Attacking Iran
Fake news about a terrorist connection could serve as a pretext for war
Philip Giraldi • February 26, 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.
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 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?
Philip
M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the
National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment