Friday, June 16, 2006

concerned about a US-led strike on Iran

larisa has a new article:
Current military and former intelligence officials remain concerned about a US-led strike on Iran, despite the recent appearance of diplomacy on the part of the US State Department and the offer of an incentives package to Iran.

Officials point to new developments, such as a recent meeting in Rome between an Iranian arms dealer (Ghorbanifar) and controversial neoconservative Michael Ledeen and the March creation of the Iranian directorate inside the Pentagon, as examples of recent events similar to the lead up with war in Iraq.

These officials also add that an as-yet uncompleted ‘Phase II’ investigation into pre-war Iraq intelligence suggests the same problems may recur when addressing Iran. They note that the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate mirrors the so-called Office of Special Plans, which played a major role in feeding intelligence to the President that bolstered a case for war.
[]
Military and non-military intelligence sources have also raised worries over what some describe to as “the Iran group” and others as “the Iran working group” and still others as a “cabal” operating out of the Pentagon.
[]
Venable also confirmed that the new directorate falls under the policy side -- more specifically -- under the new number three at the Pentagon, Eric Edelman. Edelman, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, holds the same position that Douglas Feith held when he ran OSP at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

Moreover, sources say that the Iranian Directorate is staffed with many of the same people, including OSP’s former director Abram Shulsky, and receives expert analysis from such controversial figures as Project for the New American Century member Reuel Marc Gerecht, who by all accounts was a failure as a CIA field officer. It also includes military personnel such as Ladan Archin, who appears to be serving in the Larry Franklin analyst role among a sea of think-tank operatives and neoconservative war hawks.
egads.

(i love the gratuitous smackdown of gerecht)

9 comments:

noise said...

Iranian directorate. ID. Freudian? Seeking pleasure through insane acts of violence? Sure sounds like the neocons and their warped psychology.

It was interesting how personal the article was in relation to Ledeen. Not sure what that was about. Perhaps Alexandrovna had other sources that told her Ledeen was up to no good.

1. Deliberate lies to make the case for invasion of Iraq.
2. Sinister occupation policies which to this day are supported by bottom of the barrel talking points.
3. Bush Co. is planning to do it all over with (hard to believe) even higher stakes in Iran.

Yeah, there is definitely cause for concern. The question is why has this disconnect been allowed to go on? Gets back to my "conspiracy theory"...ie...some group is protecting Bush Co. I don't know who. To think that Bush hasn't had to fire Rumsfeld is mind boggling. Though the Republicans will justify anything, the blunders (if you can call them that) throughout the occupation have been unacceptable.

lukery said...

Noise - LOL re ID.

The Ledeen thing was a bit personal - perhaps it's the Kaiser Soze thing again :-)

"Perhaps Alexandrovna had other sources that told her Ledeen was up to no good"
I presume that she does - it's hard to see why she would write the article otherwise...

I totally agree with the conspiracy argument. stuff just dont make no sense otherwise...

noise said...

Re: Ledeen. I don't know whether Alexandrovna knows Ledeen is involved in the ID activities or whether it was a general reminder..."Watch this guy. He seems to always be involved when sinister plans are being put into effect."

Re: Conspiracy. There is a good possibility the real plan was instability. If true (and it appears to be true) that is hard to believe...crossing into the realm of EVIL. Points 1, 2 and 3 above are not being addressed by Congress and receive little coverage from the MSM. I wish Alexandrova would ask these "officials" why this out of control foreign policy is tolerated.

lukery said...

well - she quotes others who are concerned:
"Current military and former intelligence officials remain concerned about a US-led strike on Iran, despite the recent appearance of diplomacy on the part of the US State Department and the offer of an incentives package to Iran.
Officials point to new developments, such as a recent meeting in Rome between an Iranian arms dealer and controversial neoconservative Michael Ledeen"

i dont really think that the goal is 'instability' per se. i think they'd love stability - so long as they control the relevant criminal enterprises. That said, it's EVIL nonetheless.

noise said...

Three indications that the policy was instability (though the goal may have changed):

1.Shock & Awe
2.Privatization of industry
3.The disbanding of the Iraqi army.

Antonia Juhasz (Link) has a very interesting take on Bush Co.'s REAL Iraq policy. She gets into a factor I think is involved which is globalization. The bad kind. Sort like Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."

I've read that the oil companies desire stability and certain businesses can't setup shop until the country is more stable. The bottom line is these policies got a lot of people killed. It doesn't matter whether they were sinister policies (which they appear to be) or just the result of idealogues playing games with other people's lives on the line (sorry it's sinister either way). For members of Congress to pass resolutions like the House passed Friday is astonishing. What is wrong with these people?

Which gets back to Alexandrova's article. Why on earth is Bush Co. still running the occupation policy in Iraq AND still scheming to continue their PNAC plans? Where is the accountability?

So the question I struggle with...can a small groups of idealogues truly be calling the shots after such an obvious display of criminality and incompetence? I can't believe that this is the case.

noise said...

I must add because it ties in...the '04 election. Politicians KNOW about the problems with the damn electronic voting machines. To hear them feign ignorance makes me want to vomit.

So why did Kerry go in knowing the chances of vote fraud were very high and why did Kerry SEEM to tank the election?

IMO, this is NOT politics as usual.

lukery said...

oh - i see what you are saying - instability in iraq. yes - i suspect that is the case - probably with the goal of breaking the country apart - per wormser (sic).

similarly - yes - i can accept the argument that 'instability' means 'instability of the oil supply' which leads to increased oil prices - contra your argument that oil companies want stability. it might be true that they need stability to get oil - but oil isnt an end in itself. the oil compaanies want money, not oil.

and yep - agree with all your comments re 'voting'

noise said...

I wasn't clear about the country to which I was referring.

It's one thing for the neocons to pursue ulterior motives in Iraq, but another thing for them to get away with it. We are talking about thousands of lives at stake that they were (are) treating as F'ing chess pieces.

I agree with your oil theory comments. In fact, Greg Palast's new book deals with the plan to keep Iraqi oil off the market in order to jack up prices. So you have instability in Iraq followed by saber rattling w/Iran.

I don't remember the source but a few months ago there was some discussion about a difference of opinion between Big Oil and another faction. Something about using Iraqi oil to break the OPEC cartel. I think I remember reading that Big Oil was concerned about the lack of stability. This could have been simply more Rendon Group produced BS. After all, as you noted, Big Oil made out like bandits without pumping a single barrel of Iraqi oil.

I still haven't figured out why is this being permitted...ie...Bush Co.'s stay the course policy in Iraq and their efforts to repeat the Iraq policy in Iran.

What groups are protecting Bush Co. from accountability?

lukery said...

noise: "I still haven't figured out why is this being permitted...ie...Bush Co.'s stay the course policy in Iraq and their efforts to repeat the Iraq policy in Iran."

i've gotta assume that all of congress, and probably the media, are all being bribed/blackmailed by the same people. or different people with similar interests, or different people with different interests whose goals are met by the same policies.

as fucked up as that is. what else could it be?

(urgh - this comment didnt go thru yeaterday. apologies, and trying again)