Written by Philip Giraldi; Originally appeared at The Unz Review
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.
ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE: U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.
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.
An excellent piece.
Just solid stuff.
But in a world of America attacking countries over non-existent weapons of mass destruction or over supposed destruction of democracy, both plainly false claims, does it make any difference?
America will do what it wants to do. Simply because it can.
That is just how bullies behave.
Surely you mean ‘America will do what israel tells it to do’.
The US is a vassal of Israel and must do what Israel wants. For being and illegitimate country Israel have lot of power. Israel keep using the holocaust to have other countries do what they want. Israel is a parasite that has infected most of the so call western countries.
in this case donny has his eyes on the national debt, which at 22000 billion bucks is more of a worry, and he therefore is unlikely to start another costly war, the first reason is that it is contrary to his promises during the election and the second is that the tax paying morons are solidly against another war in the middle east – venezuela was thought to be a walk in the park but turned out be something else and it’s highly unlikely that the dunces, fatso, bedbugcrazy and pure evil abrams, will dare to go further than verbal threats and pretense that they still like guaido, which they dont – and israel can’t do it on its own, after kushner failed to goad mohammed bin salman to do the honours and attack iran for which he ought to be khashoggied by mbs – what a larf!
if they could will have done it a long time ago. You mean they will continue farting and stink the air and try to destroy nations from within, something lately is not going so well for the scum of the earth.
the problem is logistical – how and from where can strikes start, now that saudi and the gulf states aren’t very keen on a full frontal attack, which seems to have been on jared kushners mind when he courted mohammad bin salman, oman and others. moreover, iran is a different proposition than iraq and not easily conquered and then you have the resistance in europe, in russia and in china. pakistan won’t be the suicidal party setting things off, particularly since china has far too much invested in a pakistani venture, what with the gasline from iran to southern part of pakistan, paid for by china and then the silkroad across hindukush into pakistan – doubt they would put all that in jeopardy for a few bucks handout by mohammad bin salman. so, practicalities are likely the details that will make a full war on iran a dead end – although, the squatters might try something but since they would virtually be on their own it’s not very likely.
but we are waiting for the veterans to stage a humongous demonstration in washington dc and reclaim the powers from the white house and capitol hill, powers that today are used not for the benefit of the population but for the american military industrial complex and so on and so forth – one to two million vets will do the trick. so go for it! the treatment of vets by the government is shameful at best and in most cases downright disgraceful.
Zionist parasites have been trying to goad the dumb loudmouth thug bully Americunts into attacking Iran for over 40 years. YAWN. I am from Missouri SHOW ME!
yeah the squatters have been hard at work but no one seems to be interested – not even donny although the son in law, jared kushner, is working hard to get saudis to lead the way.the saudis are too afraid of the ras tanura installation from where they load all those barrels of oil. the slight hope is that mbs decides that jared tried to goad him to do something which the squatters didn’t want to risk and that he decides to khashoggi jared once and for all.
Saudis cant even defeat impoverished Yemen they would have zero success against Iran
These Neo-Clowns are really desperate for a casus belli for war with Iran. Even though the best they can find is still way more flimsy then the casus belli for war with Iraq was. And even that failed to convince many, and basically ruined the credibility of all those involved. There were huge demonstrations against the war back then, both in the US and UK, and Tony Blair in particular only managed to push it through parliament because his majority was so insanely big he wasn’t threatened by the rebellion of a great number of Labour backbenchers. The US public only swallowed the pro war bullshit because 9-11 had only recently happened, which isn’t currently the case. If anything its weary of yet another major war.
And going to war with Iran will be the biggest war the US will have to undertake since Desert Storm, bigger then the 2003 Iraq invasion. It’s one thing to launch a few cruise missiles at Syria to look tough on the 8 o’clock news, its a whole other thing to basically invade a major country. The lead in alone to prepare the US military for such a war alone would take half a year. Half a year in which the war weary US public has to be prepared for war on basically no case for war whatsoever. And to make sure that that support doesn’t disappear.
And half a year in which Iran can take counter measures. By striking US military assets in theater before they can be reinforced, using their proxy forces in Iraq to unleash a new insurgency against US troops there, flood the Taliban in Afghanistan with a glut of weapons and supplies to launch a new offensive there, or grant Russia or China the right to establish bases in Iran, thus effectively putting an end to the Neo-Clown dream of regime change in Iran altogether. Because that is the one thing that Neo-Clowns forget, their targets have agency too. They’re not going to sit there and wait to take it up the arse quietly.
Well said.
Iran seriously needs to consider buying loads more Chinese S-300 or additional Russian S-300s to defend against itself any upcoming FUKUS/Zionist aggression.
very silly :)
I doubt if the US or Israel will ever seriously consider attacking Iran. Hezbollah, Iran’s biggest proxy, has over 100,000 rockets & missiles pointed at Tel Aviv & Haifa and that’s according to the Israeli’s themselves. Iran on the other hand, has more than enough firepower to hit every US base in the region & most likely sink the US fifth fleet. At the end of the day the US wants soft targets. The US wants to target nations that can’t really retaliate. Not only can Iran retaliate with missiles, but a ground invasion of Iran would also be completely out of the question, considering the disasters currently dragging on in Afghanistan & Yemen.
911 perpetrators need ww3 to escape the inevitable blowback from their crimes. lets not allow it and make sure the treasonous oil thiefs are made an example of! just as the mossad commanders dressed as isis did to the alawis and yazidis: put them in cages that are slowly lowered into acid. Fair? Just? and hella entertaining to see dancing child burners suffer and die!
Aha, so Iran is behind al-Qaeda, period. If so, bin Laden was/is stupid choosing Pakistan (so called US ally) for hideout instead of Iran. Maybe security from obscurity? :)
I do not believe the US will attack Iran other that airstrikes on assets in other countries and covert stuff with Israel Iran is big a chunk to bite off they will certainly get behind the scenes help from a number of countries and Iran can fight back….. However look out for a pretext coming soon!!
Excellent article, Philip. Just one criticism. It’s not a “Jewish” state, though that’s what they call themselves and what they want you to call them. It is the “Zionist” state.
This isn’t a question of just being “politically correct.” By using the term “Jewish,” you broaden the responsibility for its crimes to the entire Jewish population worldwide, including Jews who are actively opposed to even the concept of a state exclusive to or giving special privilege to Jews. You well know there are many such anti-Zionist Jews, though it’s true that the bulk of Jews remain silent, allowing themselves to be intimidated by powerful Jewish elites and institutions like Hillel, B’nai B’rith and the ADL as well as pressure within their own extended families. I’m at a loss to understand your insistence on using such terminology even though you know it opens yourself to attack for antisemitism.
I don’t think you’re antisemitic. The most generous explanation is that you use that terminology to point out to that large, silent majority of Jews that they do indeed have a responsibility to speak out, that their silence makes them indirectly complicit. That’s a valid point of view, and not broadly antisemitic, akin to saying that rich old white guys have a responsibility to speak out against racism, misogyny and white supremacy when they see it. If that’s your intent, say so directly. Your usage here is comparable to identitarian blaming/shaming of all whites and all males, even those who can and do speak out and behave in non-oppressive ways, for the genuine oppression felt by preferred victim groups. Such terminology is having an effect opposite of what is intended, and is driving whites and males, even those who previously supported “liberation,” into defensiveness, opposition and resistance. Its usage is therefore promoted by elites as part of the divide and rule strategy. I suggest to you that your use of the terminology “Jewish state” is likely to have the same effect on the silent majority of Jews, and that’s exactly what the Zionists want.
The bottom line here is that “Jew” is neither a subset nor a superset of “Zionist.” There are Zionist Christians as well as anti-Zionist Jews. Furthermore, the term “Zionist” has acquired rather negative connotations, the UN having at one time identified it as a racist ideology, which it is. That’s another reason Israel apologists avoid use of the term. I might also add that Zionists themselves are often antisemitic. That’s obvious with Christian Zionists, who expect Jews who refuse to convert to Christianity during the end times will be cast into hell. But even Jewish Zionists within Israel often have contempt for Jews outside Israel, especially anti-Zionist Jews. As Yitzchak Gruenbaum said, “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.”
Language is a powerful tool, Philip, so please use it to maximum effect. Your usage here blames/shames all Jews, including those who speak out against Israel, while relieving all Gentiles of responsibility, particularly Christian Zionists. It’s very similar to terminology like “cisgendered, heterosexual white patriarchy,” which seeks to blame/shame all white males while relieving privileged women and the “black mis-leadership class” of all responsibility. Jews who speak and act out against Israel are swimming uphill within their community. We need to have their backs instead of showing them there may be something to all the hysteria over antisemitism after all.
Please call the filthy little, bigoted, hateful entity what it is, the “Zionist” state.
Please, could you just can the “anti-Semitism” garbage? If I criticize Bulgaria, am I guilty of anti-Bulgarianism? Am I affirmatively required to distinguish between good Bulgarians and bad Bulgarians? Do I have to wring my hands at the mere possibility that my criticisms will “incite hatred” of Bulgarians? If Bulgarians owned the six major media empires and contributed hundreds of millions to American political contests, could I point that out without being accused of torturing kittens? Am I millimeter away from wanting Bulgarians shoved into ovens and buried in mass graves?
The question on Iran has always been just how big of idiots are US neocons.
Europe will never co-operate with an attack on Iran, not because they give a damn about Iran, but because they’re finally getting a lid on the refugee thing but if they get a new wave way bigger than any before all the existing politicians can say bye bye to their jobs as the fascists take over.
They probably also aren’t wild about what’s likely to happen to the world economy if Iran, under attack, closes the Straits of Hormuz, which is absolutely the first thing they will do, and which they will be able to continue doing long after much of Iran is destroyed because to stop tanker traffic they don’t have to control the strait, they just have to make it dangerous enough that tankers are uninsurable. That’s a very low bar. All it takes is a few speedboats with explosives on them or a few shoulder launched missiles. Plus, attacking Iran would destabilize the whole region way more than it already is–oil production would likely suffer even where it might be exportable. The price of oil would at this point skyrocket, and the world economy would go into a major recession, which would probably trigger some kind of financial meltdown, which would worsen the recession.
Now the thing is that currently the US is a net oil exporter, for the first time in quite a while. All that fracked stuff (though as far as I can tell, it won’t last long). So in theory, the US should do OK out of this situation, and if they weren’t so globalized-free-markety maybe they actually could. But the US is what it is. They’re not going to put price controls on gasoline or otherwise stop the oil companies from profiteering–oil companies profiteering is half the point! Similarly, they’re not going to tax the oil companies’ windfall profits and use that to compensate the American people for how expensive imports from oil-poor China and Europe got all of a sudden. So, suddenly everything in the country will get expensive, nobody will be able to afford it, retail jobs will start disappearing, and you’ll see recession, unemployment, poverty, people going underground because they can neither pay their student loans nor declare bankruptcy . . . things will get bad. Oil execs will be making out like gangbusters, though. But Trump would probably be way less competent than Obama at being “the only guy standing between you and the pitchforks”, so politics could get . . . interesting.
So the question is, are the neocons so stupid they have made themselves unaware of this? Or do they realize it but just don’t care? Or will they keep on pulling back from the brink even though they obviously want it really, really bad?
Side note: Going after Iran would probably save Venezuela and be kind of good for Russia. The moment there’s an oil shortage nobody in the world is going to let US financial system shenanigans stop them from buying.
A US General did say years ago….”If you like Iraq and Afghanistan……..You will love Iran”!!!!!
Iran would not be able to win against a massive combined Israeli/US Airforce attack with the support of enitre US naval fleets. They’d surrender in less than 2 months
At the cost of at least one carrier, I suspect. Just a matter or time. Which is not on the side of Israeli empire.
Iran needs to stay strong and united. US cannot invade by land without massive casualties. So what the game is begs the question. Perhaps Israel with its many undeclared warheads will stage a nuclear false flag and claim it is proof that Iran has developed a nuclear weapon or two. It might be enough to get the sheeple behind a war.