It's taking a while to assemble all the parts of what was known about Iran, and before the public knew what the NIE said, any conclusion from all those parts would only be another conspiracy theory. But it appears now that Washington insiders have known for months that the NIE was not going to be one Bush could use to support his desired war with Iran. Anyone who really thinks that George only just learned that the Iranians had shut down the nuclear weapons program is living in a fantasy world in which drug addicts and alcoholics promise to stop taking drugs or drinking and then really do it. When George said he had only just learned of what the report had to say, he was lying.
One more Lie. Just one more lie, then another and another. Fourteen months to the end of Bush's term, and it's a long time, but he'll get there one lie at a time, just as he has gotten this far.
Josh Marshall has some more information about prior knowledge by Washington insiders that the NIE could not support Bush's desire for active war with Iran.
2 comments:
And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn't it?
Looking at your link (which, by the way, should be posted as like this so that it can be clicked on and not send you to google) it seems at first glance to be an unlikely conspiracy theory.
Why unlikely? Because of Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is the leader of our middle east policy, and he is in thrall to the NeoCons who are representatives of the right-wing Israelis. Cheney's nature is not to negotiate. His nature is to pressure compliance with force and threats of force. His treatment of Colin Powell and of Condi Rice since she became Secretary of State clearly demonstrates his attitude for the efforts of diplomacy. He doesn't make any deal with someone who isn't on their knees with Cheney's gun held at their head.
Cheney will also not work any deal that the right-wing Israelis do not approve, and the Isreali right-wing operates much as Cheney does - only force and threats of force because they do not believe that Muslims can be negotiated with. [When a nation is under attack, the nationals will gravitate to those who demand extreme forms of counterattack over those who propose negotiation. Right-wing politicians use this reaction to gain personal power. Cheney and the NeoConservatives are examples.]
The problem with this attitude is that it is a self-filling prophecy. When your opponents know that is your attitude is to attack rather than understand and compromise, then the moderates among your opponents have no motivation to try to reign in the extremists. Extremists on one side thus create extremists on the other side, then use the existence of extremists on the other side to justify their own extremism. [It's a recursive process, so it's a bit difficult to follow.]
Additionally, besides being out of character for Cheney and the American right wing, the proposal that Shoher suggests does not seem to be a comparable quid pro quo. The MEK have been terrorists operating out of Iraq against Iran since Saddam times and they still are, and an equivalent quid pro quo for reducing Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists would be to reduce support for the MEK.
From another view, as we now know, the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a propaganda device pushed by the Bush administration to justify the use of overt military force against Iran. What current Iraqi terrorist actions exist that would be worth giving up that propaganda device as a means of propaganda force against Iran? Agreements are an offer to give up something that is roughly equivalent in value to what is received. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
I'm not saying that such a deal is impossible. I'm really just saying that there isn't enough information given to show why it would be reasonable.
Given that, I don't know any facts that would directly impact such a deal, so my opinion is little more than another conspiracy theory with questions attached that might clarify the article. I am basing my opinion on the facts that seem clear to me - Cheney is in control of American middle east policy, and Cheney is an extremist who does not negotiate with equals, preferring to operate from a position of superior force or the appearance of superior force - and I have absolutely no knowledge of Obadiah Shoher. He may well have inside information that I don't, and he may well have an outstanding reputation for objective and reliable accuracy. He may also be speaking for some group or agency with a propaganda interest in spreading this story. The second alternative is much the more likely than the first, and would be needed to be disproved or somehow neutralized before any action was taken on the basis of this story.
But from what I know of the Bush administration power structure and Dick Cheney's typical behavior, I would not at this time give Shoher's story enough credibility to be worth acting on.
If I were an intelligence analyst, I would take this story, then 1. roughly evaluate it for likely importance to the future actions of my organization, and if it were possibly important, 2. evaluate the reliability of the source, then 3. I would identify what are called Essential Elements of Intelligence that would bear on proving or disproving various factors in the story and in the source of the story. Then I would sent out the Essential Elements of Intelligence to focus investigation to verify or disprove the story. [Forgive me if the correct term is other than Essential Elements of Intelligence - my Command and General Staff College training in Intelligence procedures was over three decades ago, and I have never worked as an intelligence analyst. That was a specialty that I looked to the experts to deal with. But the logical process is obvious.]
Or, in less than accurate journalize, his story, without further factual support, amounts to another conspiracy theory that does not have a lot of plausibility in itself. First, I don't consider it a likely action of the Bush/Cheney administration. Second, even if it did occur, why does it matter? Third, if further evidence suggest that it did occur, and that for some reason it matters, is there additional reliable evidence that supports or disproves it?
I don't get past items one and two. Without them, then my time is worth too much to spend on item three.
But I am open to further information that might change my opinion. Key to any such information would be some that clarified who Obadiah Shoher represents, and I don't consider it likely to be either sufficiently plausible or important for me to spend time chasing it down. [More Intelligence could, of course, change my evaluation of the importance and plausibility. But you did ask my opinion.]
One final comment on my response above. I tried to organized my thoughts for presentation, but my actual thoughts did not follow any such actual path. I read your post, tracked done the post you referred to (Please learn to imbed links - it's easy), gathered my thoughts, attempted to organize them, and then rethought my opinion based on the organization I had imposed on the early, much more chaotic thoughts. I have then presented my thoughts more as they occurred than I would if presentation were highest priority. Better organization would make for prettier presentation, but I want to leave it this way to show the trail of my thinking.
But here is what I did. Any analysis will always start with the collection of facts and the deconstruction of the story previously presented. It will be followed by a new organization and the presentation of the newly organized analysis which I will attempt to impose on the narrative of the facts. It is that new organization that will lead to new questions.
There are essential steps in the process, though. There has to be an evaluation of the importance of the story to what future decisions and actions are going to be made. The evaluation of the importance of the story (any judgment of importance requires criteria - in this case, what is going to be important to future decisions and actions.) The evaluation of the importance of the story is almost a final step. But it is key to determining whether more investigation is justified.
Further investigation is always a cost-benefit evaluation.
So, considering the known reliability of the source (in this case, merely unknown - unreliable would be worse), importance to future actions and the minimal apparent plausibility (not none,just minimal knowing what I know of Cheney), this story is not one I would pursue further.
Post a Comment