...I am also pretty skeptical about the CIA-supporting-PJAK/Baluch to destabilize the Iranian regime stuff that Gardiner, discredited former ABC news consultant and phony Obama interviewer Alexis Debat, and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been saying. Skeptical in large part because people out front saying it like Debat have shown an inclination to make things up, while well meaning and sincere people like Gardiner saying it don't offer much in the way of evidence beyond their own conviction and some charts tracking the hawks' rhetoric that make the conspiracy theorists go nuts but don't in the end really show very much but that there's a propaganda effort, which was already reported a year ago. Another of that allegation's sources cited in the piece, who I do respect, seems sometimes inclined to crowd please and sex things up for his audience on occasion, in an almost he can't help himself or unwitting way perhaps because he feels that's what his audience wants. But mostly I'm skeptical because of the fact that former US intelligence sources I consider highly credible tell me the CIA is not working with the Baluch/Rigi, certainly not to destabilize the Iranian regime, and those like British reporter James Brandon who have been up in the Qandil mountains with the PKK/PJAK say the groups have no good weapons, are extremely modestly supplied, and no sign of serious US or western support to be found. They expressed that they would welcome western support when he was up there over a year ago, but he saw no sign and they said they hadn't gotten any. And indeed far more recently the PJAK has threatened to attack US forces because of US support to Turkey in its attacks against the PKK. As well as because of the fact I talk to several Iranian diaspora oppositionists and hawks some of whom would love the US to support these groups and act more aggressively to destabilize the Iranian regime, who are pretty unhappy with the Bush administration for not doing very much on this issue.
In the end, I just don't think the Bush administration is trying to seriously destabilize the Iranian regime or change it...
Rozen's analysis boils down to this: Hersch has been warning about this for 5 years. If he's right, why haven't they done it already? Rozen suggests that it's really just an effort to milk more defense and black budget bucks from Congress.
She's right about that, at least. The dollar's the deal, always.
Ever since it was Mission Accomplished by the Codpiece in 2003, Cheneyburton & PNAC friends have been banging the wardrums for some more hot Iranian action. And ever since 2003 Sy Hersch has been doing a good job of deflating the jingo. No, we haven't gone to open war in Iran. Yet. Largely because of Hersch. And frankly, dear I don't give a damn if Sy is the mouthpiece for a more pragmatic group in the Carlyle array of investment capital.
Rozen's analysis suffers from the same set of blinders most progressives have. They expect rational movement of Cheneyburton towards its goals. They don't get that any information source from the Carlyle proxy company that runs the United States Government is disinformation even if the information is factually correct.
They don't get that the Company is composed of more than one faction. It's a band of contentious brothers bent on hegemony. But they do tend to unite around two points: money and power to get more money.
The fastest way to both isn't the linear approach, and the fastest way for one Company faction isn't the fastest way for another.
According to Hersch:
...Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates's comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates's answer, the senator told me, was "Let's just say that I'm here speaking for myself."
That's pure propaganda, alright, but in this instance it's also likely correct.
Rozen suggests her information sources tell her there have been no Special Ops in Iran. Again, she says, if there have been, where's the evidence of it?
My information sources- Special Forces PsyOps at that- tell me there have been and continue to be American forces on the ground in Iran. And the difference between my sources and Rozen's and the difference between my position and hers is I realize it's all second hand information that Somebody wants me to hear.
And it just irritates me no end that supposedly intelligent professionals can't realize that. Or try to appear as if they don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment