Searcher08 wrote:I think that an Anglo-American war with Iran would be...
1 Massively unpopular in the UK and US "You cant afford my public-sector pension but you can afford a pre-emptive war???"
2 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians could be divided along ethnic lines - the Iran / Iraq war showed quite the reverse
3 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians would regard it as a war for their freedom.
4 That the war would be confined to Iran .
5 That the Iranians would not retaliate in kind - I think quite the opposite - that they would respond exactly in kind.
All Roads Lead to IranPlame:
Luke: Over that period was when Plame was outed, that summer of 2003.
LA: That July - right. Exactly
Luke: Can you talk about why she was outed? Can I throw that open question to you?
LA: Oh boy, somehow I knew you would ask me this. Why? I don’t think anyone can say with absolute certainty that she was outed for a specific reason, and there are certainly many possibilities. But I play chess and things seem to be combinational in this regard, in that, there not need be one single reason for something.
I certainly have never bought into the 'to discredit her husband' argument. I may be entirely wrong of course and given the incompetence of these guys I wouldn’t put it past them to be even this incompetent. As I have said, however, the “reason” need not be a single one and the time frame does not support the argument of her outing as “nothing more than a political hit” on her husband, although it may have served that purpose as well. But again, that is just my opinion and others have the same opinion but others also believe that it was to discredit her husband and nothing more.
I just find it astonishing how all roads, no matter the angle you start at, lead to Iran, and you know what she was working on right? Since you seem to follow my work closely.
Luke: Yes, specifically she was tracking the WMD proliferation - both to and from Iran - that’s correct?
LA: In the most broadest terms, yes
Luke: exclusively nuclear? Or were there other things going on?
LA: I cannot get into it. I had to write the article and pass each verb and noun by a bevy of people so that it would not compromise national security further and it would not inadvertently be an issue in any future operations. So in the broadest of terms, yes in and out of Iran, beyond what is in the article I cannot say.
Luke: but one of the things that was interesting in your article was that Plame was tracking arms both to and FROM Iran - that element didn’t seem to get much attention - is Iran selling a lot of this stuff as well?
LA: again - you have to remember that I had to write this article very broadly - so its fair to speculate whatever you care to glean out of that - but I just can’t comment - I cant comment beyond what I wrote in that article.
Luke: ok - I’ll move on... another curious thing about Iran is Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger - when he reported back that not only was Iraq not buying uranium, but that it was actually Iran that had tried to buy some uranium there
LA: That is interesting, isn’t it? Amazing how Iran keeps popping up.
Luke: (laughs) that story seems to have been forgotten
LA: Yep, and Steve Clemons brought that into daylight after the Senate Intel committee distorted it. Wilson sent a letter to the committee indicating they were factually wrong and Washington Post corrected their original reporting because it was based on the Senate report. Yet the Senate report and the talking points make things really messy. Ya know - I do think that is fascinating - and that should take you to the next logical question - what are the Niger forgeries really then?
Luke: oh! Are you suggesting that they were to cover up that earlier transaction with Iran?
LA: No, not at all. I am not suggesting anything other than people really need to ask themselves that question, and not really read into what I am saying on this too much as I am speculating myself at this point. But I would not say the speculation is unfounded. In any case, focus on that question - because everyone is busy chasing the chain of custody of the documents - how they were put together, how they were disseminated - generally what I would call intelligence trafficking and they don’t really ask the most obvious question - which is 'what the hell are they really?' are they really about this? Are they really about that? Are they really even relevant?
Everything is pointing - you can’t deny that – to Iran - and even the meetings with Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, Franklin & Rhode - as well as a few SISMI representatives (not Pollari or any of the Martinos) and a few Egyptian intelligence folks, dissidents (I'm assuming MEK - but I'm not sure) in Rome, late 2001 - before there was an Iraq war even, were about Iran. Even the later meetings in Paris with Rhode and Weldon and Ghorbanifar - again you’re talking about Iran.
Luke: wow - there's a change - Ledeen is actually telling the truth when he says that those meetings didn’t have anything to do with Iraq
Larisa: I don’t think anyone said that he was meeting about Iraq, at least no one I have read or talked to. He told me the basic overview of the meeting, namely, that was about allegations of Iranians supporting Afghani rebels. There is speculation that he was behind the Niger forgeries, but those statements were made regarding certain people in his circle, not him per se. No one thinks he forged the documents, no one I know, have read, or have talked to. I don’t think he forged the documents and he is telling the truth on that, although I think he may know or suspect who did and is not saying, but he may not actually know. But I did confirm from various intel folks that he was meeting in Rome about Iran, not Iraq. Now after he left and Rhode and Franklin stayed behind is where Iraq may have been discussed, but the Niger forgeries discredit the Iraq claim, rather, they support the Iran claim. So not the forgeries, not the meeting in Rome (in which Ledeen was a part at least), not the Paris Weldon/Gorba meeting, none of these things had to do with Iraq at all. Not even Plame’s work. They all lead in one direction.
Luke: Iran.
All Roads Lead to Iran, Again Plus, while the official story has more holes than cheese, one must remember that sometimes if there is a cover up, that cover up could be for a whole set of other reasons that literally have nothing to do with the crime itself. If certain business dealings were unveiled because of 911, not that they were responsible for or related to it, but simply unveiled, then that damage would be more significant to a democratic government than a single attack could ever have been. Osama can not bring down America from the outside and with one attack, even, although it was a tragedy, but the subverting of the democratic process and corrupting the representative government can bring America to its knees.
Luke: That's very interesting. And given her language specialties (Turkish, Farsi and Azeri) she was looking primarily at Turkey and the other Central Asian countries where she notes that the Americans are building military bases
LA: Correct - and if you look - where are all these storylines going?
Luke: Straight to Iran
LA: Right - and that would answer some of your questions - without me having to say much more.
Good Leaks and Bad LeaksLuke Ryland: Let's get back to Iran - why is Iran the Big Prize?
Larisa Alexandrovna: Iran has always been the big prize. I think the Golden Crescent of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in general has been the Big Prize for various reasons - business interests, geopolitical reasons, etc. There are all sorts of reasons why it's been the crown jewel. There is not one single group, for example the Neoconservatives, who are guiding this ship if you will. There are factions who may have different agendas and ideologies, but they may work together because they have the same goals.
There are, for example, business interests - both legal and illegal. The energy market, for example, wants the oil (legal) and the drug market, for example, wants the routes and supply of the Golden Crescent region (illegal). These two separate interested parties don’t necessarily have the same ideology or the same interests, but their goal is the same because of the larger business market, both legal and illegal.
There are also geopolitical reasons - there are advantages to having a presence there in a very significant region - controlling that region would be like controlling the center of a chess board. An example of this would be to directly address China and Russia, both of whom have vested interests in the region. In any case, there are many reasons why Iran is the big prize and the different factions have come together to act in this direction, either knowingly working together or working independently of one another to capture control of the Golden Crescent region.
Lukery: Quagmire notwithstanding? (note this interview was done prior to the MEK article Larisa just wrote, so she alludes to the MEK relationship with the West, but does not go into details of what she then reports after the interview has taken place.)
LA: Well - we can't invade Iran because the military is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan - but remember, they don't have to invade because the ultimate goal is control of the region. Hence all the talk of 'regime change' - the key is to overthrow the government and replace it with a government of the Western nations' choosing. A 'grass roots' operation would incite insurgencies in various parts of the region - and create issues and rifts where there were none previously. For example, I'm sure that you're familiar with MEK – so the West can use foreign agents, for example, as mechanisms in that regard to create a grass roots opposition movement. We've seen this sort of thing work all over the place, obviously, South America being the prime example. So this would be one way the West could approach the issue of Iran without the quagmire of Iraq, by using proxies. It is also a good way to avoid Congressional oversight. If that doesn't work they've got this back-up plan of this new strategy of using pre-emptive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This new policy is outrageous, frankly, but they're clearly rolling that out for a reason - so one can assume, although I don't know this for sure, that that is probably Plan B, in case the plan of creating a home-grown insurgency fails.