Fake
news about a terrorist connection could serve as a pretext for war
by
Philip Giraldi
Observers
of developments in the Middle East have long taken it as a given that
the United States and Israel are seeking for an excuse to attack
Iran. The recently terminated conference in Warsaw had that
objective, which was clearly expressed by Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, but it failed to rally European and Middle
Eastern states to support the cause. On the contrary, there was
strong sentiment coming from Europe in particular that normalizing
relations with Iran within the context of the 2015 multi party
nuclear agreement is the preferred way to go both to avoid a major
war and to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.
There
are foundations in Washington, all closely linked to Israel and its
lobby in the U.S., that are wholly dedicated to making the case for
war against Iran. They seek pretexts in various dark corners,
including claims that Iran is cheating on its nuclear program, that
it is developing ballistic missiles that will enable it to deliver
its secret nuclear warheads onto targets in Europe and even the
United States, that it is an oppressive, dictatorial government that
must be subjected to regime change to liberate the Iranian people and
give them democracy, and, most stridently, that is provoking and
supporting wars and threats against U.S. allies all throughout the
Middle East.
Dissecting
the claims about Iran, one might reasonably counter that rigorous
inspections by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) confirm that Tehran has no nuclear weapons program, a view
that is supported by the U.S. intelligence community in its recent
Worldwide Threat Assessment. Beyond that, Iran’s limited missile
program can be regarded as largely defensive given the constant
threats from Israel and the U.S. and one might well accept that the
removal of the Iranian government is a task best suited for the
Iranian people, not delivered through military intervention by a
foreign power that has been starving the country through economic
warfare. And as for provoking wars in the Middle East, look to the
United States and Israel, not Iran.
So the
hawks in Washington, by which one means National Security Adviser
John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and, apparently President
Donald Trump himself when the subject is Iran, have been somewhat
frustrated by the lack of a clear casus belli to hang their war on.
No doubt prodded by Netanyahu, they have apparently revived an old
story to give them what they want, even going so far as to develop an
argument that would justify an attack on Iran without a declaration
of war while also lacking any imminent threat from Tehran to justify
a preemptive strike.
What may
be the new Iran policy was recently outlined in a Washington Times
article, which unfortunately has received relatively little attention
from either the media, the punditry or from the few policymakers
themselves who have intermittently been mildly critical of
Washington’s propensity to strike first and think about it
afterwards.
The
article is entitled “Exclusive: Iran-al Qaeda alliance May
Provide Legal Rationale for U.S. military strikes.” The
article’s main points should be taken seriously by anyone concerned
over what is about to unfold in the Persian Gulf because it is not
just the usual fluff emanating from the hubris-induced meanderings of
some think tank, though it does include some of that. It also cites
government officials by name and others who are not named but are
clearly in the administration.
As
an ex-CIA case officer who worked on the Iran target for a number of
years, I was shocked when I read the Times’ article, primarily
because it sounded like a repeat of the fabricated intelligence that
was used against both Iraq and Iran in 2001 through 2003. It is based
on the premise that war with Iran is desirable for the United States
and, acting behind the scenes, Israel, so it is therefore necessary
to come up with an excuse to start it. As the threat of terrorism is
always a good tactic to convince the American public that something
must be done, that is what the article tries to do and it is
particularly discouraging to read as it appears to reflect opinion in
the White House.
As I
have been writing quite critically about the CIA and the Middle East
for a number of years, I am accustomed to considerable push-back from
former colleagues. But in this case, the calls and emails I received
from former intelligence officers who shared my experience of the
Middle East and had read the article went strongly the other way,
condemning the use of both fake and contrived intelligence to start
another unnecessary war.
The
article states that Iran is supporting al Qaeda by providing money,
weapons and sanctuary across the Middle East to enable it to
undertake new terrorist attacks. It is doing so in spite of
ideological differences because of a common enemy: the United States.
Per the article and its sources, this connivance has now “evolved
into an unacceptable global security threat” with the White
House intent on “establishing a potential legal justification
for military strikes against Iran or its proxies.”
One
might reasonably ask why the United States cares if Iran is helping
al Qaeda as both are already enemies who are lying on the Made in
U.S.A. chopping block waiting for the ax to fall. The reason lies in
the Authorization to Use Military Force, originally drafted post 9/11
to provide a legal fig leaf to pursue al Qaeda worldwide, but since
modified to permit also going after “associated groups.” If Iran
is plausibly an associated group then President Trump and his band of
self-righteous maniacs egged on by Netanyahu can declare “bombs
away Mr. Ayatollah.” And if Israel is involved, there will be a
full benediction coming from Congress and the media. So is this
administration both capable and willing to start a major war based on
bullshit? You betcha!
The
Times suggests how it all works as follows: “Congressional
and legal sources say the law may now provide a legal rationale for
striking Iranian territory or proxies should President Trump decide
that Tehran poses a looming threat to the U.S. or Israel and that
economic sanctions are not strong enough to neutralize the threat.”
The paper does not bother to explain what might constitute a “looming
threat” to the United States from puny Iran but it is enough to
note that Israel, as usual, is right in the middle of everything and,
exercising its option of perpetual victim-hood, it is apparently
threatened in spite of its nuclear arsenal and overwhelming regional
military superiority guaranteed by act of the U.S. Congress.
Curiously,
though several cited administration officials wedded to the hard-line
against Iran because it is alleged to be the “world’s leading
state sponsor of terrorism” were willing to provide their
opinions on the Iran-al Qaeda axis, the authors of the recent
Worldwide Threat Assessment issued by the intelligence community
apparently have never heard of it. The State Department meanwhile
sees an Iranian pipeline moving al Qaeda’s men and money to targets
in central and south Asia, though that assessment hardly jives with
the fact that the only recent major attack attributed to al Qaeda was
carried out on February 13th in southeastern Iran against the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, a bombing that killed 27 guardsmen.
The
State annual threat assessment also particularly condemns Iran for
funding groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are, not
coincidentally, enemies of Israel who would care less about
“threatening” the United States but for the fact that it is
constantly meddling in the Middle East on behalf of the Jewish state.
And when
in doubt, the authors of the article went to “old reliable,” the
leading neocon think tank the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, which, by the way, works closely with the Israeli
government and never, ever has criticized the state of democracy in
Israel. One of its spokesmen was quick off the mark: “The Trump
administration is right to focus on Tehran’s full range of malign
activities, and that should include a focus on Tehran’s
long-standing support for al Qaeda.”
Indeed,
the one expert cited in the Times story who actually is an
expert and examined original documents rather than reeling off
approved government and think tank talking points contradicted the
Iran-al Qaeda narrative. “Nelly Lahoud, a former terrorism
analyst at the U.S. Military Academy and now a New America Foundation
fellow, was one of the first to review documents seized from bin
Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. She wrote in an analysis
for the Atlantic Council this fall that the bin Laden files revealed
a deep strain of skepticism and hostility toward the Iranian regime,
mixed with a recognition by al Qaeda leaders of the need to avoid a
complete break with Tehran. In none of the documents, which date from
2004 to just days before bin Laden’s death, ‘did I find
references pointing to collaboration between al Qaeda and Iran to
carry out terrorism,’ she concluded.”
So going
after Iran is the name of the game even if the al Qaeda story is
basically untrue. The stakes are high and whatever has to be
produced, deduced or fabricated to justify a war is fair game. Iran
and terrorism? Perfect. Let’s try that one out because, after all,
invading Iran will be a cakewalk and the people will be in the
streets cheering our tanks as they roll by. What could possibly go
wrong?
Source,
links:
Related:
Retired US army colonel implies that a war with Iran could start with a Vietnam-type false flag operation
Thank you for publishing a very informative post. Every post of yours is very awesome, we feel satisfied by reading it. Please keep writing such post further.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.greatandhratelugu.com/