Here's the first installment, All Roads Lead to Iran, of my interview with Larisa AlexandrovnaLarisa is a journalist, essayist and poet. She is currently managing editor of Raw Story where she writes about intelligence and national security.
This page at Wikipedia has links to lots of her work, including interviews with Scott Ritter, Michael Ledeen and Joe Wilson, as well as her series of articles about pre-war intelligence and the subsequent coverup.
Larisa was first to report that Valerie Plame's work at Brewster Jennings was primarily focused on tracking WMDs in Iran, and suggesting that her outing may have been related to that work.
In February, I put together a mega-post where I basically put together her entire series of articles about pre-war intelligence, Niger, Plame, Ledeen and a bunch of other things in an attempt to make sense of them collectively. Rather than charging me with "Fair Use" abuse, she generously agreed to an interview - and we were finally able to catch up last week.
In a wide-ranging interview some of the thing we discussed include heroin trafficking, the Iraq war, the Iran war, Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame, and the corruption of Congress - to name a few.
Below is the first installment of the interview. In this installment, All Roads Lead to Iran, Larisa explains that when we are trying to understand the wars in Iraq and Iran, we need to consider not only Nation States, but other power factions - both inside and outside of governments, criminal & corporate.
We also discuss two under-reported stories - that Plame's work focused on WMD trafficking into and out of Iran, and that Joe Wilson discovered that it was actually Iran that was trying to buy uranium in Niger.
----------------------------------------------------------
Luke: Larisa, thanks so much for doing this. One of the things that jumped out of me in one of your articles was in your interview in July of last year with [former Ambassador to Gabon] Joe Wilson - when you asked him about whether the goal of the Iraq invasion was to have a “fundamentalist military conglomerate in Iran” and there was a curious dance there between the two of you - trying to see whether he agreed with that, and whether that was the actual purpose, or an unintended consequence - can you shed any light on that?
Here's the exchange I'm referring to:
-----------------------Raw Story: And now we see that Iraq and Iran have just signed a military treaty. Is that what we wanted?
Wilson: Iran is the big winner in this.
Raw Story: Is the goal a fundamentalist military conglomerate? Is that what we wanted?
Wilson: Sitting right on the border of the Kuwait and eastern Saudi oil fields...
Raw Story: Right, if that is what we wanted…
Wilson: Then we have achieved it.
Larisa Alexandrovna: Well, I can only speak for myself and I think he answered that for himself in the conversation where he says 'then we've succeeded'. Again, I cannot really speak for him outside of what he himself said in the interview.
In my view, one only needs to look at the real big winner of the Iraq war and there is no doubt that it is Iran. So if one argues that the goal was somehow to the benefit of Iran, then that has in fact been achieved.
For some factions both in the US and abroad, that has always been and still is a goal to be sure.
Let’s use some examples to help clarify “factions” here. Let’s say that there are a couple of companies who are both legal and illegal entities and who have one goal, the bottom line. They are not aligned to any specific nation, rather, they are a conglomerate of various businesses both domestically and abroad and their leadership is a mix of various nationals, some of whom are former military and some of whom are former government officials, and some of whom are just regular folk. So let’s say that one of these companies is a cookie making organization.
Luke: (laughs) OK
LA: (laughs), to keep it generic. The cookie making company might have a legal contract in the US and in, for example, Dubai, but it may also have other contracts that would actually work against the interests of the US and Dubai, as examples of course.
The cookie company would have an interest in its bottom line, not in who won an actual conflict, unless, let us say, one of the clients pays more. So you can see how the stated objective, to win (whatever that means) in Iraq and the other objective (money) might not work so well together. It depends on who is benefiting from this conflict, and regardless of the miserable planning of the war and its execution, somehow Iran has benefited. Certainly some people would argue that this is not entirely unintentional and if Iran benefits… then who else benefits?
Luke: But if we go back to prior to the invasion of Iraq, it seems as though the next step was going to be Iran anyway.
LA: Right - and Syria and Lebanon
Luke: Right - but if the US was going to do that, then it’s difficult for me to understand why the goal was for Iran to be a fundamentalist military state...
LA: I am not saying that the US was going to do that or had planned on this outcome, but there is room here for some serious questions regarding the actual goals, both the stated and the private goals.
Again, I am not saying that the US had any such policy or goal in mind. But I am also not saying that the US is the big winner here either. But to explore this historically, one need only look at recent history to see that democratically elected governments were overthrown and dictatorships were installed instead. We have seen this all over the world, including Iraq and the current dictator that was recently removed. Saddam was installed and propped up by western nations -as is the Saudi regime, which its own people do not want, but who is protected by western nations. So to say that Iran benefited, which is true, is not to say that the Iranian people benefited. But again, the most important question is 'who in Iran benefited?' If it is MEK, and it seems to be looking this way, then you have an extreme right wing military state as the winner. Who else benefits from having such a dictatorship in place? That is far more of an important question than all the others. You really should read Economic Hitman.
Luke: I understand that. But here's where I have a problem understanding it. On one level, per Wilson, the argument seems to be that the goal was a dictatorship in Iran, and that mission has been accomplished, with Iran the big winner - however we still appear to be in the middle of the game - with an attack on Iran seemingly imminent.
LA: Right - but you're assuming those things are different arguments - and they're not. Because in order to install a military fundamentalist conglomerate - you first need to remove the current structure, right?
Luke: Right - which we haven’t done. But then they're saying that they have achieved what they wanted to achieve anyway.
LA: Sure, because things are done in stages, but they have to be handled like a delicate dance, like chess, only we have idiots at the chessboard on one side, and extremely competent “others” on the other side. That said, you still assume that there is only but one way to win and only one group of winners and that the group of winners is somehow on a national level. None of that is or need be true. But aside from that, my own speculation is that stage two went terribly wrong sometime in the summer of 2003. If you look at that period of time, from May until roughly November, it is as though the wheels suddenly came off the cart mid-game. Everything shifted. So if certain interests did have the Iranian regime change in mind, then they were terribly surprised by what went wrong sometime over that summer. My guess they were very much surprised in the Executive branch, but that need not mean at every government agency or every government was surprised. Anyway, this is far too complex to really dive into and especially when there are some things I cannot say and some things that are pure speculation on my part. As for Wilson, I certainly cannot answer for him, but I do believe he answered for himself.
well - what's happened is that was, I think, the goal - but something went wrong in the summer of 2003 - and everything shifted, and somehow Iran became the winner - so the goal then was someone's goal - but certainly not the goal of the bunch that led us into the Iraq war. In other words, somebody was double-crossed - that's just my theory - I’m not saying I’m right. But it seems to me that what happened because everyone is very surprised how this turned out - except for the morons who were operating under the Cold Warrior mentality - who think that they actually know what they are doing and they don’t.
Lukery: damn incompetence! The best laid plans...
Larisa: well - I think they were double-crossed. If you go to the summer of 2003 - all sorts of stuff started to happen. You don't know who was playing on whose side - suddenly we didn’t know who was the enemy, who was the friend, allies became enemies, enemies became allies - all this stuff started to happen. Clearly something happened that was not anticipated - now that's certainly one way to look at it. another way to look at it is - it could be that it played out exactly as desired - because the winner in Iran would be - lets say, business interests and certain factions that are supported - and they've won in terms of monetary and quite possibly in terms of power as well.
Plame:
Luke: Over that period was when Plame was outed, that summer of 2003.
LA: That July - right. Exactly
Luke: Can you talk about why she was outed? Can I throw that open question to you?
LA: Oh boy, somehow I knew you would ask me this. Why? I don’t think anyone can say with absolute certainty that she was outed for a specific reason, and there are certainly many possibilities. But I play chess and things seem to be combinational in this regard, in that, there not need be one single reason for something.
I certainly have never bought into the 'to discredit her husband' argument. I may be entirely wrong of course and given the incompetence of these guys I wouldn’t put it past them to be even this incompetent. As I have said, however, the “reason” need not be a single one and the time frame does not support the argument of her outing as “nothing more than a political hit” on her husband, although it may have served that purpose as well. But again, that is just my opinion and others have the same opinion but others also believe that it was to discredit her husband and nothing more.
I just find it astonishing how all roads, no matter the angle you start at, lead to Iran, and you know what she was working on right? Since you seem to follow my work closely.
Luke: Yes, specifically she was tracking the WMD proliferation - both to and from Iran - that’s correct?
LA: In the most broadest terms, yes
Luke: exclusively nuclear? Or were there other things going on?
LA: I cannot get into it. I had to write the article and pass each verb and noun by a bevy of people so that it would not compromise national security further and it would not inadvertently be an issue in any future operations. So in the broadest of terms, yes in and out of Iran, beyond what is in the article I cannot say.
Luke: but one of the things that was interesting in your article was that Plame was tracking arms both to and FROM Iran - that element didn’t seem to get much attention - is Iran selling a lot of this stuff as well?
LA: again - you have to remember that I had to write this article very broadly - so its fair to speculate whatever you care to glean out of that - but I just can’t comment - I cant comment beyond what I wrote in that article.
Luke: ok - I’ll move on... another curious thing about Iran is Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger - when he reported back that not only was Iraq not buying uranium, but that it was actually Iran that had tried to buy some uranium there
LA: That is interesting, isn’t it? Amazing how Iran keeps popping up.
Luke: (laughs) that story seems to have been forgotten
LA: Yep, and Steve Clemons brought that into daylight after the Senate Intel committee distorted it. Wilson sent a letter to the committee indicating they were factually wrong and Washington Post corrected their original reporting because it was based on the Senate report. Yet the Senate report and the talking points make things really messy. Ya know - I do think that is fascinating - and that should take you to the next logical question - what are the Niger forgeries really then?
Luke: oh! Are you suggesting that they were to cover up that earlier transaction with Iran?
LA: No, not at all. I am not suggesting anything other than people really need to ask themselves that question, and not really read into what I am saying on this too much as I am speculating myself at this point. But I would not say the speculation is unfounded. In any case, focus on that question - because everyone is busy chasing the chain of custody of the documents - how they were put together, how they were disseminated - generally what I would call intelligence trafficking and they don’t really ask the most obvious question - which is 'what the hell are they really?' are they really about this? Are they really about that? Are they really even relevant?
Everything is pointing - you can’t deny that – to Iran - and even the meetings with Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, Franklin & Rhode - as well as a few SISMI representatives (not Pollari or any of the Martinos) and a few Egyptian intelligence folks, dissidents (I'm assuming MEK - but I'm not sure) in Rome, late 2001 - before there was an Iraq war even, were about Iran. Even the later meetings in Paris with Rhode and Weldon and Ghorbanifar - again you’re talking about Iran.
Luke: wow - there's a change - Ledeen is actually telling the truth when he says that those meetings didn’t have anything to do with Iraq
Larisa: I don’t think anyone said that he was meeting about Iraq, at least no one I have read or talked to. He told me the basic overview of the meeting, namely, that was about allegations of Iranians supporting Afghani rebels. There is speculation that he was behind the Niger forgeries, but those statements were made regarding certain people in his circle, not him per se. No one thinks he forged the documents, no one I know, have read, or have talked to. I don’t think he forged the documents and he is telling the truth on that, although I think he may know or suspect who did and is not saying, but he may not actually know. But I did confirm from various intel folks that he was meeting in Rome about Iran, not Iraq. Now after he left and Rhode and Franklin stayed behind is where Iraq may have been discussed, but the Niger forgeries discredit the Iraq claim, rather, they support the Iran claim. So not the forgeries, not the meeting in Rome (in which Ledeen was a part at least), not the Paris Weldon/Gorba meeting, none of these things had to do with Iraq at all. Not even Plame’s work. They all lead in one direction.
Luke: Iran.
----------------------------------------------------------
Other installments to follow.
update - it appears that a lot of people are anxious for the sibel part of the story - in the interim see here for some background on my conversations with Sibel
update - part 2 of the interview is here
update - part 3 of the interview, Bad Leaks and Good Leaks is here
12 comments:
Good stuff Luke.
Look forward to the rest.
I'm trying to figure out why anyone should trust a word Alexandrovna says here. She flatly declares that "I had to write the article and pass each verb and noun by a bevy of people so that it would not compromise national security further and it would not inadvertently be an issue in any future operations." She's nothing more than another government shill if she's withholding information from the public because some spook told her "oh no, you can't disclose that". Given the BS pulled in the name of "national security" in the last five years, if someone wants to call themself a "journalist" they need to provide the most complete story possible -- that includes exposing agents, methods of intelligence gathering, specific operations, etc., etc., etc. Yes, that means they may not get invited to the next big party in Langley, but if the notion of the United States as a republic is to continue to have any meaning, then an informed public is a national security issue too. To quote Rorschach, "Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."
Yeah...anonymous chickenshit...you're one hundred percent correct.
Larisa and Seymour Hersh and Dana Priest are Murray Waas "compromise" so that they can kick it at the "next big party in Langley."
thnx noise
thnx GoG
thnx Ron.
anon - future installments of the interview will prove that your thesis is incorrect. Further, the problem with providing every detail NOW would undermine your stated objective to get the "most complete story possible"
Well, I have to agree with the criticism in one respect: a story which consists mostly of "well, you have to read between the lines" is not a "story" per se. It may suit Larisa's Russian conspiratorial nature, but it doesn't do the US public any damn good at all.
Sibel needs to find a Senator with the balls to actually tell what she tells him, or we aren't going to get to the bottom of this in anything less than another decade - after it's well and truly too late.
I can agree that even though we are clearly going to attack Iran, it's apparent that the war profiteers are going to profit yet again, regardless of the impact on the US economy from an oil shipment freeze. And it's clear that what we are seeing here is a neocon attempt to simply cause chaos anywhere and everywhere (with the interesting notable exception of North Korea - presumably because they HAVE nukes, no oil, and a military that CAN kick our ass if they get rolling.)
But until somebody names names and points fingers at specific individuals and groups, these people will continue to get away with it to the detriment of the people in the US, Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. I'd say that trumps worrying about your sources.
Either you have the balls to point the finger or you don't. If you don't, say so.
thanks for your thoughtful comment richard - i agree that we'd all like to have all of the story today, and have all of them in jail yesterday.
AFAIK, Larisa isn't saying "well, you have to read between the lines" - she's just saying "read closely"
re Sibel - i'm sure that if you, or anyone, could find her that senator she'd happily oblige. she's already told a bunch of them - to no avail. I'll have more on sibel over the next week.
Great inteview so far Luke. But just one quick comment- I wouldn't bother reading reading "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man". I read the book, and I found the cloak and dagger aspect of the book highly implausible, to say the least. It might be true, but I've heard Perkins say in the past that he had to "secretly" write his book out of fear of assasination, but I find that notion also seems like fantasy. Maybe Larisa has a different opinion, but I just think Perkins was using a writing style where his basic theme was truthful (that the US uses international development projects to keep the poorer nations indebted to the American empire) but his assertion that it is all part of some conspiracy run by beautiful female NSA agents seems a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
I'm not saying Perkins is a liar- I just think he used a literary trick to make his story more compelling and accessible to the greater public. Throw in a beautiful blonde spy and you might make your book sell a few moe copies?
I'll note that "Ron Brynaert" did not actually rebut a single point of my earlier post. (And do you kiss your mother with that mouth, Ron?) Either someone is serious about exposing this corruption or they're not. If a journalist is having their story vetted for "national security" purposes and withholding critical information based on that review process, then they are only releasing that information which the government wants released -- i.e., they are serving as a propagandist, whether wittingly or unwittingly. When we are talking about an apparent plot to set up a situation where a nation will be nuked, it is not the time to say, "Well, this will all come out in the history books."
What did you say about my mother, chickenshit?
Of course I can name names and will when I release my new book "Fool Me Twice - How I Neo-Conned the Numbskulls for Fun and Profit" - Ahmed Chalabi
"who benefits"? is a meaningless question. It is the road to all conpsiracy theories. as is the book this intelligent but misguided woman recommends.
To determine whether article on Iraq, Iran... is worth reading I always use the search function for words: "Israel", "Jews", "Jewish" prior to reading. The search returned nothing. So I did not read the article as without invoking Israel and Jewish lobby one cannot explain anything in US foreign policy.
Post a Comment