Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

by **sijepuis** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:20 am

Excellent comments, here. Vital topic. Quoting Gouda, "I think I can agree with much of Larisa's characterization of what is going on, but on reading the whole interview, I feel something is off, or fishy [...]" I agree entirely. 'Something "sketchy" about the Luke / Larissa interview Part II, and the [over?] emphasis of MEK, left an impression of incompletion, if not a sense of potentially deliberate obfuscation. Yet, as Albion points out, this was an informal blog publication. Not that this should stand as an excuse. Perhaps the interview could have used some further pre-publication editing by both parties, by way of clarifying its purpose. Albion, many thanks for digging up the July 2004 article about long-standing US manipulation of MEK for us [saved me some work]! -- I, like you, am willing to give the interviewer / interviewee some latitude, but in point of fact the business about MEK is not only "old news": it's clearly of minimal importance with regard to a bigger picture. My point in bringing up Halliburton's subterfuge dealings with Iranian officials in a post above was to point to the broader, transnational corporate interests that are pulling the strings with respect to Iran. How are they to be viewed within various purported national foreign policies? The MEK, CIA and, doubtless, any number of other organisations are, despite spin and appearance, little more than faithful foot-soldiers in a broader war for economic control. The most pressing question, in my view, is: what exactly are the entities that are capable of subverting foreign policies into support of corporate influence at the expense of electorates and, ultimately, humanity? In fact, in the present context, all roads are being made to lead to Iran. How and why this is possible is what we need to understand. A few references regarding influence on / in Europe, by way of example: Nato and Iran: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv March 5, 2006 WHEN Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of Nato’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an Awacs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at headquarters in Brussels. It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about Nato’s possible involvement in any future military strike against Iran. “We would be the first to be called up if the Nato council decided we should be,” he said. Nato would prefer the emphasis to remain on the “if”, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets.<hr></blockquote> more: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2070420,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...20,00.html</a> "Neo-cons" and Europe: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The United States Rediscovers Europe By Pascal Riché Libération Monday 03 October 2005 Bush's Neo-Conservative intimates attempt to create a transatlantic network. American Neo-Conservatives — those intellectuals who inspired Team Bush's foreign policy — have decided to launch an ideological offensive in Europe, a continent irrelevant up to now in their strategic vision. According to our information, their idea laboratory, the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), is in the process of establishing a transatlantic network, called the "Committee for a Strong Europe." Its honorary presidents will be former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar and the American Senator John McCain. A declaration of principles has been drawn up and the hunt for signatories has begun. Shock Formula This is a real change in direction. Not long ago, the Neo-Conservatives considered cooperation with Europe of negligible value. During a Round Table in April 2002, their leader, Bill Kristol, who directs the Weekly Standard, denied "the centrality of the United States-EU link" and minimized the importance of Europe's contribution in the war against terrorism. According to him, the United States and Europe now have fundamentally different world views, with Europeans refusing to accept that "we are at war." A thought that his collaborator Robert Kagan, from the Carnegie Foundation, summarized with the shock formula: "The United States comes from Mars, Europeans come from Venus." The times have changed. While the United States is bogged down in Iraq, the Bush administration is treating its allies carefully and seeking their support. And Europe is becoming of interest again. "Morals" Gary Schmitt, PNAC Director, confirms the existence of a proposal for a "Committee for a Strong Europe," but refuses to give examples of the first signatories. The idea of this network had already been played with during the preparation for the war in Iraq, when European personalities had made it known that they approved Bush's foreign policies, but needed help to promote them. That was notably the case of Aznar's think tank (FASS, Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies), which preaches a radical Atlanticism. The new group's declaration of principle (1) is couched in very general terms, so as to attract as many well-known people as possible. It's about promoting freedom, democracy, market economics, etc. The signatories believe Europe runs the "risk of being undermined by an absence of strategic clarity, by the threat of economic stagnation, and by the decline of its military strength." For the authors, one of the priorities of a "strong Europe" would be "to invest enough in its military forces to have a strong army capable of fulfilling a wide variety of missions." (1) libe-usa.blogs.com/CSE.htm <hr></blockquote> See also: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Iran crisis analysis John Pilger: While the Pentagon has no plans to occupy all of Iran, it has in its sights a strip of land that runs along the border with Iraq. This is Khuzestan, home to 90 percent of Iran's oil. "The first step taken by an invading force," reported Beirut's Daily Star, "would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply." On Jan. 28 the Iranian government said that it had evidence of British undercover attacks in Khuzestan, including bombings, over the past year. [...] With control of the oil of Khuzestan and Iraq and, by proxy, Saudi Arabia, the US will have what Richard Nixon called "the greatest prize of all." (<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8533)">www.antiwar.com/orig/pilg...leid=8533)</a> Other views: <a href="http://tomgriffin.typepad.com/the_green_ribbon/2006/02/iran_crisis_ana.html">tomgriffin.typepad.com/th...s_ana.html</a> <hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:26 pm

Sijepuis said - "what exactly are the entities that are capable of subverting foreign policies into support of corporate influence at the expense of electorates and, ultimately, humanity?" That is a very, very good question. And it's all about asking the right question. The assumption that seems to lie behind much of the analysis here on this board and in the conspiratolosphere in general is that what we've been witnessing since 9/11 is a nascent totalitarianism in the US or even in the world (a totalitarian one world prison planet etc). Just like generals always prepare to fight the last war, peace activists always see the spectre of past demons. But comparing Bush to Hitler and 9/11 to the Reichtag fire are poor analogies. Peter Dale Scott suggests that trans-national drug cartels have grown in power and wealth to the point where they now have this capability to act as "meta-groups". That's a terrifying thought, however I don't buy the theory that these are "drug wars". But the drug trade flows through the same channels as the un-official weapons trade, and together they make up something like 5% of the global economy - more than $1.5 trillion a year. These two commodities are also the most profitable in the world. And, their trade is heavily dependent on government corruption/complicity, primarily in third world countries. That's what connects it to the mega-corruption of international oil and gas trade. And that's where certain interests converge. What would be the "geopolitical" interests of drugs "meta-groups"? I would think that their main interest would be uninterrupted production and supply routes. Of weapons traders? Never-ending civil wars and low-intensity conflicts ensuring never-ending demand for black-market weapons. Of energy corporations? To control the supply side. It's something to keep in mind when considering the consequences of 9/11 and the American reponse. The result of all that has happened since the collapse of the Soviet Union is that there's now an oil and gas-rich belt from Central Asia all the way to Central Europe of ethnic conflicts, terrorism, weak, corrupt or non-existant central governments, near impunity for drug traffickers... with one exception: Iran. Indira Singh was told it would be "the end of her" to mention the drug aspect to 9/11. Eva Joly, a French juge d'instruction, was told by a French general that she would have 48 hours to live if she ever inquired into the weapons trade connection to the corruption scandal surrounding the French oil company Elf. After the Kosovo war, Bechtel got a contract to build a brand new motorway connecting the Balkans to Central Europe...

by **lukery** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:22 pm

albion - thnx for the 'lattitude' yeah - it was only my second 'interview' (altho sibel was really more like a conversation than an interview) i agree that some of the language is a bit imprecise - my sense is that was intentional - i.e. larisa being careful about what she could say. similarly some of it seems a bit repetitive - but i think that was for the same reason - trying to say the same thing in a number of different ways to shed light on the situation without saying what couldnt be said. cheers

by **albion** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:03 am

Latitude shmatitude, you rock Luke. And, to add a bit of topical content to this bump/kick - Cannon recalls an LA times story from last year: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Iran had a program to scoop up recruits in South America. (There is a long, as-yet untold story about extreme Islam in that continent.) These recruits would then be in a good position to come to the United States and operate on behalf of Tehran. The CIA penetrated this operation; even during the Clinton years and the short-lived U.S./Iran detente, the funding continued for the Agency's efforts to spy on Iran. But the Bushies pulled the plug on the project, citing alleged budgetary problems -- just at the time when they started to ramp up the rhetoric against Iran... <a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/to-war-to-war-to-war-were-going-to-go.html">link</a> <hr></blockquote> edit: fixed grammar Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 4/16/06 3:21 am

by **lukery** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:43 am

thnx albion as i say - it was my first real interview - and there was lots of stuff to cover - but listening to it later i was kicking myself saying 'man - you should have been much smarter at that point and said xyz' - or whatever - so i accept those who might be a bit frustrated with it - although i suspect that each person has their own different reasons - many of which are probably competing - so it's difficult to find the balance - particularly in real time. it's also quite a challenge to write it up properly - i agree with the commentor above that i could have done that a bit better. sibel read the second part - and agreed with it all - so that should shed a fair bit of light on it all. perhaps i should have cut up the interview a bit more, and marketed it - becuase there's a lot of really interesting stuff in there - and it didnt get much attention. there is a bit more of the interview - one or maybe two more parts - there's more on iran and the corruption of congress - and some stuff on 'biometric spying' (that's the bit i might leave for the 4th installment) - it should be out mon or tue i've had some feedback saying that the whole thing was a complete waste of time and pointless - which is really surprising - cos i think there's a lot of really interesting stuff there - some of it may be a bit wordy and repetitive, but at the same time i know that the words were all chosen very carefully and purposefully. some people have told me that their eyes glazed over when she talked about 'cookie companies' and 'factions', for example, but (i think) that's really important to see what she's pointing at. peace

by **lukery** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:53 pm

In this installment, Bad Leaks and Good Leaks, we discuss: 1. Iran: Energy, Drugs & MEK 2. Intel Trafficking: Distinguishing between Strategic, Military, Industrial & Political leaks 3. How to corrupt a Congressman, or the entire Pentagon. 4. Promoting Good Leaks: How to support whistleblowers <a href="http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/larisa-bad-leaks-and-good-leaks.html">wotisitgood4.blogspot.com...leaks.html</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:50 am

Good stuff here. Especially the categories of leaks with different motivations by different leakers doing "intel trafficking"- LA: ...it seems to me that you have factions giving to factions. Again, you have to eliminate the concept that there is a nation state. For example, if we go back to the MEK as an example, then we could easily see the Pentagon leaking to MEK - for the benefit of certain objectives seen as “strategy.” On the other hand you could also have people leaking to government officials who obviously would also be seen as Iran. I call it "Intel Trafficking" - and these secrets could either be legitimate secrets, or disinformation being fed into the intel-stream - such as we saw with the Niger forgeries. Remember, all of this is related - competing factions, or 'cookie companies' as we discussed earlier (see installment 1). If you go back to all the different reasons why various groups have a stake in Iran, then somebody leaking because, say, it would help their business interests - and those business interests are in turn contracted to our federal government... in other words, they're using their business contacts to make money off of a deal - for example that a certain company might have with the Pentagon - so they're making money off both ends. Let us say that a company was contracted by the Pentagon for some work and this is legal of course, but they are also using that contract and access to also acquire and sell information on the intel black market that may benefit their other business deals, because they are a corporation, not a nation. This could get confusing, if not already confusing, so let me explain it by organizing as follows. By the way, this is my own classification system, not anything anyone uses and may differ from various standard categories. Strategic Military/Intelligence Leaks: Part of either disinformation campaign or allegiance. This is seen as legal as long as it does not put into peril our own security. An example of this would be those planted stories by military agents (disinformation) or leaks of tactical information to foreign agents we may be using in the field, an example may be MEK (allegiance). Industrial Military/Intelligence Leaks - 'Enabled': this is what I describe as a leak that happens from the contractors end, with the blessing and/or support of certain people in the military/DOD structure for their own interests, but is in fact illegal and does in fact compromise our national security. An example of this would be what Sibel uncovered.  Industrial Military/Intelligence Leaks - 'Solo': same as above, but done without the approval/blessing of any insider. Stealing secrets from military/DOD to essentially make money. A good example of this is the codes Chalabi got a hold of and sold to Iran. Nationalistic/Ideological Military/Intelligence Leaks: This would be where an agent of another country infiltrates our own military/intelligence infrastructure. A spy essentially or mole. Larry Franklin case might fall here, as he was not acting as a mercenary. Political Military/Intelligence Leaks: Leaks that are politically motivated, that is not to say that there cannot be multiple reasons, such as "enabled" but the public best knows these cases as 'political hits' - the outing of Valerie Plame is the best example. Does that help clarify what I mean by intelligence trafficking? Lukery: Yeah - that's great. Thanks. That really gets to the heart of my question - which is that in order to understand these leaks we need to differentiate between them - both the motivations of the leakers, and the segmentation of the recipients beyond something simplistic like, for example, 'to Iran'. Moving on. How did we get here? A lot of the people in charge at the Pentagon, and particularly at the Office of Special Plans, were already perceived as Security risks - Perle and Feith come to mind. LA: Right. Not just Feith and Perle - all of them - there's not a single one of them who hasn't been under investigation for leaking classified information! This would be in the category of Industrial Military/Intelligence Leaks – Enabled by the way. So it’s astounding that despite the FBI's concerns, despite the concerns of the security clearance staff (each agency has their own staff which does the security background checks), despite past activities, these guys still were able to get their clearances reinstated under this administration. There's only one person who can override all of these various agencies - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld! No one else would have the authority to override the FBI and the security staff concerns, so he must have had interesting reasons for issuing the clearances. Moreover, Rummy gave these guys top level DOD positions - 2nd & 3rd from the top - jobs in the Pentagon! It's mindboggling. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how Abrams is allowed to be the Deputy National Security Advisor after his indictment in Iran Contra. For god’s sake, he was part of the team that sold weapons to Iran, that is, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, treason! Lukery: Well - there are two interesting issues there. Firstly - the fact that they somehow passed the security clearance hurdle, but even curiouser is that that they were recruited in the first place LA: Actually - no - it’s a mistake to think that they were even 'recruited' - this whole group came into power en masse - this was the understanding. Every one of those people who was associated with PNAC in any way got top-level leadership positions. They're also the same people who were in Iran Contra - it’s the same cabal - moving in and out of government - they were just waiting for a friendly administration. These people should have been convicted during Iran Contra - the fact that they were pardoned doesn't exonerate them. I can't believe that I even had to fight with Ledeen about this in our interview! He thinks that the Iran Contra folks are innocent, whereas I think that a pardon prior to a trial does not equal acquittal. By any measure, it's not only bad judgment to put them back into office - but it should be illegal. Again, it's essentially giving aide and comfort to our enemies. Lukery: It's amazing - criminals from top to bottom. Is it really as bad as it looks from the outside? LA: Actually, it looks fairly bad from the inside too.

Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Re: Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Re: Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: thnx

Re: thnx

thnx

Larisa Interview Part 3: Bad Leaks and Good Leaks

Re: Larisa Interview Part 3: Bad Leaks and Good Leaks

Who is online