How Pro-Israel Foundations In Washington Are Pushing A US War With Iran
by Philip Giraldi1
day ago (02 March 2019)
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.
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.
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 the
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?
Via Unz Review
Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army
Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and the Middle
East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London.
No comments:
Post a Comment