dagblog - Comments for "'False Flag Operation' (Report that Mossad, posing as CIA, worked with Jundallah against Iran)"

History lesson for Sy Hersh

artappraiser — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:33:39 +0000

History lesson for Sy Hersh et.al.: sometimes journalists' sources can also be "false flag" :

Bush’s CIA director: We determined attacking Iran was a bad idea
By Josh Rogin, The Cable @ foreignpolicy.com, Jan. 19, 2012

President George W. Bush's administration concluded that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a bad idea -- and would only make it harder to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the future, former CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) chief Gen. Michael Hayden said Thursday.

"When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret," Hayden told a small group of experts and reporters at an event hosted by the Center for the National Interest.

Hayden served as director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and then served as CIA director from 2006 until February 2009. He also had a 39-year career at the Air Force, which he ended as a four-star general.

Without an actual occupation of Iran, which nobody wants to contemplate, the Bush administration concluded that the result of a limited military campaign in Iran would be counter-productive, according to Hayden.

"What's move two, three, four or five down the board?" Hayden said, arguing that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was only a short-term fix. "I don't think anyone is talking about occupying anything."

Hayden then said he didn't believe the Israelis could or even would strike Iran -- that only the United States has the capability to do it -- but either way, it's still a bad idea.

"The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] ... they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity. They only have the ability to make this [problem of Iran's nuclear program] worse. We can do a lot better," he said. "Just look at the physics, the fact that this cannot be done in a raid, this has to be done in a campaign, the fact that neither we nor they know where this stuff is. [The Israelis] can't do it, but we can."

Hayden then went into some detail about how a U.S.-led strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could be accomplished, and why it would not solve the Iranian nuclear threat. There would first be a movement of aircraft carriers into the area, Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile strikes, a diplomatic effort to get Gulf states to give access to their airspace, and "then you would pound it [with airstrikes] over a couple of weeks," Hayden explained [....]

This piece needs to be added

artappraiser — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:21:09 +0000

In reply to Hi b, Warning: run on

This piece needs to be added to this thread. And I swear I only saw it just now and hadn't read it before ~~writing~~ babbling my comment above (really, the things I wrote were gleaned from other sources):

Don’t Do It, Bibi
By Roger Cohen, Op-Ed Columnist, International Herald Tribune (@nytimes.com,) January 16/17, 2012

PARIS — A U.S. ambassador in Europe was recently asked by an Israeli ambassador what could be done to improve the lousy relations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama. He replied: “Every once in a while, say thank you.”

The American ambassador added a couple of other thoughts. “Maybe, once in a while, ask the president if there’s anything you can do for him. And above all stay out of our election-year politics."

This sharp riposte reflects Obama’s fury at several things: the way Netanyahu has gone over his head to a Republican-dominated Congress where he is a darling; Netanyahu’s ingratitude for solid U.S. support, including the veto of an anti-settlements resolution at the United Nations last year and opposition to the unilateral Palestinian pursuit of statehood; the delaying tactics of Netanyahu reflecting his conviction Obama is likely a one-term president; and Netanyahu’s refusal to pause a second time in settlement building for the sake of peace negotiations.

I would add a further piece of advice to Netanyahu if he cares about his dysfunctional relationship with Obama — and he should because Israelis know the United States matters and might be disinclined to re-elect a man who has poisoned relations with Washington. That advice is: Do not attack Iran this spring or summer.

Netanyahu is tempted to bomb Iran in the next several months to set back its opaque nuclear program and — despite a call from Obama last Thursday and messages from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — has declined to reassure the United States that he will not. Several factors, Iranian and American, incline Netanyahu to move soon.

The first is [....]

Commenter deleted duplicate

artappraiser — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:18:21 +0000

In reply to Hi b, Warning: run on

Commenter deleted duplicate comment here

hope you didn't think Nah,

artappraiser — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:49:11 +0000

In reply to Hey AA, thanks! Hope you

hope you didn't think

Nah, was only referring to an irony about those who complain about our imperialism and at the same time complain we aren't imperialist enough towards Israel

Check out my buddy Jeff Goldberg,

That was interesting, not the least of which because it almost seems as if Israeli leakers are trying him out as a replacement for Safire?

Oh another thing, anyone trying to paint a big picture to fit all the these stories in must not leave out SYRIA--especially with the UN making a big deal about it right now. It's a pretty complicated chess board, more than usual.

I totally agree, Bruce, that

acanuck — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:25:08 +0000

In reply to There is no reason to

I totally agree, Bruce, that -- especially in reporting about high-level diplomacy like this -- the ratio of disinformation to fact can run pretty high. (I’ve criticized elsewhere the Washington media’s sycophancy and credulity. Which is why I feel a constant need to toss out their weak tea and read the tea leaves instead.) In the case of the current U.S.-Israel contretemps, the basic facts have been confirmed by both sides:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4175595,00.html

When the president of the U.S. has to make contingency military plans because he is unsure what a major ally will do, that’s serious. When news about it gets less play than a cruise ship running aground, Jon Huntsman dropping his candidacy, or Joe Paterno being interviewed about a decades-old sex scandal, that’s really serious. Americans do need to wake the fuck up about what their country is sleepwalking into.

I hear what you’re saying about “existential threats,” and I see what a great cudgel that has been for the Netanyahu government. I’ve also seen the near-consensus by former Israel military and intelligence chiefs that Iran does not pose such a threat. Impose an international boycott of a country’s central bank and embargo 80% of its trade – that might rightly be seen as an an existential threat.

Despite the marketing of fear that "those mad mullahs will go even crazier and attack all their peaceful neighbors," this is mainly a competition for regional influence among Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The ramping up of Shia-Sunni tension to deadly levels is a key tactic by the so-called good guys (see funding of Jundallah terrorism). I've heard all that crap about "the enemy of my enemy," but I'd suggest the Saudis are dangerous friends to have.

On the topic of regional influence, this is from today, and rings true:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/17/israel-nuclear-iran-could-deter-military-action/

This guy isn't worried about nuclear attack, just about Israel having less of a free hand in the territories it occupies. Not the first Israeli official to say so out loud.

Maybe I’m wrong, and Obama can thread the needle to avoid plunging the Mideast and the world into yet another hellish war. I take some slim hope from this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/opinion/preventing-a-nuclear-iran- peacefully.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Peace. As always, I really mean that.

Hey AA, thanks! Hope you

Bruce Levine — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:06:42 +0000

In reply to Hi b, Warning: run on

Hey AA, thanks! Hope you didn't think I was drawing any analogy whatsoever between the stuff reported above and MJ Rosenberg!!! Check out my buddy Jeff Goldberg, who was just advised by another unnamed senior pentagon official that it was Israel, due to logistical issues, that requested cancelation of the joint military exercise. The plot thickens! Hope all is well.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/pentagon-israeli-us-missile-exercise-postponed-at-israels-request/251512/

Hi b, Warning: run on

artappraiser — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:34:34 +0000

In reply to There is no reason to

Hi b,

Warning: run on sentences follow, this happens to me with these spiderweb kinda stories (where it's all inter-related as an Aussie news junkie friend and I used to joke.)

I'm not up to the chore of getting into links for the entire audience here, but just wanted to say to you in particular, after reading your comment, that all I am reading on this front/topic suggests to me (contrary to the traditional Rosenfeld-style scenario where the Israel lobby has the US wrapped around its little finger,) that the Obama admin is just really fed up with the current Israeli government, hereafter to be called Teh Netanyahu, and in imperialist manner (which many lefties like to stress is the US' supposed wont, excepting of course where Israel is concerned, hah) is telling Teh Netanyahu enough already (assassinating scientists & threatening & planning bombings & such) don't you dare try anything else, cut it out, and furthermore sit down and shut up, leave this to us, we are da boss, we are trying something and you are going to screw it up royally, you'll be sorry if you don't obey.

And the serious attempt right now to fire up some kind of direct communication lines with Iran (which while at the same time yelling at them publicly about Hormuz) while at the same doing major PR about rescues of Iranians at sea, this is all related, I think.

And if the leak to Mark Perry is purposeful and related (it's hard not to think so given that it happened in 2007-so why now?) and if leaked by the US government, it is to back up threats to Teh Netanyahu about backing down and letting the US handle it right now, as in: we could make your name Mudd in the US if we really wanted to, here's just one example. But that's just conjecture on my part, and like you say, this spy leaks stuff is never very straightforward.

As far as history is concerned on the Perry story, I am also reminded me of this:

Surprising, and made me think of Obama's lines about "one president at a time"

Artappraiser's Blog, TPM Cafe, January 11, 2009

and "delicate negotiations":

U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site
by David E. Sanger, January 11 New York Times headline story:

President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran's main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons....

...the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran's major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country's only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration's efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran...

The interviews also suggest that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran's facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective....

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama....

Certainly looks like a lot of bloggers and others like Seymour Hersh and Larry Johnson were pushing the wrong assumptions on the Iran story.

and how the story came out right before Obama's inauguration and how Obama had made those comments I referred to in the title after being security briefed as President-elect.

There is no reason to

Bruce Levine — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:55:52 +0000

In reply to And here's where we are a day

There is no reason to discount what you have provided to us Ack, but the truth of the matter is that none of us has any idea what stories are true and what stories are planted and untrue. We are dealing here in the area of the most secret of clandestine activities at the highest of levels; you're a journalist, and you know from leaks and how they come in so many ways and for so many reasons. Didn't you read Mad Magazine, Spy versus Spy back in the day???? :)

Now if you wish to believe that the United States of America canceled military exercises with Israel based upon alleged unilateral action taken by the Israelis, I'm not going to tell you to "wake the fuck up." But I might question whether that is the truth or at least the whole story for all kinds of reasons, some of which might even have something to do with domestic American politics in an election year. There are so many moving pieces here Ack--in the same week the allegedly angry Americans canceled military exercises with Israel because of alleged unilateral actions against Iran, they also issued an express and loud and public warning to the Iranian government that it would be an act of war for the Iranians to block the Strait of Hormuz.

Now if you wish to believe that Israel has no reason to allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, and that it would be foolish for Israel to take any and all steps to prevent that eventuality, then so be it. Israel is fucked up in many ways, and some day I might even feel comfortable writing about how it is so on pages like this, but at this point I will focus on what I think is another undisputed truth, and that is that the notion that the State of Israel should permit Iran to develop a nuclear capability is just preposterous IMO. And that is the case even if I don't think that Israel should go to war with Iran--at this point. As fucked up as Israeli society might be at this point--as opposed to all of the other rational societies around the world--it has plenty of reasons for taking threats against its very physical existence incredibly seriously. And if people like the MJ Rosenbergs of the world want to say that harping back to the Shoah is passe', well I understand that people might take solace in that (not saying you do at all but you catch my drift I think, i.e. Israel knows from existential threats at its innermost and nagging and sometimes obnoxious core, and ultimately folks who poo-poo that waste breath). Of course, I question whether there is a single nation in the world that, unlike Israel, would not take existential threats seriously.

Finally, if you wish to believe that there are not other states in the Middle East and beyond that fear a nuclear Iran, and that the president isn't serious when he says that the United States, not Israel but the United States, will not permit Iran to go nuclear, then so be it. And as a corollary, if you wish to believe that all of the nations in the world that are cooperating with American-driven efforts to sanction Iran for going nuclear are doing so to appease the United States or, as some might argue, all-powerful Israel, I wouldn't say "wake the fuck up" but I would say fiddlesticks. Put another way, the notion that Israel, and Israel alone, fears a nuclear Iran is, respectfully, hooey.

Ciao Ack.

Bruce

Thanks for the link. To put

Aunt Sam — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:15:15 +0000

In reply to And here's where we are a day

Thanks for the link. To put it mildly, this is seriously scary. (I copied the text of the article and sent it out via email.

And here's where we are a day

acanuck — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:11:39 +0000

In reply to Perry's article is

And here's where we are a day later:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-military-chief-heads-to-israel-to-avert-attack-on-iran-6290175.html

The U.S. also pulled out of planned joint military exercises with Israel, presumably as a message that if it acts unilaterally, it acts alone.

The Israeli government simply doesn't believe the U.S. would stand aside. They want this war, and they want it now, while they still have leverage over Obama and Congress.

Disbelieve me if you want, but the U.S. is now closer to another major war -- bigger, more consequential and perhaps longer-lasting than Iraq or Afghanistan -- than it's ever been. And the country is stumbling into it blindly. End of economic recovery, end of imperial dreams. I should take some comfort, since it serves you ignorant doofuses right, but thousands of innocent people in other countries will die.

Seriously, dudes. Wake the fuck up.