Friday, August 04, 2006

Cheney gave Israel a green light in June.

* which war zone would you rather be in today? afghanistan? iraq? lebanon? palestine? all bad. iraq is obviously a complete disaster. many nato 'forces' being killed in afghanistan, more than a hundred killed in palestine.

* this via cannon:
"The former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul has "predicted" that America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October."
* speaking of which, larisa's sources are telling her that an attack on iran is still imminent. this from an interview she did during the week (my transcription, much snippage, some context missing, errors mine):
the implication was that the Iranians were the insurgents in iraq... then the big push came around May that they Iran had WMD - there was all this activity - the top brass started threatening to resign, and all this activity with air-craft carriers that we havent seen since Vietnam - and there was a lot of concern expressed and at that time the concern was that we were going to actually nuke Iran - sometime in the spring of 2007.

But the WMD argument didnt really take, and it started to flounder a little bit - and the pressure was off.

Sometime around May or June I started reporting - and this is where we're still at, that sometime this Summer - i.e. now - or Fall, we will engage Iran directly.

The issue has been been 'what will be the trigger' - some people have argued that there has to be evidence of WMD. And as i said, there was a push for that - but it didn't really take - and the UN Security Council didn't really go batty about it.

So what we did, was bypass the UNSC and went to European banks and institutions and imposed sanctions without the blessing of the UNSC.

My sources keep saying this is timeframe - so when the Israeli - Lebanon conflict began - immediately, my first thought was 'This is the trigger.' I have long suspected that Israel would be the trigger - I just couldn't figure out how. Here's the thing - it doesn't matter what Hezbollah did or didn't do - this plan has been on the table for quite some time - and I'm told that Cheney gave Israel a green light (to invade Lebanon) in June.


Miguel said...

Obviously, I have to be a little skeptical here. First, Wayne Madsen put out a report in October, '04 that the U.S. was going to bomb Iran the day before the election. Then, Scott Ritter said the U.S. was going to start bombing Iran in June '05.

I think there are a lot of plans in the military to do various things to Iran- and they keep leaking out- but I'm still wondering as to whether an actual decision has been made to go forward.

Furthermore, its not clear to me at all how a bombing of Iran would effect the elections of '06. George Bush is a political animal- don't you think he'd wait until beginning of next year to do something?

lukery said...

yeah - this story has been bubbling away for a while. i have no idea what the timing is - i was just 'reporting' larisa's comments.

at a minimum, we know that a) the neocons want to invade iran. b) the neocons are (mostly) in charge c) larisa's sources are telling her that things appear to be on schedule.

i dont understand your final point. why wait till jan? if we presume (for whatever reason) that 'repugs are great at war' - then war is good for repugs. ( ftr - larisa doesnt suggest that the invasion of iran is an election strategy)

Miguel said...

"i dont understand your final point. why wait till jan? "

Because I think that the American people are finally getting tired of endless warfare.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part!

Larisa Alexandrovna said...


It is a great deal more complicated that election strategy and also, it is difficult to summarize the last 8 articles I have done in an hour show with 3-4 commercial breaks.

It is not that we are going to nuke Iran over the summer/fall, rather, I am told we will be engaging Iran directly and I think Sam Gardiner's strategy of air strikes is largely supported as the most probable. Air strikes do not mean nukes.

I have reported much on Iran and it has all been thus far supported by reality on the ground and other publications. This is hardly theory.

First remove the concept of elections from this for now, because this administration has an agenda that has nothing to do with Congress.

Then consider this:

Since last year we have been using a terrorist organization, MEK, on the ground in Iran to act as a "disrupting force."

Just in March alone, MEK assassinated 22 Iranian officials, including a governor. We have set of smallish bombs and other "destabilizing" activities there since last year. These actions are prepping the ground for something...but for what?

The OVP has retained the services of Iran Contra arms man, Gorba, to "act as eyes and ears on the ground" to make sure that no "unauthorized" negotiations take place.

We have bypassed the UNSC and approached EU banks directly already.

We have attempted to implicate both Iran/Iraq in a WMD smuggling plot (see my article on this).

The US DOD has created an OSP for Iran called the Iranian Directorate, with the same exact people (minus 2).

The US State Department is funneling large amounts of cash to "opposition" groups in Iran.

These are but a few points and it is impossible to deny that we are actively engaged in regime change already.

But the US does not have the authority or reason to justify an aerial attack on Iran, although we did a great deal of illegal pre-war bombing in Iraq prior to attacking them (see my article).

I and others have said we would need a trigger. The "others" in this scenario are more informed about these issues than you, me, Luke and everyone else put together. The questions now are what the trigger will be, not if there will be an attack.

Sy Hersh and I are the only two journalists staying on this story. Just because there are only two of us, does not make us wrong nor does it mean that others don't see what we are reporting and express concern.

Some reporters wait until something happens, then it is news. I generally agree with that sentiment. But on this issue, waiting to see is negligent, because we know far too much activity is going on for it to simply "pan out."

The election question is not important here, simply because this administration is not running for reelection, and should Dems take control of both chambers or even one, this attack will not be possible.

Regardless of what the American people wake up to, they are powerless because Congress is not doing its job. We can take to the streets, but we won't make a dent of difference. Congress has to act and as you can see, Congress is completely limp at this point.

This administration has an agenda, and they are better served doing things now than during a Dem led Congress.

Hope that helps some:)

Miguel said...

Thanks for your post! And don't get me wrong, I'm not calling yours or Sy Hersh's reporting in question (and I am not lumping your reporting with the other two gentlemen I mentioned), I am just being my usual old fuddy duddy cautionary self, because logic tells me that there is little hope the US could successfully "change the regime" in Iran, and that certainly there must be enough people close enough to Bush to let him know that Iran won't roll over like Iraq, that it's 3 times the size of Iraq, and that the Persians have not lived under foreign occupation in modern times.

So the only thing the US can do is bomb a few targets. But what is that going to solve? Once we go down that path, it's going to be permanent warfare with Iran, and we'll slowly be sucked into a disastrous ground invasion, whether this year or next or 10 years from now.

So my sincere hope is that your sources are wrong...because I can't think of anything good coming out of direct military engagement with Iran.

Of course, we know if the US does start bombing Iran, it'll boil down to Kucinich, Ron Paul and a handful of others raising objections. Chris Hedges is right; "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning".

damien said...

Just as a passing note, here is Hamid Gul shortly after 9/11:

The real problem facing the Americans is that they have no defined targets. They must find the targets inside America. The people who committed this crime [9/11] are inside America, and let me tell you that they are Israelis, not Muslims. Only Israelis can pull off a job like that. They are the ones who can jam American radar systems. They are the ones who can occupy the cockpits of those planes on the ground because this was not a mid-air hijacking. It is unbelievable. They are the ones who can shut off the Pentagon's warning system and prevent the American air force from scrambling for one hour and 15 minutes. And when they did scramble, it was only a single F-16 aircraft [which tried to intercept the passenger jet that plowed into the second World Trade Centre tower]. (link)

damien said...

The Hamid (Hameed) Gul comments just reminded me of Ahmed Refai, the guys who stole the WTC building plans out of a dumpster in 1993; the close confidante of Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted for attempting to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. Refai was a guy who had close contacts with the New York MAK group as far back as 1989 (when they were planning the 1993 WTC bombing). This is from his interview by Peter Lance:

He [Refai] said, "Do you know why the FBI did not discover 9/11?"

I didn't understand what he was saying. I [Lance] said, "Well that's what my book seeks to answer."

And he said, "No do you understand what my people believe? This is not bin Laden. This is not the Sheikh. This is the U.S. Government doing this for Israel."

I said, "What??" I looked at FBI agent Joe O'Brien and he looked over at me. We were stunned. I said, "Let me get this straight: you are saying that your people believe that the 3,000 people were murdered by the U.S. Government on behalf of the State of Israel?"

He said, "This is what my people believe."

I understand that both Gul and Refai could be expected to blame Israel for anything, anytime. But I find something curious about the strength of their denials.

noise said...

Nafeez Ahmed weighs in on his blog (1).

Do we have a rogue administration or "bad cop" installed to do a dirty job? IMO, the bad cop scenario makes more sense.

Mark said...

To get an idea of the potential for successfully changing the Iranian regime by funneling money to protest groups in-country, watch the two leaders (George W. "Whack-o" Bush, and Ahmadenijad) working the crowds in their own countries.

See which one isn't afraid to wade into the crowd to shake hands. See which one even has all air traffic over the site stopped for hours, including before and after his appearance. See which one is surrounded by nervous-looking guys with earpieces and none-too-unobtrusive sidearms.

Which one has to travel with a small army in a phalanx of armoured SUV's, for protection from imagined lunatic elements hidden among his own population.

Good luck getting Ahmadenijad's people to give him the old heave-ho. Let me know how that comes out.

lukery said...

Larisa! lovely to be graced by your presence. you did a good job in that interview of explaining (most) of those issues - commercial break notwithstanding ;-)

I have a recording of it if anyone wants.

lukery said...

Miguel - i sure hope that Larisa's sources are wrong, too. Or at least that they turn out to be 'wrong'. I think what Larisa and Hersh and the others are doing is trying to get the story out, and therefore alter the story. So much for journos being neutral observers ;-)

as for nothing 'good' coming from it, it depends who is doing the evaluating, and making the decisions. perhaps permawar is the plan.

lukery said...

D - thnx for that. I heard a rumour that mr Lance will have a new book out soon.

lukery said...

Noise - thnx for that link - i wasnt familiar with him. It looks like he got a pretty good write-up from the Independent.

lukery said...

Mark - good points.

I wonder if they'll look at how well their 'toppling' strategy worked re lebanon/hezbollah these past weeks.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

I think Luke nailed it perfectly. It is not that the sourcing is in question, it is that the reporters are attempting to sound the alarms in hopes of altering the events. Frankly, if none of this pans out, I will be happy. I will sleep again at night. But the truth is, I am worried precisely because of what I am being told and clearly by what Hersh is being told and the obvious activities within this administration and abroad.

As for regime change working or not working, it need not matter if it is an insane notion. While we - us here chatting - are using basic logic skills, that does not mean this is how the leadership of our country conducts its business. These people do not see reality. They think they are right, and that is all they need.

They are fascists who think - much like Gladio members - that the Communists have taken over (China) and the only way to stop them is to secure the middle of the chess board (in chess, controlling the center is the game). The problem with this thought construct is that one cannot provide China with money and such on one hand and then see them as a threat on the other. That is, unless you are actually attempting to revive the cold war and knowingly setting up an enemy. But I don't believe this to be true. I believe this is the inherent flaw in the capitalist model, that is to say, you can do business with your enemy even if it subverts your own country's attempts to neutralize the enemy. Or basically, these guys are insane and on a mission to rid the world of evil, failing of course to see it in the mirror. Logic does not apply here. Timing does and the willingness of our military leaders to carry out illegal orders. But then again, this administration has destroyed the military and replaced it with private contractors who are not obligated by anything remotely as honorable as serving one's country. They are paid killers.

The irony, of course, is that at every turn in their misguided vision they have made Iran the winner. We are, my friends, sadly very screwed at this point. Because I do see the current conflict as the trigger.

And good on Nafeez. He is a friend of mine.

lukery said...

thnx Larisa.

I believe this is the inherent flaw in the capitalist model, that is to say, you can do business with your enemy even if it subverts your own country's attempts to neutralize the enemy.
i disagree - at least as an absolute. 'enemies' arent necessarily fixed - and capitalism has the ability to create interdependencies which undermine 'enemy status' between players - that is, capitalism (and more generally, international trade) can produce net-positives.