Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

It's just too perfect a story.

by geezer in Paris Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 05:04:11 AM EST

We are once again being set up- fed a line of bullshit to justify another war.
Here's the main story line, thanks to the Washington Note, and John Aravosis. 100-150 casualties expected from foiled Iranian plot

It has all the necessary characters for a cheap TV thriller- the beleaguered envoy, adviser to the king of a valued ally, dashing about the world plugging holes in the dike, the evildoers, swarthy and wrapped, and a plot so filled with mayhem, so irrational that it could become the next big video game.


Viewed from a place outside the theater, it looks to me a lot more like a multi-levelled political bomb,  designed to turn events in a way that is ultimately to the advantage of the neocon component of the Empire.

Ask yourself:
 At whatever level in the Iranian government where policy is made, where real decision authority rests, a proposal is made for a covert operation to take out the Saudi ambassador to the US, by committing a bloody, shocking act of war against the nation with the most powerful military force in the world, creating 100 to 150 civilian casualties. This at a time when tension is relatively low, and in it's most important city, done in a way in which responsibility for the act will inevitably be placed on those very same decision-makers and all their countrymen.
Whoa. Can we pass this up?

Perhaps the plot was fomented by deranged underlings of the dingbat president. (I use here the contemptuous terms that emerge from public media- I have little real reason to believe their characterizations.) If that is so, they must have gotten some strong drugs with the script.

Five years ago I wrote The Quiet Coup> one of the first pieces I wrote exclusively for ET. It was a good piece, drawing on a lot of personal experience and with good documentation available. The reaction was not bad- there was some real discussion, rather than just thread-pulling. The piece was accurate, as far as it went. But time has added some more pieces to the puzzle.

When Obama arrived at the white House, I thought that one of his first tasks would need to be to get a grip on those same Parallel Structures- the most aggressively antagonistic elements in the government he inherited from Cheney-Rumsfeld-Fieth et al. He failed miserably to do this. In essence, he allowed them to run. Why was that? After reading his books and watching his repudiation of almost everything we thought he believed, I thought perhaps he was waiting to see who won.
After watching from a safe distance for a while, I think it more likely that he was truly unaware of the threat when he entered the white house. But a panoply of his own actions has shown us that his first priority is to be a member of the club. He now has his card, and so now sees his policy and strategic options through the eyes of the club.

But--which club?  

It turns out it's a sack of angry cats at the top, and his lack of personal beliefs leaves him deeply vulnerable, with divided loyalties (if one can use that word in relationship to Obama).  But this new piece of war theater is very much to his disadvantage.
 These are facts it seems he cannot remain unaware of now.

  • If the President moves against Iran militarily, the neocons win the holy grail of their theology- war with Iran. Obama will also lose those progressive supporters still able to reason (quite a few), and therefore likely the election.

  • If he equivocates, as he does so often, he gives the GOP a huge array of clubs to beat him with- National Pride, Sovereignty, Security (Fear, Fear, Fear!) etc., and his weakness will be even more easy to demonstrate.

  • Does it draw attention away from the OWS event? Sure. A plus for all elements in the power structure, true. But there are easier ways to do this, ways that would not empower the GOP/neocon elements so drastically.

Note that the national good does not even enter into my analysis. That is because I see no one following that thread in the entire catfight.
 Except the Occupiers.
Sad.

 

Display:
It's complete bollocks, and if there were any truth in it we wouldn't be reading this propaganda in the press.

As far as I can see, this rubbish is surfacing because the Russians and the Iranians appear to be seriously discussing some kind of solution to the nuclear issue, and there are clearly some people who believe that retaining Iran at the top of the US shit list is in their interests.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 06:16:39 AM EST
I'm glad somebody else was smelling a rat about this, although I just assumed it was the usual CIA/FBI/DHS James Jesus Angleton paranoid 2 + 2 = 666 equation.

I mean we've had the al-Qaeda plot that was more Al Kinda  turned out to be a bunch of glee clubbers who fell in with an FBI provocateur who wanted to blow up the world. We've had the Quakers who were investigated for terrorist activities and those are just the ones I remember a couple of details; swarms of other idiot fantasy arrests, in the US and in the UK (does anyone remember the group who were supposed to want to blow up Old Trafford football ground ? They weren't even City supporters), that exist simply to ramp up tension at moments of greatest political convenience.

Truth is; Israel is being brought kicking and screaming to previously unimaginable agreements. The Shalit prisoner exchange (just why is this happening now ?). The UN is gonna vote for Palestine becoming a nation; I mean, that's gonna really bug them. Turkey is beginning to push Israel around, garnering regional support for the Palestinians under international laws.

So, trying to make the US start a war with Iran is as good a way as any of pushing the genie back in the bottle. Let's be honest, they've been pushing the PNAC crowd for 15 years at least. They only have to succeed once.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 06:24:30 AM EST
Oh, and look, John Bolton is advocating war with Iran

Who Could Have Predicted?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 07:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Had the same thoughts when I heard the story, which I then followed up (in my head) with the question of when the Occupy Wall Street movement will suffer an attempted sabotage by someone(s) against it murdering some Wall Streeters in a manner to make it look as though it were done by the protesters.

But I'm of the paranoid persuasion.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher

by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 05:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, it depends. I think luring them into committing criminal damage will be easier, although they've had one pop at doing that.

There's an occupation planned for London this weekend and I'm betting that the usual secret policemen will be out in their blackbloc garb to smash up a McDonalds or two and drag it into easy disrepute. I'm sure NYPD could do the same.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 05:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. Their resistance to that temptation has been heroic, by and large. Time for some Provocateurs?

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 01:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
when we marched in rome in '03 against the iraq clusterfuck, there were 2 million of us, and wherever we walked, the house shutters were closed, like people were ashamed that we would ask the country not to sign up to the bushlicker club to enrich the MIC and murder wholesale.

i am a peaceful person, abhorring physical violence, and saw none those days, but i felt how the denial all around, the sheer ouspenskian somnambulism, it felt like violence was as inevitable as the second shoe dropping, even at a freaking peace march!

more power to us, because we didn't go there, but i can see how tempting it is to some, enraged by the callous ignorance, would over-ride their peacefulness into the nihilistic smash'n'grab adrenalin-fuelled groupthink, that so distinguished the recent london riots. nothing remotely peaceful about them, just depressed decades of class inferiority hitting its occasional boiling point. ugly meeting ugly, iow.

what mystifies me is this. with 200,000 peaceful protestors in rome today, 500 blackblockers take over and redefine the event in the media.

if 2 million didn't make any discernible dent, what hope do 200,000?

but 200,000 could easily grab a few of these kids, de-hood them, ID them, and persuade them to sing how they are paid to bring violence to peaceful rallies, on video.

shouldn't take long to get 16 year olds to come clean, now should it?

if they are paid, then youtube awaits. if they are not then they get some education in how provoking state repression through property damage is generally a Bad Idea.

if they are little davids in their own minds that's one thing, if they are judas puppets, it's another.

shouldn't be rocket science to figure out...

they have the thugs, we have the(ir) numbers.

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 03:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Weird Nut Daily, no less.  Colonel Walrus really needs set off on an ice floe.
by rifek on Wed Oct 19th, 2011 at 02:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perfect story? With the nonsense about the Mexicans being involved?
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 06:51:57 AM EST
Hey, listen- wetback-bashing is a fair draw. Why not throw it in? My wife (who was born in Mexico City laughed.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually it makes sense if you can get people to believe in it. You can use it either for attacking Iran or for putting up a "fence" on the border, depending on which Tea Partiers you want (without success) to get to vote for you. But it makes the story even less plausible....
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I won't be too surprised if it was shown that some good connections exist between the Mexican druglords and a number of American secret services.

Mexico seen as unlikely launching pad for Iranian plot - World Wires - MiamiHerald.com

"Any plan to use Mexican drug cartels to carry out attacks against the United States would threaten the very existence of the cartel," a Stratfor analysis said.

"Mexican drug cartels are already facing challenges -- struggling with one another and with the Mexican government for control over transportation routes that will allow them to transit cocaine from South America to the United States. Any foray into international terrorism would be bad for business," Stratfor said.

by Nomad on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 05:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Marcy Wheeler (more power to her wheel) is having a hard time believing it as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really difficult time taking this latest terrorist plot seriously. Not just because the story is so neat, tying together all the enemies-the drug cartles and Iran-we're currently supposed to hate, but because it elicited such comical lines from Eric Holder and NY US Attorney Preet Bharara about assassinating other government's officials (like, say, Qaddafi's son) and doing battle on other country's soil (like, say, the entire world) and not taking sufficient precautions to prevent civilian casualties.

But just to unpack what the government claims it found, here's the amended complaint.



keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 07:52:54 AM EST
Oh, and she thinks the Kochs should be arrested for financing it

As Bloomberg reported last week, the Koch Brothers have illegally traded with Iran, selling them petrochemical equipment Iran needs to keep pumping oil to pay the state's bills. So doesn't think make the Koch Brothers accessories to this alleged terrorist plot?

Further, the Koch brothers are dumping big money into Republican causes. So doesn't that mean the Republican Party is being funded by terrorists?

That's the way material support laws work, after all, at least if you're a brown person.



keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 07:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Atlantic - Max Fischer - Would Iran Really Want to Blow Up the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.?

But, for all the plausibility that Iran might be willing to blow up a Saudi ambassador, it's not at all apparent what they would gain from it. Iran has never been shy about sponsoring terrorism, but only when it was within their interests, or at least their perceived interests. It's hard to see how they could have possibly decided on a plot like the one that Holder claimed today.

What would it really mean for Iran if the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. were killed in a terrorist attack in Washington? The U.S.-Saudi relationship has been bad and getting worse since the start of the Arab Spring, with the Saudi monarchy working increasingly against the democratic movements that the U.S. supports. A senior member of the royal family even threatened to cut off the close U.S.-Saudi relationship if Obama opposed the Palestinian statehood bid, which he did. If the U.S. and Saudi Arabia really broke off their seven-decade, oil-soaked romance, it would be terrific news for Iran. Saudi Arabia depends on the U.S. selling it arms, helping it with intelligence, and overlooking its domestic and regional (see: Bahrain) abuses.

If the U.S.-Saudi alliance fell apart, the Shia-majority Islamic Republic of Iran would have an easier time pushing its regional influence against Saudi Arabia, especially in some of the crucial states between the two: Iraq, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Iran would be able to reverse its increasing regional isolation and perhaps flip some Arab leaders from the U.S.-Saudi sphere toward its own. The best part of this, for Iran, is that it probably wouldn't even have to do anything: the U.S.-Saudi special relationship, if it collapses, would do so without Iran having to lift a finger. The dumbest thing that Iran could possibly do, then, would be stop the collapse, to find some way to bring the U.S. and Saudi Arabia back together. For example, by attempting to blow up the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. on American soil.

My bold

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 08:06:24 AM EST
In fairness, Steve Clemons, also at the Atlantic, takes the opposite view.

It's an essay worth reading as it is full of interesting tit-bits about relationships in the region of which I was unaware but, finally, although it is an assemblage of fascinating details, they don't, imo, add up to a convincing narrative.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 08:09:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah. Perhaps the worst bullshit ever to emerge from the PNAC club.

The wider, far more important point is that if you look at it from the "who benefits?" angle, it does not look like it could have come from Obama.
If not, the internal struggle for control has accelerated. Obama never got a grip on the PNAC peni (plural for a pig's sexual organ?)-- too fastidious to grab the handle? and they are still trying to finish him off.
But---with this?
Senile.
Does not keep them from being dangerous.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People like John Bolton, the Cheney swarm etc who, if not actually in Government, always know they can use the Permanent Shadow Establishment of Defence, Intelligence and Security assets to effect policy.

Obama has been far too indulgent of Republicans of all stripes, including the delusional fanatics at PNAC, to pull them up sharply now.

Who benefits ? Follow the money. Always. Look under any rock in DC and you'll see a Halliburton subsidiary scuttling for cover, but always rattling a tin for yet another contract to shoot a few gooks here and there to promote Pax AmeriKKKa. Convergence of interests.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Oct 12th, 2011 at 01:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right now the feature film on the screen is the presidential race, with dingbats like Bolton maneuvering in the aisles,  but my primary interest is in Obama's lack of control over this. I still say, if they push it big time, it's a no-win for him, and in a big way. I don't think the big payoff here is only more access to military contracts- they had that sewed up long ago. It's discrediting Obama.

Look at today's papers. They are pushing the "Act of War" meme hard. This seems too stupid for words, but just look at the current GOP poll leader! Missile defense at the dining room, dear lord.
 

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 01:57:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Obama is the status quo President, anyone who looked could see that from years out. And so he inherited wars and he keeps 'em going; steady as she goes. I think Obama's perceived lack of control is as much a case of his belief that asserting his view is somehow "not bipartisan". Yet by such failure, he is a willing participant in discrediting himself.

He also doesn't want to upset AIPAC who also want their war with Iran. So he can't go out on a limb  cos he knows their revenge would be even more damaging than that of PNAC.

There is a sentiment building in the US that these wars have gone on too long, and that they don't want another, but like #Occupy.. that is neither here nor there cos it hasn't made any political demands and so it hasn't really impacted the thinking of the elites yet.

when they go from the dKos position of electing more democrats to electing anti-everwar and anti-WallSt politicians then things'll change. But it'll be a long time coming.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 03:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You only consider two options for Obama: to move for war, or to equivocate. Isn't there a third, sane option along the lines of forcefully reacting at the civilian (criminal, judicial, diplomatic) level?

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 05:21:04 AM EST
Indeed. That would be great, I think.
 But ever since 9/11 the use of criminal prosecution, and indeed the whole notion of the courts as effective support for a civilized response to crime has just melted away. I think in part because empires seem to require a two-tiered administrative structure, with legal immunity for the enforcers,
and of course because so much of current actions are illegal in themselves.

The greatest victim of empire-think has been the whole notion of living under a system of laws that are recognized as in the main just, and are therefore obeyed, in the main.
There is no crime so heinous that good connections can't bury. "Enhanced Interrogation" indeed.
The social glue has largely melted.  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 05:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See this from a week ago
So a panel operating out of the White House -- that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates -- is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider.


Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 05:49:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah.  Saw that, in several forms. Perhaps the clearest example of what I was talking about.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 01:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
energy is the key to change. obama needed/needs to point to that way forward if he wants to be known as more than just america's first black president.

it's a triple win, socially, economically and politically, actually a quadruple, because ecologically is more important than the other 3 put together.

of course the lobbyists against that drive would be immensely powerful and active, but still having a presidential imprimatur on this angle of attack would galvanise it further.

he should be pounding on this message night and day, week after week, using all the considerable charm at his disposal, to convince the electorate of his good faith regarding this issue.

scratch any OCW supporter, i bet you'd find near unanimous agreement, yet it's not on any street signs at the protest that i have seen yet, (doesn't mean they aren't there.)

it's the only logical step, the unspoken half of what could/should be his jobs bill, which as it stands will not pass, seeing the surreal levels of obstructionism he has to grapple with.

there are so many lefty proposals he has ignored, even trampled on, in his pathetic eagerness not to disappoint those who taxi'd him to where he is in their mission to exploit him to further their own sachsy, warmachine agendas.

he shows no signs of bending to populist pressure, he is ahead of any repug so far in the game, and i think his touchingly naive belief in his financial advisors
 has blinded him to how it really is down on main st.

i'm cutting him slack here, as half of me hates how well he campaigns compared to how he governs, it has left all but the most credulous feeling bitterly let down, but he's fairly safe politically, the way the wind's blowing now, as no repug candidate is convincing a majority of even hard GOPers that he has a clue what better to do, if obama is in a bubble, -and he is-, the GOP are so busy trying to recreate 1955 that they are even more out of touch with reality down on the ground.

he still may have a chance of recapturing the momentum that got him to the WH, but it would take him doggedly facing down the nuke, MIC, and oil lobbies, without much support from congress or the senate.

this fake war is being sprouted in case the OCW movement goes to kent state levels of repression, and obama were to decide to mollify and a populus enraged by watching its innocent youth cut down by a heartless status quo.

bolton will leap out of the shadows to be the 'no-nonsense' leader the country will crave to unite under, with a blizzard of supportive media.

obama will either cede like kerry, or really come into his power by reconnecting that gift for rhetoric and modulating it into a full-throated support for radical change that not even he would believe in right now, good little product of his chicago environment that he is.

if he taps into the energy of OCW by showing them the shortest path to peace is alt. energy, get the unemployed busy planting trees, aiding the infirm, rolling out solar/wind with the urgency america felt upon entering WW2, then then Lord Alfred would be proud.

when the jobs numbers go up with this apollo new deal, then move to decapitating the finance industry and defenestrating its archdevils, prosecuting war crimes, and restoring free college education, legislating a guaranteed income, and single-payer HC, he'd not only multiply the political capital he mustered campaigning, (bigger that any leader's in all of world history?), but would consolidate america's reputation as bold frontrunner in modelling how a modern society can be run, positioning himself to be a possible world president by 2020.

he might even stop capitalism from self-immolation, and stop his country from a bloody civil war, if he doesn't stop a bullet first...

the temptation to first strike iran, either directly of by israeli proxy must be horribly intoxicating to those pondering the imminent demise of all they have sold their souls for for so long.

but only by getting its own house into order, will america be able to hope to make amends for its imperial forays and the hatred of so many they have engendered this last half century.

if not obama, who has the voice to enunciate a better world?

only by putting his life on the line in this way, would he be able to actually catalyse the energy birthing in the OCW movement, and even jump ahead of them to the step beyond what they are presently aware enough to know to ask for, to show them the way out of this minotaur's lair.

let those who try to insist on prolonging the status quo have no place left to hide, as the media is grudgingly forced to acknowledge the protesters are righteous, both in demands and behaviour.

the pressure's building inexorably to the point where any equivocation will be a Fail, the sheep and the goats will feel their differences, as they belatedly realise their iconic banks and institutions are facades for pseudo-regulated graft and extortion, and they too, shorn of whatever pitiful class pretensions america's fling with world domination had apparently endowed them with, realise that they are part of the 99%, the system is thrashing out of control, and the 1% will never stop trying to soak them as long as they are not carted off in straitjackets and given lodging in safe houses where they can masturbate their calculators to their hearts' content, playing out their gambling addictions with their own matchsticks and scraps of paper instead of others' money and trust, far from positions where they can bring down governments with their unrestrained psychopathologies.

by using that rhetoric to grab the brass ring, i hope obama is starting to realise what he unshackled, and how if he doesn't ride it where the great majority wants to go, his legacy will be that of a man who should have been more careful what he wanted, because when it came he flaked on following through...

events will force him to stop wiggling soon enough!

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Oct 13th, 2011 at 09:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow. Great rant, melo. I hope you're right.
But I no longer believe Obama really wanted the things he appeared to want. His great talent is to be everything to everyone, and in the end, when faced with a big slam from the real world, that particular talent is revealed as useless for fixing things.

I agree with the thrust of your comment, and the passionate hope you declaim. It's another huge opportunity for him, but alas- one he will once again walk away from.

Consider the possibility that there are others who might be able to step in and seize the moment.

Could that happen?
How might that happen?
The big question:
What would success or failure mean for Europe?

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 01:57:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
geezer in Paris:
Consider the possibility that there are others who might be able to step in and seize the moment.

i do, i do...

the elements are there, even possible actors, were it not for the dualistic thinking falsely polarising their efforts instead of uniting them.

put bernie sanders, ron paul, dennis k., feingold, boxer, grayson, gore, and warren in a room with obama and don't let them out till they have hammered out a national economic/social/ecological policy blueprint to save america from drowning in its own moral morass.

and when that's up and running, jail the banksters and torturers in wind turbine factories till they pay off their karma!

as for europe, i despair right now.

this place is teetering on the edge of outright RW lunacy, without any truly visionary leaders (or orators) waiting in the wings, as far as i can see.

cohn-bendit sorta gets it. as do thousands of well-meaning low wattage technocrats woven into the system, all sorely lacking coherent europe-wide leadership.

but we need to think globally at this point, europe is writing its own script for further future irrelevance, it had its shot and look what we got!

sarko, berlu, merkel, dave-from-marketing, zapatero, barroso, rompuy, ashton et al.

please... not one clue between the lot of them. 50 million dead to save us from the turd reich and save democracy for this?

with all the sun we get, we end up being russia's energy bitch? on china's dime?

can you say 'sold down the fucking rhine?'

watching america right now get off its cellulite and face the music is revealing how apathetic and hamstrung europe is right now, compared.

and hey, thanks for replying geezer! i really felt i was howling in the antarctic for nothing there...

"We can all be prosperous but we can't all be rich." Ian Welsh

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 02:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FBI Account of "Terror Plot" Suggests Sting Operation - IPS ipsnews.net
WASHINGTON, Oct 13, 2011 (IPS) - While the administration of Barack Obama vows to hold the Iranian government "accountable" for the alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the legal document describing evidence in the case provides multiple indications that it was mainly the result of an FBI "sting" operation.

Although the legal document, called an amended criminal complaint, implicates Iranian-American Manssor Arbabsiar and his cousin Ali Gholam Shakuri, an officer in the Iranian Quds Force, in a plan to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir, it also suggests that the idea originated with and was strongly pushed by a undercover DEA informant, at the direction of the FBI.

On May 24, when Arbabsiar first met with the DEA informant he thought was part of a Mexican drug cartel, it was not to hire a hit squad to kill the ambassador. Rather, there is reason to believe that the main purpose was to arrange a deal to sell large amounts of opium from Afghanistan.

In the complaint, the closest to a semblance of evidence that Arbabsiar sought help during that first meeting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador is the allegation, attributed to the DEA informant, that Arbabsiar said he was "interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia".

Among the "other things" was almost certainly a deal on heroin controlled by officers in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Three Bloomberg reporters, citing a "federal law enforcement official", wrote that Arbabsiar told the DEA informant he represented Iranians who "controlled drug smuggling and could provide tons of opium".
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Oct 14th, 2011 at 03:58:42 PM EST
Fascinating.
The whole Gareth Porter piece once again reveals the Gordian knot that is the sixteen or so intelligence services and their machinations.


Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Oct 16th, 2011 at 02:08:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries