on Iran.
You could be entirely correct that Israel may well attack Iran, Lebanon, Syria all at once. I wouldn’t be at all surprised by that, and neither would Colonel Pat Lang, who used to think Israel might attack Syria in order to swing around and come in on Hizballah’s right flank against the Bekaa Valley. However, he now thinks that because Israel didn’t do any competent maneuvering in 2006 that they aren’t even smart enough to try something like that. I suggested to him that such a maneuver would be problematic, as it could end up with Israel fighting the remnants of the Syrian military in their rear, while Hizballah ties them down in the Bekaa Valley, a classic recipe for disaster.
So, no, my suggestion is not “nonsense”. It’s merely a very plausible possibility.
I’ve been wondering just how much more half-baked this talk of attacking Iran will get before someone admits it’s not going to happen. I’ve yet to see any evidence that America (or Israel) has addressed the issue of who might, or might not, come to Iran’s aid if it becomes the target of an unprovoked attack. This is relevant because the prospect of an alliance capable of striking the continental USA would seem to require careful consideration. Rational contingency planning, if nothing else, would require a sharpening of defenses on the USA home front. This would tend to dilute the assets available to the Iran and other off-shore chapters of the War on Terror.
Whilst the Iran propaganda is similar to that employed pre-Iraq, the similarities end there. In military terms, Iraq had not recovered from the war with Iran when the Gulf War came along and further diminished its capacity. Then the US and UK imposed draconian sanctions and systematically destroyed its ability to defend itself. This became self-evident when the Iraqi armed forces surrendered a fortnight or so after the ‘war’ began (but to no avail, of course. Cowardice and bullying trumped chivalry long ago among the US of A’s political “elites”).
Iran emerged from the Iran-Iraq war in better shape than Iraq and has been restoring its military capacity, with the benefit of hindsight, ever since.
An attack on Iran is so impractical and unlikely that we really should be looking for the real reasons behind the hysterical hype. Apart from anything else the Iran Talk from Israel is pretty persuasive evidence that Israel’s “huge” nuclear arsenal (deterrent) exists only in the minds of Israel’s wishful thinkers.
Did Cindy lose her run for Congress??
The American people have a hard time with straight shooters, in spite of all the myths to the contrary.
This lady has guts like no one else
Requiem for the Antiwar Movement
By Cindy Sheehan
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25970.htm
« During the campaign, many colleagues and friends of mine, assured me that Obama was just saying this hostile crap to “get elected” and once he was elected that he would “do the right thing.” Well, first of all, why support such a pandering Jackwagon, and secondly, how has that ever worked? Three days after Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, he drone-bombed a “target” in Pakistan killing 3 dozen civilians—and since that day he has elevated the art of drone bombings to new heights, while the so-called antiwar movement looks on in silent complacency and while Democratic operatives disguised as antiwar groups are hoping against hope that Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.” Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts. Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all? »
Fiorangela says:“the differences between Iran, Israel, and the US are not ideological, they are geopolitical.”
Actions speak louder than the Hasbara lies. When it comes to “ideological and geopolitical” agenda – both the US and Israel are ‘twin sisters’. They both believe in western colonialism and imperialism – and ‘everything is kosher in love and war’. The living example is how the Israel Lobby is currently ganging on the ‘Islamophobe’ Glenn Beck – a darling of anti-Muslim and anti-Iran Zionist mafia. Now, he is hounded as “paranoid”, “anti-Semite”, “Nazi-loving” and “a Jew hater” – for making some ‘political wrong’ statements about the Jewish elites.
Islamic Iran, on the other hand, has unique ideological (Islamic ethics) and NO geopolitical agenda in the region. It’s trying to be the voice of the oppressed people around the world.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/from-islamophobe-to-anti-semite/
James Canning: When Trita Parsi was on book tour with “Treacherous Alliance,” he began his stump speech with the statement, “the differences between Iran, Israel, and the US are not ideological, they are geopolitical.”
I’ve discussed that concept with many people. The bottom line is, ideology underlies the geopolitics.
I take your point that greed is also a major factor. But ideology blinds the greedy to the reality that honest trade could obtain resources for those who need them, and honest trade could most fairly distribute the world’s resources.
Adam Smith capitalism was posited on Smith’s understanding that markets would work for the benefit of the many, and to the extent that some were unable to participate, that Christian values required that those who DID benefit from participation in capitalism would ensure that the poor were sustained.
Predatory capitalism is a system that elevates a winner take all mentality, and that sees as the most secure source of great wealth, the state.
speaking of “idiot supporters”
Obama: Iran’s path of defiance will only bring it more isolation
At press conference with British PM Cameron, Obama says U.S. remains committed to diplomatic solution to conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.
note: the article is, once again, by our Russian friend,
“By Natasha Mozgovaya”
US committment to diplomatic solution includes denying Iranian students the ability to participate in English language learning and certification programs.
Includes “single entry” visas for Iranian students studying in US: once in US, you may not return to Iran; if you do, you may not re-enter US.
Obama has become a monster and Obama and the US Congress, complicit with US media, is turning the US in a nation of monsters.
NOT IN MY NAME
NOT ON MY WATCH
The secretary general of the UN said today in effect that Iran is an essential part of achieving stability in Afghanistan. How remarkable that this very obvious state of affairs, is virtually never even mentioned in US newspapers or on network TV news in America! And what is that? Israel lobby! So the obvious way forward, in seeking stability in Afghanistan, is closed off by idiot “supporters” of Israel.
I recommend David Hughes’ comments, “Why did Tony Blair ignore MI5’s advice?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100047915/why-did-tony-blair-ignore-mi5s-advice
Fiorangela,
Is it really ideology vs fact-driven foreign policy? I think the snout-in-the-trough syndrome looms very large over the entire picture. It is a feeding frenzy for the colossal troop of so-called intelligence analysts etc (and their lawyers and lobbyists), and the armaments manufacturers (and their gigantic power apparatus) – - coupled with the Israel lobby.
What if the NIE 2007, and both heads of the IAEA have said there’s no nuclear weapons program (which they did.)
ANSWER: doesn’t make any difference because the entire “Iranian nuclear weapons program” is pretextual anyway.
Food co-op votes to boycott Israeli products
July 20, 2010
(JTA) — A food co-op in Washington State has voted not to sell products made in Israel.
The boycott approved July 15 by the board of directors of the Olympia Food Co-op covers products made in all of Israel, not just the West Bank. The co-op has two grocery stores that carried Israeli products including ice cream, crackers and a line of baby wipes.
Olympia is the hometown of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 as she attempted to prevent a Palestinian home from being demolished.
To have called John McGlaughlin a “shill” was, perhaps, unfair. He handled himself well and explained the intelligence agency fairly.
My objection is to his underlying and unquestioned premise that “terrorists” are at the heart of threats to US; his failure to acknowledge that US actions produce reactions that are really the source of the threat; and, most importantly, that at least one foreign government that has every potential to do great harm to the US is not only not recognized as a threat but is privy to and participating in US intelligence gathering and defense.
On June 8, I posted the English interpretation of what Amiri was saying here
raceforiran.com/supporting-occupation-and-motivating-new-terrorists-obama%E2%80%99s-failure-to-deliver-on-his-cairo-speech
I was bewildered, at the end of the comment I wrote:
“..How did Amiri managed to produce and send the video to Iran? Is this like NIE that stopped Bush from attacking Iran? I had many puzzling questions after Iranians captured Rigi……..now this…………is there a patriotic American (who provided this video to Iranians) trying to stop US from starting another heinous war?”
Now after weeks, after couple of new videos and dozens’s of contradicting articles the fuzzy picture is getting just a bit clearer.
As an amateur, among other point I still see NIE, both the old…. and the new one. I see onscientious American groups or individuals are realizing who is pulling the strings to use them, to send them to another war…I see they are determined not to get fooled again…they are resisting to produce false NIE….and more.
James Canning, in my optimistic dreams I imagine there’s a battle raging in the US foreign policy community over whether to reassert old fashioned policy — facts, truth, that stuff; or ideology.
Sadly, from the shills* the Intelligence community is sending out to beat back the powerful critique of “Homeland Security” and the out-of-control intelligence gathering operation that is mushrooming in Washington that Washington Post exposed, I’m guessing the war hawks have the upper hand.
* c-span dot org/Watch/Media/2010/07/20/WJE/A/35767/John+McLaughlin+Acting+CIA+Director+2004 dot aspx
China surpasses US as world’s top energy consumer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100720/ap_on_hi_te/as_china_energy
Bravo of course to Gareth Porter for poking holes in the false narrative that US media has been composing and trying to sell the ignorant and lazy American public.
Perhaps I should say astonishingly ignorant and intellectually lazy about foreign affairs, diplomacy, history, etc etc etc.
By the way, great photo of General Colin Powell as stooge or dupe of the warmongers, with George Tenet sitting behind while false intelligence is sold to the global community. To set up an illegal invasion of Iraq on knowingly false pretenses.
Is it fair to say that “certain Israeli officials” are conspiring to subvert the national security of the US, by arranging or helping to arrange for a false NIE on Iran? As part of an idiotic effort to crush Palestinian resistance to wholesale thefts of Palestinian land and water in the West Bank?
Bravo! The warmongers did not want to hear that Iraq had no WMD so they faked up what was needed to dupe the public, and provide provide cover for gullible politicians. We are seeing the same vicious games played out, and for same concealed purpose: “protecting” Israel (and enabling continuing insane effort to crush Palestinian national spirit).
Liz,
For Iran to create hurdles, difficulties and to some extend halt the US/ West designs and policies for the region, does not require having a military nuclear program, all it needs to do is to maintain its independence and become a role model for the rest of the Muslim world in the region, Iran with its culture, technology and independence can start a domino effect which arguably has been started for some time, all one needs to do is to read beyond the news propaganda and compare the today’s geopolitical map of the region with pre 79.
Interestingly, while the US NIE claimed that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons, it really produced no evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program in the first place.
Richard S Hack wrote:
“As to whether Hizballah actually has been given some form of SCUD missile by Syria, I think we have to wait and see in the course of a war whether that is true.”
It doesn’t matter if the tale is true or untrue.
Eric analyzed in fine detail the failure to prove that Iran supplied weapons seized by Israel from the Francop.
In 2001, Khatami was attempting to extend a hand to the US and to the new Bush administration. On Jan. 3, 2002, Israel seized the Karine in international waters and claimed it was transporting 50 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. The claim was broadly disputed and evidence was sketchy, but it didn’t matter: in his state of the Union address on Jan. 29, 2002, George Bush declared Iran part of the “axis of evil.”
From Israel’s perspective, evidence doesn’t matter. Israel operates on a far different set of assumptions from the fine, rhetorical, logical, jurisprudential assumptions of some of the commenters on this forum.
I refer you to Francis Bacon’s analogy of styles of thinking: some are ants, they gather facts and accumulate them but don’t analyze them.
Some are spiders: they manufacture theories from the substance of their own making. Israeli — and US foreign policy — is “spider thinking.” Thomas Barnett’s “Pentagon’s New Map” is also “spider thinking,” and in his case, somebody like me (most like an ant) would observe that the “substance” of Barnett’s psyche was under extreme pressure when he formulated the theories of Pentagon’s New Map: his daughter’s life was threatened. Barnett’s neural processes were bathed in chemicals that evoked the most profound survival instincts, fiercely aggressive and defensive. Israel has sustained its people in what Avigail Abarbenal and Ian Lustic have called “a perpetual state of PTSD,” using fear of “another Holocaust” to keep Israelis in a perpetual aggressive/defensive posture. The neural chemistry of facts and logic is simply not powerful enough to overcome the fear factor with which the Israeli collective psyche is bathed; evidence doesn’t matter.
Francis Bacon lavished his attention on the bees: bees combined observations of nature — gathering facts, with logical formulation of theory, to arrive at what we now call Enlightenment Thinking: the scientific method, in the seventeenth century, the most profound cultural revolution the world had ever known. The American people enjoy the great good fortune that their nation’s founders were well-versed in Enlightenment thinking, and drafted America’s founding principles on the basis of “bee thinking.” Mr. Brill’s analysis of the evidence of the provenance of weapons aboard the Francop was “the bee’s knees:” Brill gathered facts from nature and analyzed it logically.
Several years ago, scientists and agronomists voiced their growing concern at the disappearance of honey bees, an essential part of the food chain. One writer observed,
“When suspiciously large numbers of honeybee colonies started collapsing in late 2006, the search began to find the culprit behind the mysterious deaths. Now it seems a whole web of problems may be causing what’s known as colony collapse disorder.
Spider thinking is causing the collapse of Enlightenment thinking, the greatest revolution the world has known, and the Hope diamond in America’s treasure chest. The ramifications are stunning.
Flynt and Hillary are to be commended for pointing this out, as is Gareth Porter – who deserves additional credit for cataloguing the anonymously-sourced leaks over the preceding several months that Amiri had provided evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program.
When the time came for the US government to confirm those rumors – last week, when Amiri returned to Iran – it declined to do so, notwithstanding some clever wording in numerous stories that suggested otherwise. That’s quite telling, as the Leveretts point out, and Gareth Porter’s article shows that the reason for that is precisely what many skeptics suspected: Amiri had said nothing of the sort.
I find this kind of sneering …
“All the same, however, reports swirl across the Middle East, including of Israeli helicopters ferrying supplies to the Royal Saudi Air Force base at Tubruz, as first reported by Iran’s Fars News Agency. A news flash saying the US and Israel were prepping airfields from which to strike Iran from Georgia and Azerbaijan is just as sketchy. The credibility of these accounts can be summed up by Darth Vader demanding, “What of the reports of the rebels massing near Sullist?” On the whole, not much.”
… quite fascinating. Oh yes, by all means, holy and sacred alternapundits, yes, we should all just sit on our hands and wait for the war to happen, at which point we can say “oh my goodness one could never have seen that coming” or, alternatively “gee, I saw it coming all along, aren’t I smart?”, for to actually try to discern the flashpoint BEFORE it happens would be ALARMIST!!! And that would surely not be respectable. And we MUST, above all, be respectable.
As we have seen again and again, especially when Israel is involved, but also in the case of Georgia/Russia, as another example, war can break out any time. In fact, considering the fact of economic war, and the reported US covert ops and support for terrorism inside Iran, the Iran war should be considered as already underway, and the only real question is if and when it will escalate. Reports such as those mentioned above should certainly be taken seriously, though of course it is to be expected that there will be denials all around (though Azerbaijan has at least partially confirmed reports). That’s not to say that they should be taken as gospel of course, as only those in the High Command can know exactly if and when the escalation will ocurr – and perhaps even they do not know precisely. I question the motives of those who sneer at ‘alarmists’, those with ‘fevers’, and I wonder what kind of mentality fails to feel alarm in the face of war? When you feel the hot breath of war, is it appropriate to have a sense of ‘fever’, perhaps?
Admittedly, the writer quoted above seems to be less of an alternapundit than a mainstream warmonger, who seems to take it for granted that Iran is in the wrong and deserves to be under attack economically and probably militarily and so on, but the sneering attitude about war ‘alarmists’ is very, very familiar in the alternapunditverse.
Richard, I believe your point about Lebanon is nonsense. I think it’s got to be perfectly obvious that Israel can attack Hezbollah simultaneously with attacking Iran, as the US will be brought into an attack on Iran immediately. Yes, I know that some alternapundits are now questioning this too. Yes, they are quite anxious, the closer the war comes, to wash Obama’s hands of it. The more evident Obama’s quest for war is, the more they try to obscure it. Such claims are absurd. US unconditional support for Israel, reiterated more and more passionately by Obama, make it virtually impossible for a conflict between Israel and Iran to be kept separate from the US by any party. The only way the US might be kept out of it would be if Iran could effectively fend off Israel’s initial attack, but that seems unlikely to inconceivable. As I understand it, Iran lacks any meaningful air defense against a fully modern air force such as Israel’s.
But what I find fascinating is the common understanding that Israel has de facto carte blanche to attack its neighbors any time it wants, a carte blanche widely accepted, even though it flies in the face of legality and ethics. This impunity makes a mockery of the UN, turning the UN into a machine for war, as a mechanism that effectively prevents one side from receiving any support, and depriving it of freedom of movement, while allowing the other side to be heavily armed and to have freedom of movement. Ever the aggressors, the US and Israel are able to use the UN to paint themselves endlessly as victims.
If the US government had a case, they’d have made it by now. I remember during the buildup to the Iraq war, I kept thinking that they must have some truly incriminating information about some truly horrendous pending attack from Iraq, because all the claims they were making publicly as to why we had to invade Iraq were obviously bogus. I learned better, and of course when I came to my senses, I realized that it would never have made any sense for them to hide such information, if they had it. Why are so many of us making the same mistake now? We know that what we are seeing looks completely bogus, yet we continue to suppose that there might be horribly incriminating secret information of some terrible, world-destroying plot. This whole thing looks EVEN more unbelievably bogus than the faked up ‘case’ against Saddam, and yet once again we are in the midst of a brutal economic war, apparently on the way to a shooting war, unless ‘Regime Change’ happens before then via the Green Coup, which itself is surely at least partially a US covertly ginned up affair (which is not to say that desire for reform isn’t widespread and deep in Iran – it clearly is).
So many basic questions aren’t even being asked. I mean, only a few folks seem to be asking where the supposed case against Iran is, but there are even more basic questions. Is it right or even legal to constantly threaten a sovereign country with war? Is it right or even legal to seek to bring about ‘regime change’ in another country? EVEN IF Iran is seriously seeking nuclear weapons – and not only has that not been proven, but indications are that it’s a bogus allegation – does this really justify war or even collective economic punishment? Especially considering that the nations convening in the security council for these solemn considerations and wielding the decisive power in that context ARE ALL NATIONS THAT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?!! Ah, and maybe that’s the overarching point: what has become of us, on this planet, when the UN, our best hope for peace, supposedly, as become a means to create war instead of a means to stop war? Seriously, the US is using the Security Council as a path to war, as a way of justifying war, as a way of getting the ‘world community’ to go along with a war. Could anything be more perverse than that? Is that what Obama’s Nobel Prize was for? For turning the Security Council into an instrument of war?
Richard Steven Hack:
The Israel attack on Hizbullah was a strategic escalation to Nowhere.
It will be so again.
Ditto for any US/Israeli attack on Iran.
Rehmat:
Japanese were in Korea, and China.
Iranians are in their own country.
They can hold on indefinitely.
Step-by-step, the Jewish lobby groups are steering Ben Obama in the same direction as they did to F.D. Roosevelt, who imposed similar sanctions against Japan during WW II. Japan took the American oil embargo as an ‘act of war’ and was forced to attack Pearl Harbor – turning an economic war into a military confrontation between the two countries…..
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/obama-declares-war-on-iran-for-israel/
Article on Asia Times, mostly about a new war by Irael against Lebanon, but includes interesting quotes on Iran. Unfortunately most of it cites Israeli sources, therefore must be suspect, however the point made below is exactly my point: Israel can’t wait forever before engaging Iran. The full article suggests that Israel MUST take on Hizballah in Lebanon before doing so – and frankly, I think another Israel-Lebanese war is definitely in the cards, possibly as soon as this year, for exactly that reason.
Amid war talk, arms buildup continues
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/Middle_East/LG20Ak03.html
Quote:
“While the government of Israel retains the military option for meeting what it sees as the existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, a strike by Israel’s air force at this time can be considered premature.
The reasons: a new United Nations sanctions regime targeting Iran coupled with separate and more extensive United States and European Union sanctions are aimed at restricting the political, economic, military and intelligence reach of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
Barring any overtly offensive action by Iran’s military, this fourth round of UN sanctions at the very least will gestate until the end of the year until measurable outcomes can be discerned.
All the same, however, reports swirl across the Middle East, including of Israeli helicopters ferrying supplies to the Royal Saudi Air Force base at Tubruz, as first reported by Iran’s Fars News Agency. A news flash saying the US and Israel were prepping airfields from which to strike Iran from Georgia and Azerbaijan is just as sketchy. The credibility of these accounts can be summed up by Darth Vader demanding, “What of the reports of the rebels massing near Sullist?” On the whole, not much.
In Washington, President Barack Obama’s poll numbers have dived and, with November’s congressional elections in the offing, it is doubtful Obama would deal decisively with Iran before then. To do so would fracture his political base.
Apart from the fevers set burning by unsubstantiated reports of possible military action by the US, Arabs and Israel in some sort of combination, the base line for the Israelis remains the tyranny of time. How long until the Iranians announce their next nuclear breakthrough? When would be the right time to unleash the Israel Air Force (IAF) against Iran’s nuclear facilities with any real expectation of regional political and material support? At this time, can Israel count on the United States to either aid the mission or at the very least look the other way?
By the same measure, time is collapsing on the regime in Tehran. United Nations sanctions have for now stayed Israel’s hand, yet Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei must realize this set of sanctions is the fourth attempt and very possibly the last try to gain his positive attention and that of his government. If this fourth round of UN sanctions crumbles to no effect, forcing, yet again, negotiations toward the implementation of a fifth round of sanctions, can the Israelis politically or militarily allow ever more finite sand to pass through the glass?”
Exactly my point: Israel cannot wait forever if this whole “crisis” nonsense is to be usable to justify an attack on Iran to the public.
As to whether Hizballah actually has been given some form of SCUD missile by Syria, I think we have to wait and see in the course of a war whether that is true. There are a lot of arguments against such a weapon being usable by Hizballah, but if it is ALSO true that Hizballah has been supplied with many anti-aircraft missiles, it is POSSIBLE that Hizballah may accept and deploy the SCUD, because it would need AA missiles to defend the SCUDs due to their long launch cycles.
So the bottom line is, Israel PROBABLY (NOT CERTAINLY) must attack Hizballah under some pretext prior to attacking Iran. And whether they are successful in doing serious damage to Hizballah will also likely determine the timing for any Israeli attack on Iran. If they damage Hizballah enough, they can then attack Iran and blunt any immediate Hizballah retaliation. If they don’t, they must still take into account the possibility that Hizballah may retaliate for an attack on Iran. And there is also the question of how much damage – military and/or geopolitical – Hizballah inflicts on Israel in such a conflict.
OTOH, we must remember that Nasrallah is NOT Iran’s puppet. Whether Hizballah attacks Israel after an Israeli attack on Iran is not certain. But Israel is likely to believe that Hizballah will, so it will likely attack Hizballah either before or as part of an Israeli strike on Iran. Therefore we can possibly use an Israeli attack on Hizballah as an possible indicator of an upcoming attack on Iran. Not a certain indicator, of course, but a possible indicator that Israel is considering an attack on Iran to be coming closer.
If the CIA still needs any confirmation of that fact, they’re dumber than anyone believes.
All the spin being done on the guy clearly indicates the whole affair was a fiasco on their part and is now being handled as a way to further demonize Iran and render anything he might say as ineffective in affecting the public’s perception. And that will be successful, unfortunately.
http://www.lobelog.com/calling-team-b/
Related