Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

by **albion** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:58 pm

Lukery of wotisitgood4 interviews Larisa Alexandrovna. She talks mostly in general terms, but its interesting to see which direction she's pointing: Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran <a href="http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/larisa-alexandrovna-all-roads-lead-to.html">wotisitgood4.blogspot.com...ad-to.html</a> Here's the first installment, All Roads Lead to Iran, of my interview with Larisa Alexandrovna Larisa is a journalist, essayist and poet. She is currently managing editor of Raw Story where she writes about intelligence and national security. This page at Wikipedia has links to lots of her work, including interviews with Scott Ritter, Michael Ledeen and Joe Wilson, as well as her series of articles about pre-war intelligence and the subsequent coverup. Larisa was first to report that Valerie Plame's work at Brewster Jennings was primarily focused on tracking WMDs in Iran, and suggesting that her outing may have been related to that work. In February, I put together a mega-post where I basically put together her entire series of articles about pre-war intelligence, Niger, Plame, Ledeen and a bunch of other things in an attempt to make sense of them collectively. Rather than charging me with "Fair Use" abuse, she generously agreed to an interview - and we were finally able to catch up last week. In a wide-ranging interview some of the thing we discussed include heroin trafficking, the Iraq war, the Iran war, Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame, and the corruption of Congress - to name a few. Below is the first installment of the interview. In this installment, All Roads Lead to Iran, Larisa explains that when we are trying to understand the wars in Iraq and Iran, we need to consider not only Nation States, but other power factions - both inside and outside of governments, criminal & corporate. We also discuss two under-reported stories - that Plame's work focused on WMD trafficking into and out of Iran, and that Joe Wilson discovered that it was actually Iran that was trying to buy uranium in Niger. ---------------------------------------------------------- Luke: Larisa, thanks so much for doing this. One of the things that jumped out of me in one of your articles was in your interview in July of last year with [former Ambassador to Gabon] Joe Wilson - when you asked him about whether the goal of the Iraq invasion was to have a “fundamentalist military conglomerate in Iran” and there was a curious dance there between the two of you - trying to see whether he agreed with that, and whether that was the actual purpose, or an unintended consequence - can you shed any light on that? Here's the exchange I'm referring to: ----------------------- Raw Story: And now we see that Iraq and Iran have just signed a military treaty. Is that what we wanted? Wilson: Iran is the big winner in this. Raw Story: Is the goal a fundamentalist military conglomerate? Is that what we wanted? Wilson: Sitting right on the border of the Kuwait and eastern Saudi oil fields... Raw Story: Right, if that is what we wanted… Wilson: Then we have achieved it. ----------------------- Larisa Alexandrovna: Well, I can only speak for myself and I think he answered that for himself in the conversation where he says 'then we've succeeded'. Again, I cannot really speak for him outside of what he himself said in the interview. In my view, one only needs to look at the real big winner of the Iraq war and there is no doubt that it is Iran. So if one argues that the goal was somehow to the benefit of Iran, then that has in fact been achieved. For some factions both in the US and abroad, that has always been and still is a goal to be sure. Let’s use some examples to help clarify “factions” here. Let’s say that there are a couple of companies who are both legal and illegal entities and who have one goal, the bottom line. They are not aligned to any specific nation, rather, they are a conglomerate of various businesses both domestically and abroad and their leadership is a mix of various nationals, some of whom are former military and some of whom are former government officials, and some of whom are just regular folk. So let’s say that one of these companies is a cookie making organization. Luke: (laughs) OK LA: (laughs), to keep it generic. The cookie making company might have a legal contract in the US and in, for example, Dubai, but it may also have other contracts that would actually work against the interests of the US and Dubai, as examples of course. The cookie company would have an interest in its bottom line, not in who won an actual conflict, unless, let us say, one of the clients pays more. So you can see how the stated objective, to win (whatever that means) in Iraq and the other objective (money) might not work so well together. It depends on who is benefiting from this conflict, and regardless of the miserable planning of the war and its execution, somehow Iran has benefited. Certainly some people would argue that this is not entirely unintentional and if Iran benefits… then who else benefits? Luke: But if we go back to prior to the invasion of Iraq, it seems as though the next step was going to be Iran anyway. LA: Right - and Syria and Lebanon Luke: Right - but if the US was going to do that, then it’s difficult for me to understand why the goal was for Iran to be a fundamentalist military state... LA: I am not saying that the US was going to do that or had planned on this outcome, but there is room here for some serious questions regarding the actual goals, both the stated and the private goals. Again, I am not saying that the US had any such policy or goal in mind. But I am also not saying that the US is the big winner here either. But to explore this historically, one need only look at recent history to see that democratically elected governments were overthrown and dictatorships were installed instead. We have seen this all over the world, including Iraq and the current dictator that was recently removed. Saddam was installed and propped up by western nations -as is the Saudi regime, which its own people do not want, but who is protected by western nations. So to say that Iran benefited, which is true, is not to say that the Iranian people benefited. But again, the most important question is 'who in Iran benefited?' If it is MEK, and it seems to be looking this way, then you have an extreme right wing military state as the winner. Who else benefits from having such a dictatorship in place? That is far more of an important question than all the others. You really should read Economic Hitman. Luke: I understand that. But here's where I have a problem understanding it. On one level, per Wilson, the argument seems to be that the goal was a dictatorship in Iran, and that mission has been accomplished, with Iran the big winner - however we still appear to be in the middle of the game - with an attack on Iran seemingly imminent. LA: Right - but you're assuming those things are different arguments - and they're not. Because in order to install a military fundamentalist conglomerate - you first need to remove the current structure, right? Luke: Right - which we haven’t done. But then they're saying that they have achieved what they wanted to achieve anyway. LA: Sure, because things are done in stages, but they have to be handled like a delicate dance, like chess, only we have idiots at the chessboard on one side, and extremely competent “others” on the other side. That said, you still assume that there is only but one way to win and only one group of winners and that the group of winners is somehow on a national level. None of that is or need be true. But aside from that, my own speculation is that stage two went terribly wrong sometime in the summer of 2003. If you look at that period of time, from May until roughly November, it is as though the wheels suddenly came off the cart mid-game. Everything shifted. So if certain interests did have the Iranian regime change in mind, then they were terribly surprised by what went wrong sometime over that summer. My guess they were very much surprised in the Executive branch, but that need not mean at every government agency or every government was surprised. Anyway, this is far too complex to really dive into and especially when there are some things I cannot say and some things that are pure speculation on my part. As for Wilson, I certainly cannot answer for him, but I do believe he answered for himself. well - what's happened is that was, I think, the goal - but something went wrong in the summer of 2003 - and everything shifted, and somehow Iran became the winner - so the goal then was someone's goal - but certainly not the goal of the bunch that led us into the Iraq war. In other words, somebody was double-crossed - that's just my theory - I’m not saying I’m right. But it seems to me that what happened because everyone is very surprised how this turned out - except for the morons who were operating under the Cold Warrior mentality - who think that they actually know what they are doing and they don’t. Lukery: damn incompetence! The best laid plans... Larisa: well - I think they were double-crossed. If you go to the summer of 2003 - all sorts of stuff started to happen. You don't know who was playing on whose side - suddenly we didn’t know who was the enemy, who was the friend, allies became enemies, enemies became allies - all this stuff started to happen. Clearly something happened that was not anticipated - now that's certainly one way to look at it. another way to look at it is - it could be that it played out exactly as desired - because the winner in Iran would be - lets say, business interests and certain factions that are supported - and they've won in terms of monetary and quite possibly in terms of power as well. Plame: 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. ---------------------------------------------------------- Other installments to follow. posted by lukery at 4/10/2006 07:10:00 AM ********** By the way, for anyone (like me) who missed part 3 of her interview with Ledeen, it's <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Conversations_with_Machiavellis_Ghost_Part_3_0320.html">here</a>. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 4/9/06 9:17 pm

by **Gouda** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:14 am

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde Kick, Bump, Grind. Important post alert. Thanks Albion.

by **sijepuis** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:04 am

Ditto. Thanks Albion. This should be generating more discussion than it has. [ bump, bump ]. Btw, it's worth looking at the comments to the 'Roads lead to Iran' interview, too. <a href="http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/larisa-alexandrovna-all-roads-lead-to.html">wotisitgood4.blogspot.com...ad-to.html</a> There's nothing I'd rather do than research the issues that have been raised, there, but I'm v short on time at the moment. Briefly, I, too, find the following statements particularly intriguing: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Larisa explains that when we are trying to understand the wars in Iraq and Iran, we need to consider not only Nation States, but other power factions - both inside and outside of governments, criminal & corporate.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In other words, somebody was double-crossed - that's just my theory - I’m not saying I’m right.<hr></blockquote> My sense is that this is what we need to be investigating more thoroughly, if we are ever to acquire fundamental clues as to what fuels [if not constitutes] the nebulous entity we call the "PTB", and provide the means to understand what is happening in the battle for control of the ME and Caucasia. For lack of time, a few stabs-in-the-dark leads, re Halliburton, by way of illustrating what is likely one of many key contenders in world power: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Halliburton secretly doing business with key member of Iran's nuclear team By Jason Leopold "August 6, 2005— Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was secretly working with one of Iran's top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the official's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies' business dealings. Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon. Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said have ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran's largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran's nuclear development team".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080605Leopold/080605leopold.html">www.onlinejournal.com/Spe...opold.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Iran’s top nuclear negotiator faces charges over Halliburton ties Iran focus, July 29, 2005 -- "A senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiations team, Sirus Nasseri, is the vice-chairman of the Board of Directors of the oil company. The news agency said “a well-informed source” close to the investigation sharply criticized Iran’s “security and political agencies” for their “blatant weakness” in preventing Nasseri from dealing with Halliburton".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3040">www.iranfocus.com/modules...oryid=3040</a> I've singled out Halliburton simply because its exactions are relatively well publicised and I had these links on hand. What other countries/major corporate interests come into play in the battle for control [ of resources, labor ]? These latter are likely to deliver essential clues as to why most nation-states amount to pawns in a broader geopolitical chess game and why voting and popular representation have been relegated to antiquity [cf Italy], for ex. Only once we've understood the common denominators will there be any hope of taking effective action.

by **Qutb** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:33 am

This I have missed. Only skimmed it so far, but it's very interesting. Here we're closer to what's really going on, I think. To understand current affairs, it's important to understand that there's a hidden world "above" the nation-state system, of international organized crime and institutionalized mega-corruption, and that this is the world in which the most profitable goods are traded - energy, weapons and drugs. This is the naked reality of "globalization". And in this world, there are probably many players and constantly shifting alliances and alignments between them. They're not all on the same team, but they're all equally bad. This is one of the things I like about Hopsicker. He admits to not really understanding what the big picture is, but he understands this. That one group of people got double-crossed in relation to the Iraq invasion - I can see that. It makes sense. It would explain some things. Sijepuis, tu peux bien. Glad to see you posting again.

by **hmm** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:03 pm

i thought she was a journalist or do i misunderstand this? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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<hr></blockquote>

by **starroute** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:31 pm

It seems pretty clear to me. She's saying that after writing up the tips she got from her sources, she had to let them vet what she'd written so that nothing would get through that might compromise either national security or their future operations. The price of dealing with inside information, I suppose.

by **albion** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:59 am

Thanks for those links, Sijepuis, I hadn't seen those. Part 2 is online <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran, Again. <a href="http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/04/larisa-alexandrovna-all-roads-lead-to_12.html">wotisitgood4.blogspot.com...to_12.html</a> This is the second installment of my interview with Larisa Alexandrovna, Managing Editor of Raw Story. In the first installment, All Roads Lead to Iran, we discussed the criminal & corporate power factions - both inside and outside of governments that led to the Iraq invasion, and are angling toward Iran, amongst other things. In this installment, we discuss: 1. Brewster Jennings, and how that does, and does not, relate to Valerie Plame. 2. Sibel Edmonds and Brewster Jennings 3. The 911 cover-up 4. Why Dennis Hastert may resign before November. <hr></blockquote> I don't think she's a kool-aid drinker. I suppose she does deserve extra scrutiny, considering she and Raw Story are suddenly sort of carrying the banner of certain non-mainstream ideas into the mainstream blogosphere (if not yet the MSM itself). Personally, she strikes me as sensible, circumspect, and asks the right questions. As for the ethics of anonymous sourcing, I won't open that can of worms, except to say that's always a bit dicey isn't it. I like that she questions the relevance of the Niger documents themselves. For awhile I've thought that their actual origin was only interesting to the extent that they shed light on some of the murky relationships between certain elements within the intel communitiy that likely produced them. After all, as someone once said, "they" would have used a candy wrapper as "evidence," if they thought it would have won people over.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>LA: That is interesting, isn’t it? Amazing how Iran keeps popping up.<hr></blockquote> People seem to have missed the second 'revelation' in NYTimes national security correspondent James Risen's recent book, 'A State of War.' Everyone was so caught up in the NSA surveillance train of thought that they missed the caboose. The deliberate marketing of the NSA chill was an intentional prelude to moving on to Iran with everyone on notice that "they better watch out, they better not cry..." Risen also peddled a narrative of the CIA "accidentally" giving nuclear bomb plans to Iran so of course we should be afraid of Iran due to the 'bumbling CIA' handing them 'our worst fears.' Recall that James Risen cowrote 'The Final Days' with Milton Bearden who was the CIA's Pakistan station chief when the CIA was using the locals to kick the Soviets around in Afghanistan. <a href="http://mamma6.mamma.com/Search?evid=CE0070178928&eng=Teoma&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2Ftmsyn.wc.ask.com%2Fr%3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Dmp%26uid%3D2456b7e0c456b7e0c%26sid%3D3456b7e0c456b7e0c%26o%3D0%26qid%3DAA348A3FCF8EE5FEC5EAAC5FC5406915%26io%3D3%26sv%3D0a300572%26ask%3DJames%2BRisen%2BMilton%2BBearden%2BThe%2BFinal%2BDays%26uip%3D456b7e0c%26en%3Dte%26eo%3D1%26pt%3DAmazon.com%253A%2BThe%2BMain%2BEnemy%2B%253A%2BThe%2BInside%2BStory%2Bof%2Bthe%2BCIA%2527s%2BFinal...%26ac%3D24%26qs%3D121%26pg%3D1%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobidos%2FASIN%2F0679463097&engid=1701&gid=2370&af=0&qtype=0&qw=James+Risen+Milton+Bearden+The+Final+Days&ts=1144822038&cs=1d3d1/2&idx=6">mamma6.mamma.com/Search?e...d1/2&idx=6</a> Risen seems to me to be an official mouthpiece much like James Bamford. And there's Iran again. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/12/06 11:23 am

by **NewKid** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In other words, circumstantial evidence of a propaganda campaign, pre-9/11, to present Osama bin Laden as America's foremost nemesis would also provide the circumstantial case against the propaganda planners in taking down the World Trade Towers. So I monitored CNN and other media in the days immediately after, taking note of those trotted out -- Judith Miller, Paul Bremer, James Risen, Vincent Cannistraro, etc. -- to provide instant commentary on bin Laden. Moreover, I trolled through past articles on bin Laden -- noting the wire service uniformity of information as well as sources. <hr></blockquote> . . . <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Moreover, there has been a widespread campaign on to link the threat of al-Qaida with that of a mass biological attack. At least the day after September 11, the link -- as the Anthrax mailings had yet to arise -- was not so apparent. Yet on PBS' Frontline, the New York Times' Judith Miller (no apparent relation to John Miller, as far as I'm aware), accompanied by the New York Times' James Risen, was interviewed as an apparent expert on al-Qaida. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/KUP206A.html" target="top">www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/KUP206A.html</a>

by **Gouda** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:10 am

More roads to Iran from Larisa. I agree she merits scrutiny - or assuming she is also playing it smart, like we are, by triangulating her sources and slyly employing her own healthy skepticism while eliciting from the professional eliciters, then we ought to (at least) be savvy to what her sources are saying, especially in the context of the wider news cycle. Anonymous intelligence sources are not to be taken at face value (even if they are part of the "gone sane", anti-Bush, whistleblower group.) 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 (though that can be attributed in part to the global info fish market we now inhabit). I ought to go back and pick that stuff out and present it here in this thread, but not enough time right now. So, the narrative emerging now is obviously: Everyone Sane vs. Cheney/Rumsfeld and the crazy Neocons in the run-up to something with Iran. You have ex-generals, ex-neocons, duped ex-secretaries of state and present secretaries of state all publicly clashing in fake ethical armor with Rumsfeld and the Neocons. (Kind of mirrors the reformed Reagan/Bush era guys stepping out for 911 Truth, eh?). I want to be on the "Sane" side, don't you?! I am not sure what to make of it, to what extent this is staged or not, or exploited, but it does deserve a close watch. And it is interesting to see Larisa's/Raw Story's role in this. Very much the Seymour Hersh angle, anyway. Right off the bat, the title. Sure the Pentagon/CIA is outsourcing and training local right-wing terrorists - we've certainly played that song before - and so it is like, we, the USA, are soooo over that now! But lookie here, we've caught Rummy and Cambone still running their rats! This also deflects memory (and responsibility) from those false flags which were carried out or attempted in person by mil-intel special ops, by the UK, by Israel, by whoever is working in there. It also implies that a crazy wing of the Pentagon (not hit by a plane) is alone responsible for instigating war with Iran. Not criticizing Larisa here for that, because readers of Raw Story know from the broader picture they report that this is not the case - but this in conjunction with all the recent (and too fucking late) backlash against Cheney/Rummy/Neocons somehow allows us to take a breather and fall back on blaming some crazy-assed strangeloves (yes, they are, there are, but..) in the Pentagon and undisclosed locations. Furthermore - Condi, Powell, Blair, and all future presidential candidates signed off on by the CFR are equally culpable for all of this, plausible deniability and "policy disputes" notwithstanding. The emerging narrative contributes to generating the misleading impression of tactical opposition within the (ostensibly governing) corporate foreign policy establishment where there is really the harmonic clinking of strategic champagne glasses. Oh, and I love Straw and the British Intel person's bullshit at the end of the article. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html">www.rawstory.com/news/200..._0413.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say  Larisa Alexandrovna Published: Thursday April 13, 2006 The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say. One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months. One former counterintelligence official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, describes the Pentagon as pushing MEK shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The drive to use the insurgent group was said to have been advanced by the Pentagon under the influence of the Vice President’s office and opposed by the State Department, National Security Council and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. “The MEK is run by a brother and sister who were given bases in northern Baghdad by Saddam,” the intelligence official told RAW STORY. “The US army secured a key MEK facility 60 miles northwest of Baghdad shortly after the 2003 invasion, but they did not secure the MEK and let them basically be because [then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz was thinking ahead to Iran.” Another former intelligence official added that the US military had detained as many as 3,500 members of MEK at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf since the start of the war, including the highest level ranking MEK leaders. Ashraf is about 60 miles west of the Iranian border. This intelligence official, wishing to remain anonymous, confirmed the policy tensions and also described them as most departments on one side and the Pentegon on the other. “We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization. “These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said.  “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.” Stephen Cambone is the Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence. His office did not return calls for comment. According to all three intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.  “They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” one intelligence source said. Indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested. Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population. “We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY. Asked how long the MEK agents have been active in the region under the guidance of the US military civilian leadership, the UN official explained that the clandestine war had been going on for roughly a year and included unmanned drones run jointly by several agencies. In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran. The British, however, are less enthused about a strike in Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has called an American strike on Iran “inconceivable,” while Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he’s keeping all his options open. Asked about the MEK, a senior British intelligence official said that the Brits are not yet sure of what the situation on Iran’s southern border is, but vehemently condemned any joint activity with the terrorist organization. “We don’t know who precisely is carrying out those attacks in the south but we believe it is MEK,” the British official said. When asked if the US military is running the MEK, the source was careful to indicate that while there is a US unit in Iran gathering information, it’s difficult to say if they are in any way involved with MEK. “The people who are inside Iran are from a US Special mission unit,” the source explained. “They are called by codenames, but would not be involved in the bomb blasts. They want to get in, get the intelligence and go out with anyone knowing they have been there. But the bomb blasts might be diversions away from the operations by this US special mission unit. The British are definitely not involved in any of this.”  Moreover, the British official expressed that any operations with MEK would violate their own military code and would absolutely not be tolerated. “We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added. "We did it in Northern Ireland. No more.”<hr></blockquote>

by **Gouda** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:35 am

Or: this MEK thing is being overblown and/or outright fabricated like Zarqawi. Only now, the establishment is turning Cheney/Rumsfled into a Zarqawi.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>“We have very strict rules and can’t go consorting with terrorists," the official added.<hr></blockquote> You might want to check out the Scott Report on British arms trading with Iran. And Truthseeker has a four part series on a talk given by Gerald Bull, of Matrix Churchill. It's called "Blood Money" or something like that. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"We did it in Northern Ireland.<hr></blockquote> Yes. And you won, didn't you? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No more.”<hr></blockquote> Tell that to those blown up on July 7 2005. Something else England now has in common with Northern Ireland. Shoot to kill

by **greencrow0** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:42 pm

First of all, Raw Story, is generally a propaganda pump for the future <blockquote>Quote:<hr>War on Iran<hr></blockquote>...if you read the slant to most of the stories it covers. Secondly, how much mileage can you get out of that yellowcake anyway? First it's being used to attack Iraq and now the VERY SAME YELLOCAKE is being used by this propaganda machine to attack Iran....it was Always about Iran is going to be the sound bite. this Larissa has some very good 'sources' no doubt located in the right wing dungeons of the neocon rubber room boyz. Regards, GC

by **albion** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:55 pm

Or: this MEK thing is being overblown Thanks for the input, Gouda. Some of Larisa's comments aren't exactly clear, but I'm willing to grant her and Luke a little bit of latitude since it was, after all, an informal blog interview. In my (non-professional and probably under-informed) opinion, the MEK story is credible, but it's hardly the deepest and darkest secret of Empire. The thing is, for a covert operation, its not exactly covert. I've seen rumors floating around about the possible manipulation of the MEK as part of a US-sponsored "democratic revolution" in Iran for a couple years now. At least since this article: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>U.S. Sees No Basis to Prosecute Iranian Opposition 'Terror' Group being held in Iraq Tue. 27 Jul 2004 New York Times By DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, July 26 - A 16-month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq [the MEK] with violations of American law, though the group is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government, according to senior American officials. [...] Senior American officials said it that was still possible that some members of the group might be charged with crimes in European countries, but that they did not expect any of them to be charged in American courts. "A member of a terrorist organization is not necessarily a terrorist,"a senior American official said. "To take action against somebody, you have to demonstrate that they have done something." <a href="http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=33">www.iranfocus.com/modules...storyid=33</a><hr></blockquote> Suspicious, obviously - and yet they may be a sort of known quantity. They're already widely despised in Iran because they sided with Saddam since the Iran-Iraq war. More recently, they've been used as a political/diplomatic football between Iran and the US (on the issue of prisoner exchange - see <a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/08/03/2003062122">here</a>). Combine that with rumors of American manipulation, and I don't see how anybody in Iran is going to be fooled into supporting them against the Iranian regime. And since they're already well known in the West as a terrorist group, it seems unlikely that TPTB here can pass them off as "democratic revolutionaries" to an American audience. So, imho it's interesting - maybe even typical - but probably not the whole story. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 4/14/06 5:23 pm

by **albion** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:45 am

John Byrne on Raw Story's credibility & sources: <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Editors_Note_Examining_Raw_Storys_leak_1215.html">Editor's Note: Examining Raw Story's leak reporting</a>

Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re:has Larisa found a source of the sweetest coolaid?

Re: Re:has Larisa found a source of the sweetest coolaid?

Re: Re:has Larisa found a source of the sweetest coolaid?

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

British Intelligence is SOOO Far Ahead of You.

A Couple of Things

Re: Larisa Alixandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Re: Larisa Alexandrovna: All Roads Lead to Iran

Who is online