Americans believe red herring– Iran is Enemy #1. Why?

on 174 Comments

I’m not going to answer the question in the headline. But here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot. First, MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters says we’ve seen this neoconservative movie before:

But for the lies and manufactured evidence that led us into Iraq, we might actually accept the idea that the Iran plot is thoroughly genuine and in no way linked to the determination of so many inside our government and out of it who are hell-bent on war with Iran and who would do anything they can to achieve it.

Fortunately, however, and this may be the only fortunate thing about the Iraq war, the Iraq experience taught us to be skeptical, especially of anything and everything championed by the hawks.

…The neocons’ “drop bombs now and ask questions later” approach has been thoroughly discredited. How stupid would we have to be, then, to allow the same gang to lead us into yet another reckless war, one that would be infinitely more deadly?

And here is a very insightful piece about the railroading of American public opinion on Iran, called “Dear America, Iran is not your country’s greatest threat,” by Madison Schramm at the CSM (posted at Business Insider– h/t Mark Wauck):

Well before Attorney General Holder announced the thwarted assassination plot, in two recent Gallup polls, Americans ranked Iran as enemy No. 1 – in front of the two countries the US is at war in; before China, which owns over $1 trillion in US treasuries; in front of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was found; ahead of Yemen and Somalia where some of the most recent terrorist attackers hail from; and even before unpredictable, weaponized North Korea….

George Bush included Iran in the “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address in 2002. Rick Santorum said in the Ames Republican presidential debate a little over a month ago, “anyone that suggests that Iran is not a threat to this country or is not a threat to stability in the Middle East is obviously not seeing the world very clearly.” But clarity is not prevailing in the calculations of Mr. Santorum and others. The Eurasia Group’s 2011 Top Risks Report included Iran in the “Red Herring” category.

And this latest furor over Iran may fall into that category as well.

…such a plot would seemingly go against Tehran’s most basic political interests. The last thing the Iranians would want is to empower the US-Saudi relationship. Several pundits have pointed out how the alleged plot also runs counter to Iran’s past behavior. Former Middle East CIA case officer Robert Baer even said, “this is totally uncharacteristic of them.”

…Iran’s military capability never bounced back after the Iran-Iraq War, and Iran only ranks 61st internationally in military expenditures. As for being an economic threat, Iran is ranked 104th internationally in terms of GDP per capita and most certainly will not be giving the US (ranked 11th) a run for its money anytime soon….

Iran’s nuclear program is a strategic, not a direct, threat. Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s annual performance at the UN General Assembly, the leadership in Tehran is rational and would be highly unlikely to actually deploy nuclear weapons. Doing so would ensure the obliteration of Iran, and the leadership in Tehran is eccentric, not suicidal. In September, Ahmadinejad offered to stop uranium enrichment at 20 percent enrichment (90 percent is considered weapons grade) if Iran were guaranteed fuel for a medical research reactor.

Yes, Iran has almost hit the nuclear capable mark, at which point it would possess the technical expertise and materials to move quickly to create a weapon. But if Iran manages to cross that threshold, it will be in the company of the estimated 40 states already in the nuclear capable club. Were the Iranians to gain capability and then to arm, Washington would need to prepare for some muscle flexing – not Armageddon…

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Iran will instigate an arms race, but the arms race in the Middle East began in the 1960s when Israel armed. Since then, over half a dozen countries in the Middle East have sought nuclear capability, but Israel is the only country that has succeeded. A nuclear Iran could very well accelerate an arms race, but it could be contained. By leveraging US patronage to the region and continuing to supply Gulf states with conventional weapons, the US could dissuade other countries from joining the race.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

Perpetual war-cheerleader Ken Pollack of Brookings says that, if true, this plot “shows that Tehran is meaner and nastier than ever before” and “would represent a major escalation of Iranian terrorist operations against the United States.” Also, he announces, this “should remind us that Iran also is not a normal country by any stretch of the imagination.” That — self-anointed arbiter of who is and is not a “normal country” — from a person as responsible as any pundit or think-tank expert for the attack on Iraq that killed at least 100,000 human beings, denouncing as Terrorists and abnormal a country that has invaded nobody…

 On NPR this morning, Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations — and Ken Pollack’s co-author on Iran — said this when asked if he has any doubts about the accuracy of U.S. government statements: “The only unusual aspect of this is actually having a terrorist operation on American territory. I don’t know what the evidence about this is, but I’m not in a position to doubt it.” That perfectly summarizes the political, media and “expert” class’ attitude toward U.S. Government claims: they’re keeping everything secret about their accusations, so there’s no reason to doubt what they’re claiming. The National Security Priesthood that uncritically amplified every U.S. Government claim and fanned the flames of war against Iraq is alive, well, and more mindless and dutiful than ever.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

174 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    October 13, 2011, 2:08 pm

    Who is America’s biggest enemy?


    What that means is that the US has really no short-term threatening enemies. Certainly, Iran is an ideological enemy, and seems to have desires of empire.

    Iran certainly does threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia, others.


    • Dan Crowther
      October 13, 2011, 2:44 pm

      So, a country that has not invaded another, in what – two centuries? is a threat to the US? WOW.

      “Seems to have desires of empire” – evidence? Is there ANY evidence of this?
      Aside from the US asking the Iranians for support in helping to development railroads and highways in Afghanistan……

      Yea, an ideological enemy – our ideology means we overthrow their elected government and install the shah – their ideology is that they didn’t and dont like that. Fckin radical idea – not liking foreign intrusion/coups.

      To say nothing of the fact that we OCCUPY nearly every country bordering Iran – just a total meaningless post from Witty.

    • Justice Please
      October 13, 2011, 2:48 pm

      “Iran is an ideological enemy, and seems to have desires of empire.”

      Bwaha fucking ha.

      How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 100 years? Hm? Does Iran have military bases in 180 countries around the world?

      You wouldn’t know an empire if it sat on your face.

      And by the way, was it Iran that killed Furkan Dogan in international waters?

      Was it Iran that sank the USS Liberty?

      • DBG
        October 13, 2011, 3:33 pm
      • Chaos4700
        October 13, 2011, 11:12 pm

        Oh great, more neocon blogs. Did you find those nukes in Iraq yet?

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2011, 11:43 pm

        Iran is responsible for many more American deaths than Israel is.

        If they did, yoyu certainyl haven’t proved it.

        The rightwing lunatic rag Newsmax is worse than Fox News. In any case, the Saudis insisted Iran had nothing to do with the Khobar attacks. The fact taht some court in the US tried Iran in absentia is not evidenmce of Iranian involvement.

        The Reuters ink provides no evidence. Just the beliefs of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

        The NYT article produces only allegations no evidence. The rocket siplays test in English not Farsi. Therer is no explanation as to how “forensic analysis of this evidence led to a member of Kata’ib Hizballah”, but in any case, Kata’ib Hizballah is an Iraqi Shite gruop, not Iranian. Moktada al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, not an Iranian.

        When Washington was insisting the EFP’s were comming from Iran, a large factrory was found in Iraq that was producing them. When Patreaus came across massive cache of arms in Karbala, he organized a press conference to display all the wepoans (including 520 EFP’s) he believed to be Iranian. US weapons inspctors concluded that none originated from Iran and the press conference was cancelled.

        The unitedagainstnucleariran link is a joke. The members are a who’s who of Zionist stooges.

        Dennis “Israel’s lawyer” Ross
        James “anyone who questions Powell’s UN presintation is an agent of Saddam” Woolsey
        Gary Samore is a renowned Iran hawk.

        Needless to say, justabout every charge this webn site is a lie. Iran had nothig to do with the 1993 WTC bombing,.

        The Hostage crisis led to no deaths,
        The creatuion of Hezbollah was Israel’s doing, not Iran’sThe #
        The 1983 U.S. embassy suicide bombing was Hezbollah not Iran
        Ditto army barracks
        Ditto flight 847
        Hezbollah has NOT cooperate with Al Qaeda.
        Salman Rushdie is alive and well
        The MEK is listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, so they are fair game
        As I have demnstrated, neither Iran nor Hebollah had anything to do with the bombings in Argentina
        Khobar Towers was al Qaeda
        No evidence of Iran backijng insurgents in Iraq, especially seeing as the insurgents were Sunni. The Memri link is false.

        So in all, your links simply link to one another and prove NOTHING.

      • Taxi
        October 14, 2011, 4:07 am

        “The 1983 U.S. embassy suicide bombing was Hezbollah not Iran
        Ditto army barracks”

        Actually there’s no proof WHATSOEVER that the hizb was involved in this attack. Robert Baer, the ex-CIA agent who was present at the barracks and who lost his left hand in the bombing (later stitched back on), searched high and low for two decades for proof of the hizb’s involvement and could never find it. Aside from numerous other investigations into the matter that turned up empty. Not a single shred of evidence. Nothing, nada, ziltch.

        Be mindful also that the hizb was born at the end of 1982, after israel invaded lebanon and mass-murdered 23,000 people there, mostly civilians.

        The hizb were still nascent and ‘forming’ at the time of the bombing.

      • justicewillprevail
        October 14, 2011, 5:03 am

        So you believe any crap you read on neocon and zionist sites, but nothing here, where eye-witness and corroborated accounts of Israeli violence, child kidnapping, torture and other policies of hatred and dispossession appear daily?

      • Justice Please
        October 16, 2011, 5:08 pm


        “Did you find those nukes in Iraq yet?”


    • Justice Please
      October 13, 2011, 2:49 pm

      “Iran certainly does threaten Israel”

      Even dumber. Poor little Israel with its 200 nuclear bombs feels threatened by the future possibility if 1 Iranian bomb. Aaaaaaaaw.

      • lysias
        October 13, 2011, 3:28 pm

        I’ve been reading recently that Israel has 400 (or more) nuclear weapons at this point.

      • Taxi
        October 14, 2011, 3:23 am

        Do the numbers lysias,

        We’ve been hearing they got 200+ nukes since the early eighties. It’s 2011 now.

    • okalouti
      October 13, 2011, 3:09 pm

      Witty. What are you saying?

      A simple look at current facts will reveal to you that U.S. troops are currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf and have access to the military facilities of Turkmenistan. The US has Iran military encircled, has overthrown two neighboring regimes. Who threatens who, exactly? Are US hegemonic ambitions in the ME inherently good and Iran’s inherently bad?

      and yes, Iran does threaten Israel and Saudi Arabia’s hegemonic ambitions (and vice-versa). looks like a battle of the theocracies

      • Richard Witty
        October 13, 2011, 3:31 pm

        “What that means is that the US has really no short-term threatening enemies. ”

        You don’t know what the term “no” means?

        America’s interests are threatened by Iran, key issues like supply chain for oil, as well as political dominance in the region (less than benevolent), but not America directly.

        Should US foreign policy and military policy protect US interests? Per the concensus of the foreign policy establishment, yes.

        That Israel’s healthy and security is one of America’s foreign policy interests is also a given.

        Phil’s headline is weak is the point.

        If AB is America’s most wanted criminal. What has AB done? Stole $5000 from someone’s grandmother. If that is America’s most wanted criminal, then the rational conclusion is that America doesn’t have that many, or that urgent enemies.

        Is that the same as “Iran is enemy #1?”, maybe, maybe not. Factually true, substantively at least somewhat misrepresentative.

      • Richard Witty
        October 13, 2011, 3:36 pm

        Iran’s hegemonic efforts are bad. They antagonize their neighbors.

      • Hu Bris
        October 13, 2011, 3:59 pm

        RW: – “Phil’s headline is weak is the point. “

        It sure is – it would have been far more accurate if it had read:

        Stupid People believe red herring

        because most of the Americans I know don’t believe a word of it

        “America’s interests are threatened by Iran, key issues like supply chain for oil, as well as political dominance in the region (less than benevolent), but not America directly.”

        Wrong again, as usual – what you like to claim are “America’s interests” are in fact merely the interests of a small number of crazy Neo/Zio-Con Psychopaths.

        For example you mention “supply chain for oil” as if Iran were somehow a threat to that, yet Iran has done little if anything, that has produced any noticeable effect on the “supply chain for oil” that might flow to the US. Nor has it done anything, other than trying to actually increase the supply to China for example, to effect the “supply chain for oil” to anywhere else on the planet for that matter – your attempt to claim that Iran somehow threatens the “supply chain for oil” is nothing but a cheap lie, peddled by Zio-Cons everywhere.

        The US’s oil needs are adequately met by countries other than Middle Eastern ones. Only a relatively small percentage of US oil need is supplied by Middle Eastern Nations.

        The actions of the US (and Israel) have caused more damage/insecurity to the “supply chain for oil” than any other factor one might care to mention.

      • Hu Bris
        October 13, 2011, 4:02 pm

        The Clueless One :- “Iran’s hegemonic efforts are bad. They antagonize their neighbors.”

        And what pray tell are Israel’s “hegemonic efforts”?

        because they sure seem to antagonize their neighbors far far more than any other single country I can think of right now

      • Dan Crowther
        October 13, 2011, 4:05 pm

        So, here is a poll of Arab opinion – from the Brookings Institute:
        link to

        What did it find?

        A majority of the Arab public now see a nuclear-armed Iran as being better for the Middle East.

        On Iran’s potential nuclear weapons status, results show another dramatic shift in public opinion. While the results vary from country to country, the weighted average across the six countries is telling: in 2009, only 29% of those polled said that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would be “positive” for the Middle East; in 2010, 57% of those polled indicate that such an outcome would be “positive” for the Middle East.

        Looks like “their neighbors” see it differently Witty – but your a clown, so you dont care

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2011, 4:26 pm

        America’s interests are threatened by Iran, key issues like supply chain for oil, as well as political dominance in the region (less than benevolent), but not America directly.

        Dick Witty embraces his inner Dick Cheney. You see folks, Witty believes as Cheney does, that Iran us a threat because they might respond if we attack them.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2011, 4:31 pm

        Iran’s hegemonic efforts are bad. They antagonize their neighbors.

        What hegemonic efforts Witty? Who gave they invaded and occupied? How many military bases do they have in other countries? Who’s territory and air space do they repeatedly violate? Who are they threatening to bomb for having nukes?

      • justicewillprevail
        October 13, 2011, 7:42 pm

        You don’t know what you are talking about, Witty. All you offer is a regurgitated bunch of cliches which has nothing to do with what Iran does or does not want. Apparently you are willing to believe any old nonsense, if it affirms your predictable ideology, whilst ignoring the myriad of facts which contradict it.

      • mig
        October 14, 2011, 12:18 am


        “America’s interests are threatened by Iran, key issues like supply chain for oil”

        ++++ Absolute rubbish. Every country in this beach ball called earth, uses oil in a form or another. In same logic all states should send own troops in region to protect own interests too. But we dont have. Because we use thing called trade, free market, describe your own favourite.

      • mig
        October 14, 2011, 12:22 am

        RW :

        “Iran’s hegemonic efforts are bad. They antagonize their neighbors.”

        ++++ Yup, you call them Iran hegemonic effort, US calls same “national interests”. Except Iran doesnt send troops surrounding countrys.

      • Citizen
        October 14, 2011, 8:25 am

        Witty: “That Israel’s healthy and security is one of America’s foreign policy interests is also a given.”

        Israel started the nuclear arms race in the ME in the early 1960s–against JFK’s dire resistance; since then 6 states there have tried 2 get nuclear bomb capability to offset Israel’s monopoly in the region, but the US has prevented this. Traditional US foreign policy is balance-of-power, which has served US interests best. Iran has not engaged in predatory wars or “preemptive or preventive” wars; Israel had done this repeatedly. US unbalanced foreign policy in the ME is against US interests and nobody benefits from it except Israel. Truman made the first mistake, going against US State & Diplomatic Corps in recognizing Israel (not a “Jewish State of Israel). During the cold war it was somewhat reasonable to view Israel as “our aircraft carrier” or “front line of defense” but Israel has nothing to offer US interests for decades now. Israel is a burden, a parasite in terms of US best interests.

      • Richard Witty
        October 14, 2011, 9:23 am

        What color are the clouds?

        They are grey and ONLY grey. “Everyone” knows that.

        What color are the clouds?

        They are grey, white, blue, yellow.

        You get it.

        From a scene in “Girl with a Pearl Earing”, a fictional tale of the relationship between the model in the famous Vermeer painting and Vermeer himself.

        Iran can have expansionist, extra-legal, and some legal policies at the same time.

        Does that add up to advocating that they bombed, by noting that? Phil says yes in his denunciation of Jeffrey Goldberg describing Iran’s sins, while opposing military intervention in the same conversation.

        But, their sins are out of the bag by Goldberg’s descriptions, which Phil posits are effectively “permissions”.

        The left’s views are that is better to distort Iran’s behavior in the world, presenting it as innocent victim, even as much of the weapons aimed at Israeli civilians in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are of Iranian design, funding, construction, instruction, encouragement.

        And, somehow that targeting of civilians is not an aggression, planned, intentional.

      • Chaos4700
        October 14, 2011, 9:57 am

        And now “liberal” Witty is attacking “the left” because we don’t want to bomb Iranian civilians for an imaginary crime their government wasn’t even planning. Do we need more evidence that Zionism and liberalism are mutually incompatible?

      • anonymouscomments
        October 14, 2011, 3:44 pm

        Ha ha, some on the left might distort Iran’s role, but in general we just want the truth out, not lies. And given our war of aggression would be disasterous, we don’t want to be lied into another war. Nobody I know defends the Iranian regime, we just keep it in perspective.

        But while on the topic of distortion…. Might you agree many Zionist’s primary goal is to distort Israel’s behavior in the world (and other countries as well…… like IRAN).

        The hypocrisy of Zionists knows no limits. I think almost every gdamn statement drips with it, and they drink so much koolaid they often don’t even realize it.

      • Richard Witty
        October 14, 2011, 5:30 pm

        “Nobody I know defends the Iranian regime, we just keep it in perspective.”

        And, I’m accused of not reading the comments here clearly.

      • Justice Please
        October 13, 2011, 3:42 pm

        It’s a special Wittyesque expression of the insanity some Jews suffer since the Holocaust:

        They feel threatened by a stone the Palestinian boy has in his hand, while pushing said boy to the ground and placing a boot on his neck and a gun at his head.

        They feel threatened by Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, when Israel has 200 nuclear bombs ready to drop on Tehran.

        Witty and his fellow victims of irrational fear should be spending their time getting therapeutic help for their psychosis instead of threatmongering around.

    • Proton Soup
      October 13, 2011, 3:17 pm

      our biggest ideological enemy at the moment is Israel.

      as for Empire, the usual players like Russia, and now China is building a naval base in Pakistan. not to mention India with its space program (intercontinental ballistic missiles), and Turkey with its pipeline empire.

      and Iran? they’re completely boxed in. what have they got except oil?

    • Hu Bris
      October 13, 2011, 3:39 pm

      guys (& Gals I ‘spose) – give the Witless one a break – Witty (such an ironic name, that) and his hilariously ass-backwards view of Iran and it’s place in the current world order at least has the benefit of being consistent with all his other views, which he frequently, and sometimes very amusingly, expresses here.

      All of Witty’s famously ass-backwards views are ALWAYS 180 degrees turned round from anything even remotely resembling what others might describe as “reality”

      Viewed through the ridiculously clueless lens that is the Eye-of-Witty, Iran, a country that hasn’t invaded anyone in yonks OBVIOUSLY “seems to have desires of empire” whereas Israel which has invaded it’s neighbours at least 6 or 7 times in my lifetime alone, and the US, which has launched or financed wars on at least 10 different nations in my lifetime, are OBVIOUSLY “The Gud Guys”™ and obviously, when viewed through the hilariously twisted lens which is the Eye-of-Witty, has no “desires of empire”

      If it were any different it wouldn’t be Witty, now would it?

      • Real Jew
        October 13, 2011, 4:43 pm

        Hu Bris, prob one of the more funny posts I read. Thanks for the entertainment.

        Everyone knows why Iran is America’s number one enemy, its because Iran is israel’s number one enemy. And since the neocons in the US have been drilling the whole “Israel’s interests and values are identical to ours” bullshit its not surprising the majority of brain dead Americans believe it.

      • pabelmont
        October 13, 2011, 8:04 pm

        But backwards: Iran does not propose to invade or bomb Israel, just speaks badly of it. Hence not an enemy (except symbolically). Israel does, however, intend or think seriously of attacking Iran and is, for that reason, an enemy of Iran.

        “Enemy” is a word that needs an arrow A—enemy—>B must be distinguished from B—enemy—>A.

        Iran is not Israel’s enemy, but Israel is Iran’s enemy. “Intended victimizer” might be a better term.

        The USA and Israel may be playing a different mental game here, saying something like, “My importance in the world depends on people fearing me and if I never attack anyone no-one will fear me, and IRAN threatens me by acting unafraid of me, so I must attack IRAN in order to protect myself — to protect myself from the injury of no-one fearing me.” God save us and our proposed victims from such mental games. Do the psychiatrists have a name for this sort of thing?

      • Citizen
        October 14, 2011, 8:32 am

        Freudian Projection?

    • Tzombo
      October 13, 2011, 4:39 pm

      Who is America’s biggest enemy?

      Saudi Arabia. And the sooner the US public realizes that it’s supposed best buddy in the Middle East is actually responsible for most Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond, the better.

      Israel is a pretty close second.

      Israel and Saudi Arabia are NOT your friends.

      This means that Iran is not your enemy either.

      • Hu Bris
        October 13, 2011, 10:43 pm

        Tzombo: The sooner the US public realizes that it’s supposed best buddy in the Middle East is actually responsible for most Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond

        Who benefits more than the US Neo/Zio-Con Psychopaths from what you call “Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond”?

        the Saudis are working hand in hand with both the US and Israel. Don’t get fooled by the image presented in the media to fool the public. If the Saudis are responsible for all the “Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond” they are doing so with the full knowledge and co-operation of both the US and Israel

        Without all that “Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond” what excuse would the US Neo/Zio-Con Psychopaths have to conjure-up in order to attempt to justify to the US public the 3 costly wars the US has engaged in recently (Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan – Pakistan is being bombed regularly, they don’t call it war, but it is)

        Wherever “Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism” is to be found, so to will you find the US Military, in some form or other – this “Sunni fundamentalism/terrorism in the Middle East and beyond” gives them the excuse they need to do what they want to do anyway.

        The US were after all the ones that originally setup and armed the Mujahadeen in afghanistan, . The US (and others) encouraged the Saudis to organize recruits from all across the Muslim world to go fight in Afghanistan, and THAT war is from whence Al-Qeada sprung

        Zbigniew Brzezinski: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

        Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

        Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

        Ex-British Foreign Minister Robin Cook actually said as much in an article for the UK Guardian Newspaper

        “Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”

        The US then used many of those same mercenary Muslim fighters to destabilize Bosnia and help setup the pretext for the carve-up of Yugoslavia.

        And there is little or no evidence, worthy of the name, to suggest that those Al-Qaida Mercenaries EVER stopped working for the US

    • iamuglow
      October 13, 2011, 4:57 pm

      “Iran ….. seems to have desires of empire”


      link to

    • radii
      October 13, 2011, 5:07 pm

      oh Witty, you provocateur you – pshaw

      -which country controls ours through their lobby?
      -which country raids our Treasury through their lobby’s influence?
      -which country gets us to fight their wars for them?
      -which country has the largest, most aggressive spy network (after, maybe, the old Soviet Union or China)?
      -which country has a whole slew of dual-citizens enmeshed in our government’s highest leadership level?
      -which country called for a “New Pearl Harbor” through their operatives?
      -which country locks our goods out of their market despite the billion$ we give them?
      -which country defies nearly every directive, request, goal we set for them?
      … on and on it goes – israel is no friend of the United States – it is a frenemy at best, but more likely is our most dangerous enemy

      Iran is contained, is really Saudi Arabia’s problem, and is only on the U.S. radar screen because of the israeli lobby – objectively they are not a problem to worry about for America – the demographics of their country will see the mullahs fall soon enough all on their own

    • RoHa
      October 13, 2011, 7:12 pm

      “Who is America’s biggest enemy?

      What has Iran done to America since 1776?

      The embassy hostage crisis of 1979. (A long term result of the American role in the 1953 coup and backing for the Shah.)

      And that’s it.

      Could Iran attack the United States? Not even with its most advanced missiles. (U.S. force which have placed themselves in a position to threaten Iran are vulnerable to counter-attack.)

      “Iran is an ideological enemy”

      You mean they don’t agree with the US on everything? That’s an enemy?

      • mig
        October 14, 2011, 12:30 am

        RoHa :

        “The embassy hostage crisis of 1979.”

        ++++ Yup, and how that got started.

        “On 22 October 1979, at the request of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger,[57] President Jimmy Carter reluctantly allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo surgical treatment at the New York–Weill Cornell Medical Hospital. While in Cornell Medical Center, Shah used the name “David D. Newsom” as his temporary code name, without Newsom’s knowledge.
        The Shah was taken later by U.S. Air Force jet to Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and from there to Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air Force Base .[58] It was anticipated that his stay in the U.S. would be short; however, surgical complications ensued, which required six weeks of confinement in the hospital before he recovered. His prolonged stay in the U.S. was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement in Iran, which still resented the United States’ overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddeq and the years of support for the Shah’s rule. The Iranian government demanded his return to Iran, but he stayed in the hospital.

        There are claims that this resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel, and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the Iran hostage crisis.”

        link to

    • thetumta
      October 13, 2011, 7:41 pm

      “seems to have desires of empire”. Yes, we’re aware of the Zionist’s dreams. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are engaged in ethnic cleansing as we speak, so to say. Right now. What’s Iran doing, nothing, no others threatened. Another false flag and who are the masters of false flags? Not you Richard, but your friends. Let’s hope for an unexpected turn in events, a Tet.

    • Charon
      October 13, 2011, 8:11 pm

      The reason why Iran threatens Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others is because they threaten Iran. Israel in particular has been threatening them for years, potentially with nuclear weapons.

      Behind the scenes there is shady stuff going on… Operation Ajax, prolonging the hostage situation until Reagan was in office (deliberately arranged by the US), selling them weapons (Iran/Contra.. even Israel has sold them weapons), etc. They are only an enemy of the US because the US has made them into one.

      China and Russia are the real enemies of the US. The obsession with Iran is a strategic obsession given it’s location. As also mention, Iran is surrounded by US military bases. Our navy hangs out in the Gulf and Mediterranean. We’ve sanctioned the heck out of them. They are not an enemy of the US, no way. And they certainly don’t have desires of empire. Desires for more of a global trading presence, yes but held back by the US sanctions. If memory serves, their central bank is not connected to the global organized criminal banking cabal. That’s another reason why TPTB want to start a war with them.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2011, 8:44 pm

        The reason why Iran threatens Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others is because they threaten Iran.

        Liek I said. Witty and Cheney are n the ame page. Iran is a theat to us because they might retaliate if we bomb them.

    • American
      October 13, 2011, 11:08 pm

      American’s biggest enemy witty is US zionist and their lobby.

  2. Les
    October 13, 2011, 2:17 pm

    Neither our media nor taxpayers object to paying the FBI to manufacture plots against the US.

  3. Dan Crowther
    October 13, 2011, 2:26 pm

    The first wave of any invasion of Iran should be the children of Doug Feith, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle etc.

    Maybe if we kill off the war mongers(or in this case, their kids(, there will be less of them.

    • Justice Please
      October 13, 2011, 3:43 pm

      “The first wave of any invasion of Iran should be the children of Doug Feith, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle etc.”

      Damn right.

      • anonymouscomments
        October 13, 2011, 5:57 pm

        Wait we sound like some rabbi in the OPT sanctioning the killing of babies. How about this, we send the criminals *themselves* to lead the charge into their second (third? fourth?) war based on lies and false-flags….

        Nobody follows, they are killed, and America is freed from the neocon hawks. Question is if we can even recover from their past deeds. Trillions were sunk, and many many are dead.

      • biorabbi
        October 13, 2011, 6:19 pm

        Maybe you should publish a book of Jews who never served their country in the US military. Hitler made such allegations again and again.

        Holder releases outrageous allegations… let’s bring out Wolfowitz and his clan as the chief devil neocon in chief. Sounds like a broken record. The Jews are not your misfortune. Individuals are good or bad. As a matter of fact for a chance, there isn’t even such a thing as an external enemy.

        And, btw, a holocaust denying thug who steals elections and kills his own youth without blinking may not be our enemy, but his veracity is right up there with the Assad clan.

      • anonymouscomments
        October 13, 2011, 10:09 pm


        Not sure what you are suggesting. Some may focus on the “Jews”. I focus on the policy heavyweights who pushed us into these criminal wars. And they tend to be neocons, and often Jewish. In fact, their policy “success” scares me because in time, people may blame the “Jews” when bigots look back at American decline (and I’m ethnically half Jewish). I hope more and more Jews raise their voices, as then the mob will realize what you said- individuals are good or bad; and it was an ideological and ethnic and religious soup which got us in the hole. A key faction happened to be right wing Zionists, many Jewish.

        Of course, the neocons etc. were a driving and instrumental force, but a great deal of blame lies with the MIC, the congress (of course), and so many others. But to insinuate that our residual rage at the faction of people who started this slide and are still hanging around and continuing the narrative, indicates someone thinks “the Jews” are our problem, or to bring up Hitler, or suggest our anger is misdirected, is quite insulting. In fact it seems you are slightly defensive and are misreading the comment.

        Don’t take it personally just because many of those who carry the most blame are Jewish. Jews excel in many areas, and are disproportionately represented in the political; left, right, center, and among peace activists. Often religion has little or nothing to do with their positions, but the neocon Zionist right appears to have been inspired by a dose of pro-Israel bias. Just tell me why someone from PNAC was writing policy papers for Israel. Sorry I ramble, but one defense against antisemitism, is actually Jews who shed any fear of calling out those who discredit the “tribe”, are utterly biased for the “tribe”, or those who act like the “tribe” is monolithic when it is not (AIPAC and Israeli politicians).

        And to bring it back to ideological Zionists and pro-Israel types…. why do you think Obama went from someone who seemed open to talks with Iran (2009) to a hawk? Why do you think he is beating the drum against Iran and may continue to do so up until 2012 elections? Do you think perhaps AIPAC, their sway on congress, and his fear of not being deemed “pro-Israel” enough is a MAJOR reason we even hear about effing Iran? Of course the Jews are not our problem, and moral informed Jews will be critical to bring us back from the brink…. but a small faction of “Jews” are clearly proving to be more than a headache, and their ethnicity and ties to Israel molds their ideology…. hence the religion/ethnicity of those *individuals* is fairly relevant. Fingering the Jews or Judaism, of course remains reprehensible bigotry of the worst most uninformed type.

      • Hu Bris
        October 13, 2011, 11:11 pm

        Biorabbit: “The Jews are not your misfortune”

        No, but the Zionists are, and it ain’t the fault of anyone here that most, admittedly not all but definitely MOST, of them are Jewish – nor is it the fault of anyone here that a sizeable Majority of Jewish people seem to be Zionist of one shade or another.

        Your inability to comment on the subject of Israel trying to engineer an attack on Iran, without inserting some ridiculously contrived mention of BOTH Hitler and the Holocaust is a bit of a pathetic joke to be honest

      • biorabbi
        October 13, 2011, 11:59 pm

        Well thought out post. I guess my response is some Jews are David Berkowitz or Bernie Madoff, but I despise them as individuals, not as Jews. There judaism is incidental to the basic question are they moral? do they strive to do the right thing in life? or at least to do no harm? or are they hopeless jerks who defraud or murder people. If they do good, it is almost 100 % of the time their religion was incidental. More to the point, most of the successful Jews in medicine, the arts, whatever are secular, usually a generation(or more)removed from an orthodoxy religious background, tend to intermarry, are almost always progressive-liberal, not staunchly conservative, or even if conservative, don’t subscribe to the ape-shit wing of the insanity of today’s anti-science GOP. I guess stigmatizing is axiomatic for many. UBL stigmatized arabs by stereotypical profiles and the like. I just happen to understand that anti-semitism was not created in 1947 but existed for thousands of years, and, no, it is not an excuse for Jews to commit murder and mayhem; it simply cannot be extinguished, and neither can racism in general. Like religion itself, it is may be a fundamental need.

        If you look at the history of Poland in 1968 you find an explosion of anti-semitism, triggered, only on the surface, by the six day war, but this was simply an excuse for a right-wing nationalistic wing of “communism” in Poland to, literally, expel the Jews. The Polish leadership under Gomulka differentiated Jews into a variety of species. The so-called good Poles of Mosaic Extraction, the bad Jews with fealty to Israel, and a group of Jews in between the good and bad Jews. In short order, the divisions were set aside and most of the remaining Jews in Poland fled… about 20,000 in a matter of months. My point being there is a danger of differentiating people of whatever religion or ethnicity into good Jews and bad Jews. Because such a differentiation is as old as the sun, and it has led to excesses in the past.

        Racists with dislike or hatred of blacks might do the same thing: “I don’t like blacks but love that Herman Cain…. he’s a good one.”

        If a person is evil or possesses wonderful qualities, his religion, his race, are always, always, incidental. Good and bad coexist everywhere.

      • annie
        October 14, 2011, 12:58 am

        some Jews are David Berkowitz or Bernie Madoff, but I despise them as individuals, not as Jews. There judaism is incidental to the basic question are they moral? do they strive to do the right thing in life? or at least to do no harm? or are they hopeless jerks who defraud or murder people. If they do good, it is almost 100 % of the time their religion was incidental.

        interesting. roha said something very similar earlier today.

        anti-semitism….it simply cannot be extinguished, and neither can racism in general. Like religion itself, it is may be a fundamental need.

        please explain further how and why you think anti semitism/ racism might be ‘fundamental need’. btw, there’s no difference between anti semitism and racism other than the peculiarity everyone shares a common word for bigotry but jews have their own. not sure why that is, it’s certainly not more common than prejudice against blacks , hispanics or whoever.

      • Redruin
        October 14, 2011, 1:00 am

        Them why bring up the topic of Jews being the subject of our misfortune? No one upthread ever made such an allegation.

      • Taxi
        October 14, 2011, 4:36 am


        There was sexism before Abraham’s days. Used as cattle in breeding farms was about the best a woman could ever hope for for eons on end. Sexism is older than anti-semiticism. Why aren’t we giving women a country of their own? After all they DO share our values one hundred percent.

      • annie
        October 16, 2011, 5:49 am

        Sexism is older than anti-semiticism.

        yes it is, and a lot more prevalent too.

      • RoHa
        October 13, 2011, 7:17 pm

        Damn wrong.

        It should be Feith, Kristol, Bolton, etc., themselves. You can send Howard, Blair, etc. while you’re at it.

    • smalltownman1905
      October 13, 2011, 5:21 pm

      Justice Please well done man. These guys are the ones keep drum beating Zionists agenda.

    • Charon
      October 13, 2011, 8:16 pm

      Amen. Send all the war mongerers and neocons AND their children to go nuts over there, good riddance.

  4. Justice Please
    October 13, 2011, 2:45 pm

    Philip, you forgot the sane voice of Steve Walt:

    “Unless the Obama administration (and in particular, Attorney General Eric Holder), has more smoking gun evidence than they’ve revealed so far, they are in danger of a diplomatic gaffe on a par with Colin Powell’s famous U.N. Security Council briefing about Iraq’s supposed WMD programs, a briefing now known to have been a series of fabrications and fairy tales.”

    link to

  5. pabelmont
    October 13, 2011, 3:08 pm

    “they’re keeping everything secret about their accusations, so there’s no reason to doubt what they’re claiming.”

    Well, no. Because of secrecy, there is no reason to BELIEVE any of it.

    One question. Apparently most world-wide money transfers via banks come through NYC (as Iran would know). This is used to justify the use of the federal court in NY. So was the government of Iran stupid enough to transfer money to this bozo via banks? But if not the GOI (that GOI) then who? Can USA get away with saying money was transferred from BANK-X and not say from which account? (Of course, with USA’s secrecy, who would know WHAT to believe if USA said it?)

    And, we must all ask our Congressmen, would you go into a SECOND $1T war on the basis of a SECOND slice of baloney?

    • lysias
      October 13, 2011, 3:26 pm

      I wonder if people have the smarts to manufacture a phony transaction by feeding data into the system.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 4:37 pm

      Well, no. Because of secrecy, there is no reason to BELIEVE any of it.

      That would be the logical argument, but as Glenn Greeenwald pointed out, the opposite is true among the thinking in the Beltway and the media. If it’s secret, we’re supposed to accept their word for it.

      • Charon
        October 13, 2011, 8:24 pm

        It’s sad how the majority of the sheeple will just believe whatever the MSM dispenses to them. They know that politicians and bankers are dishonest. They know the media is dishonest. Even some who realize that I/P in our news is one-sided propaganda take in everything else they say. If they can propagate a lie for decades as with I/P, why trust them with ANYTHING?

        So when a bunch of liars and psychos tell us that it was Bin Laden who was killed in Pakistan despite contrary evidence in international news and an ever-changing story, the people asking for proof in photos are NOT crazy. When they say “of course the tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists will say this secrecy is proof that it wasn’t him, but those people are nutters”

        And people believe that. They put it out there and anybody who questions it will equate them with nutters. “why would they lie?” they say even though they already know they are liars.

      • Citizen
        October 14, 2011, 8:59 am

        Charon, Hitler explained it: Most people only have the imagination to spot a little lie, because they tell little white lies but would never tell big ones, if for no other reason than fear of being caught. Little white lies are as far as they go in believing sometimes lies are justified. Hence the power of the repetitive BIG LIE. Of course little people also do not have the power to prevent gossip or information from spreading about their little lies. They don’t own or control the local grapevine or small press.

  6. MRW
    October 13, 2011, 3:24 pm

    Phil, the callers on NPR aren’t buying this. The NPR moderator–can’t remember his name–kept repeating But a high Iranian official has been indicted! as the caller excoriated the MSM for lack of verification, and reminded the public about the aluminum tubes story and the Iraq lies.

    The caller, Ann from Indiana, wasn’t buying it (as if an indictment meant a trial or a conviction). She kept repeating that everyone should listen to the Leveretts at

    The public is waking up.

    And Mr. Witty, who tried to hijack the top of this thread, should hang his head in shame for his lack of reading and sleazy muddled attempt at thinking through the few realities he seems capable of grasping as whole sentences. Iran hasn’t attacked a country in 300 years, and it is not our enemy.

    • Chu
      October 13, 2011, 4:37 pm

      People are definitely going to be more cynical of the medias lies.
      The masses were fooled for the Iraqi invasion, but I think many
      more in the State Department and media are not going to tow the
      line when it comes to a military strike on Iran. We wouldn’t gain

      Obama is being told he has to do one or the other. Free Pollard
      or strike Iran. :o

      • Citizen
        October 14, 2011, 9:01 am

        Israel’s lawyer, Dennis Ross tells Obama to do both if he wants to assure his reelection and beat the GOP contest for who loves Israel more.

  7. lysias
    October 13, 2011, 3:25 pm

    Maybe the mainstream media want us to believe Americans in general believe this stuff, but is there any evidence that they do?

    • Bumblebye
      October 13, 2011, 5:59 pm

      Maybe they know the Americans who ‘matter’ will fall into line behind their masters media voices. And of those who don’t, many won’t have either the time or the inclination (and maybe not the means) to ferret out the truth.

  8. Antidote
    October 13, 2011, 3:29 pm

    “How stupid would we have to be, then, to allow the same gang to lead us into yet another reckless war, one that would be infinitely more deadly?”

    How stupid were you when Wilson lied you into WW I? Roosevelt into WW II? Truman into the Korean War? Did Vietnam ever pose a military threat to the US? or, for that matter, any European, Asian or Middle Eastern country?

    Obviously not. But the scare works every time. Imagine some 3000 Americans could get killed, as in 9/11. That would be completely unbearable. Better kill a few hundred thousand Iranians, or even more, just to be on the safe side. And, as an added bonus, it will rid the US of a whole bunch of Americans who would otherwise be unemployed anyway. That way, they can be celebrated as heroes and martyrs for freedom and democracy. That, too, works every time.

    • Chu
      October 13, 2011, 4:55 pm

      And what a great century it’s been. War is a big-profit industry.
      Added, it draws attention to big themes like patriotism,
      while Wall Street stuffed their Swiss bank accounts with cash
      from the home-loan scam, while the president was encouraging
      average Americans to invest in a home.

    • Charon
      October 13, 2011, 8:29 pm

      It goes way back, Antidote. Even the reasons for the American Revolutionary War were lies. The motive was independence from England and their taxes only to turn around afterwards and tax American citizens the same way. All the reasons for any war are lies to sell upon the masses.

      • MRW
        October 14, 2011, 12:11 am


        Tariffs paid 100% of the costs of government from 1791 through the Civil War. From the Civil War through WW1, tariffs paid 66% of the government costs. WW1 — WWII: 33%. After WWII, about 1%.

        In the 19th C, Britain tried to get Ulysses Grant to adopt its free trade method. Grant refused. He said, Maybe we will in about 200 years when we’re as rich as you are. In the meantime, pay the 30% tariff to access our markets.

  9. Potsherd2
    October 13, 2011, 3:30 pm

    Juan Cole has some sensible things to say about this, as usual.

    link to

    • annie
      October 13, 2011, 3:53 pm

      excellent link potsherd. i loved his 1 thru 10 but then this:

      Moreover, there is every reason to think, as Jeffrey Toobin suggests is a possibility, that Arbab was entrapped into this plan by a criminal drug runner in the pay of the US government, who suggested most of the key details to Arbabsiar in the first place. If the latter was as mentally disturbed as the WaPo report makes him sound, he may have been particularly suggestible and therefore an excellent subject for entrapment.

      sounds logical to me

      • MHughes976
        October 13, 2011, 4:11 pm

        Ah but was Arbab just acting drunk and absent-minded over the decades? You know how clever these fiends are.
        Adrian Hamilton in the Independent accepts the possibility that the Iranian regime has some crazy people among its agents but points out how unlike the generally known behaviour of the regime and its leaders all this would be.
        The BBC report last night was that the USG would be ‘going hammer and tongs’ on the diplomatic circuit to persuade everyone of the evil that is Iran. The polite incredulity they will encounter – I think it will leak out – will be amusing in an embarrassing sort of way.

      • Potsherd2
        October 13, 2011, 4:26 pm

        But Holder and Obama are invested in this now and deep into exploiting it for political gain. The sound you hear is bulldozers revving up to bury the truth.

      • Chu
        October 13, 2011, 4:41 pm

        another take as well:
        “Cui bono?
        Once again; why now? The plot has allegedly been known for months. President Barack Obama was briefed about it in June. King Abdullah was briefed about it in mid-September. So why now? It’s back to the usual suspects.

        The neo-conservatives. Factions of the industrial-military complex. Right-wing, bat-shit crazy Republicans and their media shills. The Israel lobby. The House of Saud – now painted as a “victim” of the “evil” Iranians, when it has in fact been conducting the fierce counter-revolution that has destroyed any possibility of an Arab Spring in the Persian Gulf – the invasion and repression of Bahrain included.

        The plot is very handy to divert attention from Saudi Arabia as the beneficiary of a multi-billionaire US weapons sale. And also very handy to divert attention from Holder himself – caught in yet another monstrous scandal, on whether he told lies regarding Operation Fast and Furious (no, you can’t make this stuff up), a federal gun sting through which no less than 1,400 high-powered US weapons ended up, untracked, in the hands of – you guessed it – Mexican drug cartels. Seems like the Fast and the Furious franchise is the entertainment weapon of choice across all levels of the US government.

        Washington wants to “unite the world” against Iran (“world” meaning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO) and is graphically threatening to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council – all over again.

        So let’s anxiously wait for a hushed R2P (“responsibility to protect”) resolution ordering NATO to establish a no-fly zone over every House of Saud prince across the world. A resolution which would be interpreted as a NATO mandate to bomb Iran into regime change. Now that’s a script you can believe in. “

        link to

      • annie
        October 13, 2011, 7:20 pm

        Pepe Escobar rocks

      • American
        October 13, 2011, 10:59 pm

        Cole is close to the truth annie ….or part of it……

        Here’s the complaint filed by Justice:..pdf

        link to

        Notice that the guy who sucker in the US Iranian was not an undercover FBI agent but a paid informant ( referred to as C-1 in the complaint.)
        This paid informant was the only one who had contact with the defendent during the sting.
        The paid informant was also a former drug runner who had charges against him dropped in exchange for his services to the FBI.
        From the looks of it, either the FBI dropped the drug charges against him in exchange for his scouting up some terrorist or theinformant himself because he is a “paid” informant came up with this on his own to give to the FBI.

        Another thing is I don’t see any real evidence in this complaint of a direct link to the Iran ‘government’.

        But strangely enough, ‘included’ in the complaint is a FBI agents ‘research” ..talking about what he learned about Iran while involved in this case (like he didn’t know anything about Iran before?)….and claims on the basis of ‘what he has learned about Iran’s “past activities” the Iran government is likely involved.

      • annie
        October 13, 2011, 11:42 pm

        i wonder if all this is supposed to get SA to back off on palestine’s UN bid, since we foiled their ambassador’s murder and saved their embassy from getting bombed, allegedly. a 2 birds with one stone investigation. kill both palestine and iran. nah, they would never think of that.

    • American
      October 14, 2011, 2:03 am

      Coles theory that this may have been about a drug deal between an Iran dealer wanting to hook up with the Mexican drug boys doesn’t make sense to me.
      Anyone major enough in drugs, even someone wanting to be major enough, would know how to contact anyone else in the drug world, especially the cartels….they wouldn’t need some inexperienced guy to do it for them.

  10. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 4:01 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    HERE’S ANOTHER: No Direct Evidence of Iranian Government Complicity in Plot, By John Glaser,, 10/12/11

    (excerpt)…Another reason that top-level Iranian government coordination in this plot is unlikely is because the plot was developed for the most part by the FBI and the undercover DEA agent. Arbabsiar had originally planned to kidnap the Saudi ambassador, and only after meeting with the undercover agent did kidnapping turn into assassinating, and it was the undercover agent who first suggested using explosives

    That the leadership of the Iranian government would have foreknowledge of an assassination plot by a disgruntled Texas resident that was largely concocted by US law enforcement agents is very unlikely. Still, the Obama administration continues to blame the Ayatollah Khamenei and Iranian government for it, even as US officials admit they have no direct evidence for such a claim…

    SOURCE – link to

    P.S. Nowadays, it seems as though every year is 1984!
    P.P.S. MEET MY NEW “DROP DEAD GORGEOUS” ICON/AVATAR! Are those “Bette Davis eyes” (VIDEO-03:38), or are they the cold, calculating eyes of a sociopath (or perhaps even a psychopath)?

    • American
      October 13, 2011, 11:06 pm

      I am just inserting again that that it wasn’t an FBI undercover ‘agent” that was doing the sting… was a ‘paid informant’.
      The informant was the one who had all the contact with Arbabsair.

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 12:24 am

        RE: “it wasn’t an FBI undercover ‘agent’ that was doing the sting… was a ‘paid informant’.” ~ American

        MY COMMENT: Good point. He was not only a “paid informant”, but possibly someone the DEA/FBI had something on (something incriminating), and the “informant” was trying to do favors for the DEA/FBI in return for not being prosecuted.

      • annie
        October 14, 2011, 1:04 am

        a paid ex criminal informant at that.

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 7:38 pm

        FROM JAMES BOVARD, 10/12/11:

        (excerpt) All this hoopla over the alleged Iranian plot to use Mexican drug lords to carry out an assassination of a Saudi at a fictitious DC restaurant –I knew there was something very strange about this…
        And then I read that the linchpin of the case is a paid Drug Enforcement Administration informant who recently faced drug charges and had “cooperated” with authorities to avoid going to prison himself.
        Geez, doesn’t anybody in the mainstream media have a BS radar any more?
        DEA informants are notorious for being even more dishonest than congressmen. Here is a link to an NPR story last year on one slippery DEA informant…

        SOURCE – link to

  11. yourstruly
    October 13, 2011, 4:04 pm

    given that this “terrorist threat nipped in the bud” is nothing more than a barely camauflaged attempt to get us into a war against iran, the better to bury a newborn revolutionary movement under a torrent of “rally round the flag”, “my country right or wrong” and “in god we trust” pejoratives

    as happened in the settler entity israel a few weeks ago when the plo pitched a bid for statedhood to the u. n., and immediately a month old “awakening”, purportedly for reasons of national security, instantly dissolves

    and with a huff and a puff the big bad wolf blew those tents down

    how to prevent this from happening here in the good ol u.s.a.?

    calling all patriots
    calling all patriots

    wherever you are

    noon, saturday, october 15

    at the local ows rallies

    be there

    suggested chant “no war no more, nowhere, never, not even one”

    and after the 15th, provied everyone has a say, best we stay with ows and, wherever it takes us and whatever it develops into


    we may not make it but at least we will have tried

    doubt that the powers that be ain’t scared shitless?

    then check out the ads that the israel lobby is paying for in an attempt to label the ows movement antisemitic

    what does this tell us?

    action time, ladies & gentleman


    and in the process we* become that which for so long we have sought

    *we, as in you are i, i am you, we are one

    • yourstruly
      October 13, 2011, 4:26 pm

      war against iran would be a desperate attempt by the power elite to undo the worldwide awakening, the emerging revolutionary movement in america, of course, being their primary target. they’re obviously counting on an outpour of “rally-round-the-flag” sentiment to trump “we’re the 99 percenters”

      damn driminals

      ain’t gonna work this time

      • Charon
        October 13, 2011, 8:36 pm

        It would probably be worse than that, yourstruly. Iran has said that if anybody attacks their nuclear site they will launch missiles to Israel and to US military bases in the ME. Of course Israel and the US would counter such a threat with nuclear weapons. And I doubt China and Russian would just sit idle and let Iran get attacked with only traditional weapons to defend themselves. That’s a likely scenario, not even a worst case one. The only way to prevent it would be if Iran didn’t counter-attack or China/Russia didn’t get involved. Odds are they would.

        This is the end-times nuclear WWIII everybody has been afraid of for decades. In the aftermath, the ME would be a mess. Iran and Syria would be in ruin, Israel and the Palestinian territories would be completely destroyed, the oil fields would be on fire, our military in the ME would be wiped out, major cities all over the world could be in ruins. This is what these neocon nutters are asking for and most Americans are truly too ignorant to realize. Iran is not Iraq. This will not end well for any of us

      • yourstruly
        October 13, 2011, 10:17 pm

        agree, but timing may be related to present world situation vis-a-vis possibility of a worldwide awakening. somewhat akin to the invasion of granada, which took place a couple days after the u.s. marine barracks was blown up in lebanon. akin also to the gulf of tonkin fabrication, although the war already was on when that happened. not to forget, too, the boiler room explosion that sank the maine, and on & on in the lore of american eceptionalism. when the going for the u.s. gets tough, make war on some nation, preferably one that’s long been on the u.s. government’s axis of evil list, this way msm propaganda has enough time to prime the public towards going along with whatever the action.

      • yourstruly
        October 13, 2011, 10:33 pm

        and now, for those who still intend to vote for the lesser of two evils, had enough of him? what to do instead? join the ows movement.

  12. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 4:20 pm

    RE: “First, MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters says we’ve seen this neoconservative movie before…” ~ Weiss


    …But for the lies and manufactured evidence that led us into Iraq we might not have reason to be skeptical about the case the government laid out yesterday and which the usual suspects are already joyously citing as reason to get tough with Iran (as if that country is not under onerous sanctions already). Here is Reuel Mark Gerecht, one of the leading cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, warning that the supposed plot justifies a U.S. attack on Iran. “The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don’t, we are asking for it,” he writes. (Not very different from what he wrote in 2002 when he said that “if President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East.”)…

    SOURCE – link to

  13. Tzombo
    October 13, 2011, 4:43 pm

    Here’s an op-ed from German public broadcasting that is not swallowing it either: link to,,15458373,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-world-4025-rdf

  14. Sherri Munnerlyn
    October 13, 2011, 5:09 pm

    We are the laughingstock of the rest of the world. But I guess those in power just keep on thinking they can keep on fooling Americans with fear tactics and bogus fabricated threats to our security.

  15. smalltownman1905
    October 13, 2011, 5:12 pm

    How long do we have to support Zionist centric policies in Middle East? Can anybody tell me how long? Until ve completely go bankrupt ? When? anybody? Why Israelis cannot do the dirty jobs themselves? If they want to attack Iran, be my guess–do not ask for our tax dollars our technology and certainly NOT our troops. The truth is, Israelis know they cannot fight without US and Western help. Further Israelis used to idea of free money getting free billions dollars without any condition from our tax dollars. How long are we going to tolerate these policies? For those in discontent with economy, living standards–protest your government’s foreign policies in the Middle East. These failed pro-Israeli policies to blame first.

    • pabelmont
      October 13, 2011, 8:22 pm

      Not from our tax-dollars; from our borrowing from China. see Pay as you go wars, suggesting we pay for on-going wars with currently collected taxes, not borrowing.

  16. Proton Soup
    October 13, 2011, 5:13 pm

    Napolitano isn’t buying it. but not sure how much of this gets out to the typical FOX viewer now that he’s been pigeonholed in FOXBusiness.

    link to

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 7:46 pm

      Napolitano is fast becomming my favourite televisino presenter. He continues to surprise me with his feareleseness and candor.

      More power to him.

      • Shingo
        October 13, 2011, 11:49 pm

        BTW. Proton Soup,

        Notice in the second interview how the retired Colonel says that accordin to his FBI course (who has full clearance), there is nothing to back up the charges against this Iranian. In other words, the reason the DOJ insists that it’s evidence remain secret is that they don’t have any.

  17. smalltownman1905
    October 13, 2011, 5:20 pm

    First of all, I love you guys for giving opportunity to voice non-zionist side of story from all of us. This is remarkable! I have several questions and comments.
    How long do we have to support Zionist centric policies in Middle East? Can anybody tell me how long? Until ve completely go bankrupt ? When? anybody? Why Israelis cannot do the dirty jobs themselves? If they want to attack Iran, be my guess–do not ask for our tax dollars our technology and certainly NOT our troops. The truth is, Israelis know they cannot fight without US and Western help. Further Israelis used to idea of free money getting free billions dollars without any condition from our tax dollars. How long are we going to tolerate these policies? For those in discontent with economy, living standards–protest your government’s foreign policies in the Middle East. These failed pro-Israeli policies to blame first.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 7:50 pm

      Can anybody tell me how long? Until ve completely go bankrupt ? When? anybody? Why Israelis cannot do the dirty jobs themselves?

      1. Logistically and practically, it is beyond their reach. While it could theoretically reach Iran with it’s bombers, it would be enromously risky, not only for the pilots, but for the Israeli government.
      2. If the plan fails, the government in Israel would fall.
      3. They have no guarantee of destroying the targets they know about.
      4. They don’t knwo whre most of the targets are.
      5. Israel has few resources and cannot sustain a protracted war.
      6. Iran can fight back and hurt Israel.

  18. biorabbi
    October 13, 2011, 5:51 pm

    I would certainly agree the Iranian people are not our enemy. The Iranian regime kills her own people with abandon… unless the CIA fabricated the chaos after the last election. Obama had precious little to say after that outrage. But, with the specifics of this latest crap, I think much is being made of little. I think Holder is trying to deflect questions from his own role in the Fast and Furious scandal which is not going away. He will fail in his attempt.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 7:40 pm

      The Iranian regime kills her own people with abandon… unless the CIA fabricated the chaos after the last election.

      The way it was reported, one would be led to beleive there was a massacre. In reality, I think one or two people were killed. Not great, but hardle evidence of killing civilians with abandon.

      • Tzombo
        October 13, 2011, 8:43 pm

        Are you serious? There is no doubt the Iranian regime has killed a lot of dissidents. The Iranian regime still isn’t worse than most Gulf countries and certainly still a lot better than Saudi Arabia, but there is no need to glorify it.

        But this story that Obama is trying to sell us here (and he seems to be selling it personally), the way it is told, is a lie. There is no clear tie between this amateurish scheme and the Iranian regime.

      • Charon
        October 13, 2011, 8:49 pm

        Not trying to sound cold and say it was only a couple people in a way that undermines their deaths, but that is literally all it was. When Israel kills that many Palestinians they call it “Tuesday” yet they point to this single event as a terrible fact that proves how ‘vicious’ they are. One Zionist journalist said “who can forget the image of the woman bleeding to death”

        Who can forget the photos of charred Palestinian babies? Oh that’s right you can’t forget what the media doesn’t report.

      • Chaos4700
        October 14, 2011, 9:19 am

        I think it was more than two people, Shingo, so I wouldn’t trivialize it… but it’s definitely been less than Syria or Libya or, you know, Israel.

  19. Keith
    October 13, 2011, 6:14 pm

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH- “Israel in Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations” is an article over at Dissident Voice which discusses Iran and China versus the US, NATO and Israel, and which has much pertinent information of relevance to this thread. I have included the link for those interested.
    link to

    • MRW
      October 14, 2011, 1:07 am


      This is an excellent article, one that everyone on this thread should read. Read about the Yinon Plan.

      The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.

      Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM in this regard. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) is one example.

      Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.

      Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa.1 Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese.1

  20. muzz al atesta
    October 13, 2011, 6:30 pm

    same old crap keeps getting reruns and one unfortunately can’t count on america’s citizens to care, stay aware & focused enough to put an end to it.

    remember retired homo sapien slaughterer McCain crooning “bomb, bomb, bomb iran” a few years ago?

    guess what was the shiznit in the summer of 1980…

    “Bomb Iran” was “The Most Requested Song in the United States” according to Billboard magazine in 1980 for several weeks during the height of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, garnering much radio play and millions of dollars worth of free publicity

  21. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 6:31 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    AND HERE’S ONE MORE: None of It Makes Sense: Bizarre Iranian “Plot” Doesn’t Add Up, By Patrick Cockburn, Counterpunch, 10/13/11

    (excerpts)…The confident announcement of this bizarre plot by the US Attorney General Eric Holder sounds alarmingly similar to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s notorious claim before the UN in 2003 that the US possessed irrefutable evidence Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.
    The problem is that the US government has very publicly committed itself to a version of events, however unlikely, that, if true, would be a case for war against Iran. It will be difficult for the US to back away from such allegations now.
    Could the accusations be true? The plot as described in court was puerile, easy to discover and unlikely to succeed…

    SOURCE – link to

  22. yourstruly
    October 13, 2011, 6:34 pm

    has there ever been a more appropriate time for beethoven’s 9th -

    his words

    oh what delight to leave the gloom and breathe the air of heaven
    oh what deli-ight
    for here, for here
    for here at last is freedom
    is freedom
    oh, oh what delight

    just ahead, that is
    like meet you round the corner, in just a half an hour (almost)

  23. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 6:49 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    AND HERE’S YET ANOTHER: “How Obama could benefit from the alleged Iranian bombing plot”, By Paul Woodward, War in Context, 10/13/11

    (excerpts) If Iran was going to engage in as risky an operation as to attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, it wouldn’t use a flaky used-car salesman as its lead operative and it wouldn’t outsource the attack to some unknown hit men from a Mexican drug cartel. Anyone who knows anything about how Iran operates finds such a scenario highly implausible.
    On the other hand, if someone else wanted to frame Iran, since they wouldn’t be able to enlist the kind of Iranian team capable of carrying out such an attack, they might well end up recruiting the very cast of characters who are alleged to have been involved. Indeed, if the object of the exercise was that the plot be exposed rather than carried out, then unwitting amateurs would be perfect for the job.
    Given that informants for the US Drug Enforcement Agency played a pivotal role, suspicion about who might have been directing this operation has to fall on Washington. Are we talking about a false flag operation and a pretext for war?
    The intemperate response from the Obama administration over the last few days might suggest that escalating tension with Iran has at this juncture passed a critical point and that the American public and the rest of the world is being warned that war may be on the horizon.
    The drums of war have been beating for so long — mostly from Israel — that in some quarters the question has not been if a war will start, but when.
    Has Obama now boarded the war train? I seriously doubt it…
    …So, if Washington was really behind this bombing plot and it wasn’t trying to start a war, how would it stand to benefit?
    Here’s how: by driving down the price of oil…


    • DICKERSON3870
      October 13, 2011, 7:04 pm

      P.S. FROM THE ANGRY ARAB BLOG, 10/12/11:

      Well, Gulf students in Texas area have come up with an important detail about the accused. Apparently, he was an opponent of the Iranian regime. So wait: we have a new important detail. The Iranian government contacted an opponent of the regime to undertake an assassination and bombing plot in the US. So he went and sought the help of drug gangs in Mexico. OK. It is now making more sense.
      - Posted by As’ad AbuKhalil

      SOURCE – link to

      • pabelmont
        October 13, 2011, 8:39 pm

        Be interesting to see if THIS idea (opponent of Iranian regime) sees the light of day anywhere else. (I DOUBT IT WILL.) I suppose many ex-pats are enemies of the regime where they refuse to go home.

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 2:50 pm

        I have read that Arbabsiar (the primary defendant) has been in the U.S. since he came here for college. Based on his age, that would have been before the Shah of Iran was deposed in the revolution of 1979!

  24. ToivoS
    October 13, 2011, 6:54 pm

    Here is a paradox. This story is so outlandish that it is difficult to believe anyone would fabricate it. Does that mean it is, in fact, then true?

    The most plausible explanation it seems to me is the one offered by Juan Cole. Arbabsidar is mentally ill or partially brain damaged and is highly suggestible. The DEA agent planted the story in his head. If that is the case then we have a classic example of Holder and the keystone cops.

    Unfortunately, it is not funny. Wars could be ignited over “misunderstandings” like this , especially by a president who is insecure about his macho.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 7:43 pm

      The most plausible explanation it seems to me is the one offered by Juan Cole. Arbabsidar is mentally ill or partially brain damaged and is highly suggestible.

      Which seems to be a common trait among all the sting/entrapment opertions over the past decade leading to so called “foiled plots”.

      Remember back to the Miami 6? The leader fo which was some homeless guy who walked around wrapped in a bed sheet professing to be a prophet? Then along came a government informant waving $50,000 in front of him and sugegsting they use it to bomb a building in Chicago the hobo had never seen or heard of.

      • Taxi
        October 14, 2011, 5:13 am

        The Miami 6 were so piss-poor they included “brand new shoes” on their list of needs to be submitted to Osama bin Laden.

  25. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 7:40 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    AND HERE’S RICHARD SILVERSTEIN: Justice Department Concedes: No ‘Conclusive Proof’ Linking Senior Iranian Officials to Terror Plot, By Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 10/12/11

    (except) When stories like the so-called Iranian terror plot come your way, you just want to sit back and watch the action. It’s like a political campaign in which your opponent is making a shambles of his candidacy, and you get the pleasure of watching him or her self-destruct before your very eyes.
    Today’s Washington Post offers one of the stranger explanations of the case, claiming that despite the “crude construction” of the plot, the government had no choice but to take it seriously. There is much in the story that raises both yellow and red flags and strains, if not breaks credulity. The story points to the Justice Department and Washington Post being either incredibly credulous or willfully nuts about what they’re prepared to believe concerning this case…
    …I feel like the comedian who witnesses the election of a new president whose politics are so cartoonish, he realizes the next four years are going to be nothing but fun and great comedic joy for him. Let’s just sit back and watch this case disintegrate before our eyes. The only question is whether it will take a week or a month or a year for it to do so. Whatever time it takes, we’ll be here watching with bemusement and report it to you.
    Jeffrey Toobin, the noted legal analyst, writes at CNNwrites at CNN, that the outlines of this case would make any defense lawyer salivate. I should add it does the same for progressive bloggers like me.
    That Barack Obama would allow such a far-fetched case to become public, and even worse allow his attorney general to associate himself so prominently with it is a further indication that a man who ran an almost perfect presidential campaign has some of the worst political instincts imaginable when it comes to running a government. It’s hard to believe that they would let this train wreck have happened. I predict it will cause them huge amounts of embarrassment and headaches for the foreseeable future.
    The even larger question here is whether this is just a shambles of a case pursued because of bad judgment; or whether there are ulterior political motives being exploited by Pres. Obama, as I’ve alluded to before when I wrote that this reminds me of the Tonkin Gulf incident that fueled extensive U.S. intervention in the Vietnam war. Are we seeking a causus belli, no matter how ridiculous it might be?


  26. Richard Witty
    October 13, 2011, 7:41 pm

    You guys’ reading comprehension is astoundingly poor.

    If you read my first post, it was in agreement with Phil’s theme (I hope that it was), that the Iran threat is exagerated and unnecessary.

    That was that the “US has no real substantive enemies currently, if Iran is the worst”.


    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 7:56 pm

      You guys’ reading comprehension is astoundingly poor.

      This comming from someone who admits he doesn’t read (other than hedlines), who makes up facts, rrefuses to provide linsk to back them up and who’s disatribes lack any sentence strcture, are incoherent and violate all the rules of the English language.

      If you read my first post, it was in agreement with Phil’s theme (I hope that it was), that the Iran threat is exagerated and unnecessary.

      If one reads your first post, it makes the following claims:

      1. Iran has desires of becomming an empire without providing any facts to back it up.
      2. That Iran is America’s biggest enemy.
      3. That Iran threatens Saudi Arabia.

      Phil made none of these arguments.

      Clearly it’s YOUR reading comprehension is astoundingly poor.

      • piotr
        October 13, 2011, 10:51 pm

        Shingo, you must understand that Witty trademark style is Haiku.

        Let me rephrase his first post a bit:

        “Iran is America’s biggest enemy. Contentment.”

        For the first part, what more ferocious enemies do we possess? Cuba? Venezuela? Zeta Cartel? Tuvalu?

        For the second part, compute their military expenses, multiply by 2 to be on the conservative side, multiply the sum by 10, and set our defensive/offensive spending on that level. I suspect that this would reduce the respective parts of our budget 5 times. (You would still need to pay military pensions, VA program etc.)

        Then there is an issue that Iran may desire an empire. In vast majority of cases, a newly minted Empire is not a threat whatsoever. Recall the sad life of Jean-Bédel Bokassa, who started promisingly, with a nice military carrier in French Army, crowned with the respectable rank of Captain. Then he became supreme commander, and a Colonel, of the troops of CAR (all 500 of them). After few year, in 1965, he became an unelected President. Who knows how long would he rule? Alas, founding the unimaginative title of the “president” inadequate, he became Emperor of Central Africa in 1975, and deposed 4 years later.

    • Chaos4700
      October 13, 2011, 11:16 pm

      It’s spelled “WEIRD” and you have no business criticizing anyone else’s reading comprehension, Witty.

    • justicewillprevail
      October 14, 2011, 5:19 am

      Good god, Witty, you have some neck. Your writing is a tortured wreck of syntax, evidencing unclear, ill thought-out and obfuscatory logic. You display a staggering lack of understanding of many of the posts, and now you have the front to claim that is us who don’t understand you? Your overweening ego is shameful. So you meant the opposite of what you said? How will we ever decipher your posts again? We need a full-time cryptologist – oh, James North where are you?

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2011, 9:19 am

        Yes, we need James North.

        Someone send the signal to James North.

  27. wolf
    October 13, 2011, 7:42 pm

    The MEK has been enlisting high profile Americans to get itself removed from the State Dept. terrorist list. I wonder if this is an attempt by them to help their chances by playing the “Iran is attacking America” card?

    • Redruin
      October 14, 2011, 1:10 am

      This was my first thought when I heard of the plot. MEK has many sympathizers in Iran. They would like nothing more than a conflict between the West and Iran, and may have assets in position within the Iranian regime to carry out such a plot

  28. eGuard
    October 13, 2011, 8:20 pm

    Smart play by Obama. Now even NYT has to say: “No, not a war with Iran”.

    • Shingo
      October 13, 2011, 10:23 pm

      In fact, even the NYT is calling this story BS.

    • Taxi
      October 14, 2011, 5:23 am

      Remember the election debates where Obama was declaring that “we should talk to iran” instead of rushing off to war?

      Amazing that EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT declared by pissident Obama has been a bold-face lie.

  29. smalltownman1905
    October 13, 2011, 8:32 pm

    Honestly, I had enough of Zionists lies and bullshit. This is purely fabrication by Zionists. Wakeup folks, enough is enough. We’ve got to stop these warmonger Zionists. Why do we have to pay wars for Israel? why? I am completely disgusted this fabricated Zionist lies.

  30. stevelaudig
    October 13, 2011, 8:40 pm

    Who is America’s biggest enemy?.. Depend upon whose America you are talking about. The biggest enemy to my America, in no particular order. Is is Scalia, Thomas, Alioto; Roberts and Kennedy who have weaponized money and turned elections into auctions. Hmmmm. Or General Electric and the Supreme Courts [substitute Rhenquist/OConnor and so on] for selecting a dope for president? Bernie Madoff? Michael Milliken? That otherwise nice man, Gerald Ford, for pardoning the Nixer and starting a trend of legal impunity for the ruling classes? The Savings and Loan Companies who showed others how to get money for nothing? the dark lord, unindicted war criminal medical experimenter torturer Dick Cheney? BankofMericaChaseAllOf WallStreet for tanking the economy of my America. Most of Congress for thinking that Zionist Israel’s interests are as important as my America’s interests and have been purchased by the lobbyists for a foreign country. Iran, hmm. I like pistachios and it has never harmed me and my America. Obama for campaigning on promises of hope for change and breaking nearly all of them by governing on fear. You pick. But Iran doesn’t make the top 10, either domestic or foreign. Mexico’s lack of a government causes more harm to my United States and thus must be consider a “greater” enemy. The main enemy is duplicity, stupidity, cupidity and fear of my fellow nationals.

    • POA
      October 13, 2011, 11:54 pm

      “Who is America’s biggest enemy?”

      By a long shot, our media in its current state.

    • piotr
      October 14, 2011, 2:40 am

      “I like pistachios…”

      I read that Iran and USA are each producing 40% of the world crop of pistachios. The struggle to dominate various export markets may indeed be facilitated by economic sanctions. Then there is the issue of handwoven woolen carpets, where Iran is one of the leading producers . While they do not possess threat to our domestic handwoven carpet industry which is modest at best, intelligence reported that Iran is close to developing flying carpets that may offer existential threat to various countries in the region. Flying carpets would be undetected by radar, infrared sensors etc.

  31. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 9:19 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    AND, FROM JUAN COLE, 10/13/11:

    (excerpts) I personally do not understand how the corporate media in the US can report the following things about Manssor Arbabsiar and then go on to repeat with a straight face the US government charges that he was part of a high-level Iranian government assassination plot.
    It seems pretty obvious that Arbabsiar is very possibly clinically insane.
    Here are the top 10 reasons that he cannot be Iran’s answer to 007…
    …I am frankly shocked that Eric Holder should have brought us this steaming crock, which is now being used to make policy at the highest levels. That a Mexican former drug runner being paid by the US taxpayers might have thought he could advance his career by playing mind games with a somewhat crazy Iranian expatriate is no surprise. That you could put fantastic schemes in Arbabsiar’s mind if you worked at it seems obvious. That anyone in the DOJ or the US foreign policy establishment would take all this seriously is not plausible. I conclude that they are being dishonest, and that this is Obama’s turn to wag the dog as he faces defeat at Romney’s well-manicured hands next year this time…


    • Hu Bris
      October 13, 2011, 10:56 pm

      I wish people would stop lauding Juan Cole – he worked as an ‘adviser’ to the CIA – even if he is being truthful right now, at some point he’s going to lead you all astray – that is his value to the powers that be.

      In order to do so he needs to build up credibility with ‘the left’, and later he’ll help sell you all some rickety old bridge to nowhere

      In fact he’s already done it once – people forget that he initially supported the Iraq invasion. to read him now you’d think he didn’t, but he did

      At best, he’s merely a conduit for some faction in the CIA – at best

      • annie
        October 13, 2011, 11:13 pm

        i don’t generally laud cole but sometimes he’s right on. even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

      • Charon
        October 14, 2011, 12:03 am

        When they are not right it can be dangerous. These people will deliberately lead us astray. Give a little good and truthful info here and there and dispense BS in between. Like that twitter for the flotilla II that said something like “oh well… now we should set out sites on Syria.” A good example of this is Eric Hufschmid. He even ironically explains that this is what people do, dispense some facts to lure people in and then give them BS. His anti-Zionist info is good but he purposely makes no distinction between Jewish and Zionist and throws in antisemitism. That way if somebody quotes is stuff they’re in antisemite. He also has laughable things like Paul McCartney dead.

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 1:03 am

        Annie pretty well sums up my view of Juan Cole at this point. I once had high regard for him, but now I have very mixed feelings.

      • annie
        October 14, 2011, 1:08 am

        Eric Hufschmid? that’s a name i’d never heard of before. just opened his website, not sure i would compare him to juan cole.

      • Hu Bris
        October 14, 2011, 7:05 am

        @ annie “i don’t generally laud cole but sometimes he’s right on. even a stopped watch is right twice a day.”

        I even admitted he was right THIS TIME Annie – but it’s how he sets people up for the lies he wishes to peddle later on – a man that worked for the CIA, but kept it quiet until recently when he attempted to boost his flagging credibility by having some other CIA clown come out and claim Cole was on some sort of White house watch list, is not to be trusted –

        The people quoting him obviously value his opinion otherwise why would they quote him, or even think him worth quoting?

        Cole is poison imho – better to ignore him completely – he never says anything original anyway, so if one needs quotes they could just as easily be got from someone that did NOT cheer-lead for the Iraq War, from someone that did NOT work for the CIA?

      • Hu Bris
        October 14, 2011, 7:34 am

        Juan Cole, Consultant to the CIA

        After warning of the “difficulties” with the Iraq War, Cole swung over to ply it with wet kisses on the day of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His fervor was not based on Saddam Hussein’s fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction but on the virtues of “humanitarian imperialism.

        On March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog: “I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides” (emphasis mine). Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was “worth it”? Cole has called the Afghan War “the right war at the right time” and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.

      • justicewillprevail
        October 14, 2011, 5:22 am

        You know what? We can make up our own minds on Cole’s posts. thanks, anyway.

      • Hu Bris
        October 14, 2011, 6:53 am

        If you think your veneration of a someone who is at best CIA conduit, and who helped sell the war on Iraq, is a good idea, then go right ahead, don’t let me stop you.

        But when he uses what little credibility he has to try and sell you a crock-of-shit further down the line, don’t go acting all surprised.

      • Donald
        October 14, 2011, 8:00 am

        “I wish people would stop lauding Juan Cole – he worked as an ‘adviser’ to the CIA – even if he is being truthful right now, at some point he’s going to lead you all astray – that is his value to the powers that be.

        In order to do so he needs to build up credibility with ‘the left’, and later he’ll help sell you all some rickety old bridge to nowhere”

        I don’t know if that is true about Cole–he seems to go off the reservation too often for that. I dislike a lot of what he says without thinking the worst. To me he seems like someone who wants to be in the mainstream, but also has a decent streak and there’s a constant conflict within him. You never know which Cole is going to be posting. He is almost always critical of Israel, for instance. On Iraq he was for the war and then a critic of it.

        Someone like Tom Friedman seems to fit what you are describing–in fact, most of the pundits in the MSM are like that. The ideological differences in the MSM span the gamut from A to B when it comes to the Middle East.

      • Hu Bris
        October 14, 2011, 8:16 am

        When it matters – when the US is out there bombing and murdering it’s way to “Democracy™” – Cole is as ‘on-message’ as anyone else – he’ll pretend to have some ‘reservations’ or some actual scruples, but when push comes to shove, when the blood-letting kicks-off, Cole has repeatedly proven he will jettison any ‘reservations’ he previously claimed to have, in double-quick time, and then he hops right on the War-mongering bandwagon happily braying along with the rest of the Bloodthirsty War cheerleading Psychopaths

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2011, 8:24 am

        I’m with you Donald.

        Cole was also cheer leading the no fly zones and intervention in Lybia.

    • American
      October 13, 2011, 11:12 pm

      “That a Mexican former drug runner being paid by the US taxpayers might have thought he could advance his career by playing mind games with a somewhat crazy Iranian expatriate is no surprise.”


      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 12:55 am

        RE: “That a Mexican former drug runner being paid by the US taxpayers might have thought he could advance his career by playing mind games…” ~ American

        MY REPLY: It might well have had more to do with trying the informant trying to “advance his career”. The DEA/FBI might well have had something incriminating on the “Mexican former drug runner being paid by the US taxpayers”. So the informant might have been doing the bidding of the FBI/DEA not just for the pay, but in return for not being prosecuted (a variation of the “jailhouse snitch”).

  32. thetumta
    October 13, 2011, 9:46 pm

    Of course, it’s propaganda, the details are not important unless your a PHD in search of funding. If this thing unravels as it probably will, you’re going to have to decide. No debate at some point, where do you stand. When will you stand up and end the endless commentary?

  33. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 10:42 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    WALT WEIGHS IN: Something just doesn’t add up…, By Stephen M. Walt, 10/13/11:

    (excerpts) Unless the Obama administration (and in particular, Attorney General Eric Holder), has more smoking gun evidence than they’ve revealed so far, they are in danger of a diplomatic gaffe on a par with Colin Powell’s famous U.N. Security Council briefing about Iraq’s supposed WMD programs, a briefing now known to have been a series of fabrications and fairy tales.
    The problem is that the harder one looks at the allegations about Manour Ababasiar, the fishier the whole business seems…
    …Iran’s leaders are not stupid, and surely they would have known that a plot like this ran the risk of triggering a very harsh U.S. response. Given that extraordinary risk, is it plausible to believe they would have entrusted such a sensitive mission to a serial bungler like Ababsiar? If you are going to attack a target in the United States, wouldn’t you send your A Team, instead of Mr. Magoo?
    Hence the growing skepticism, including the possibility that this might be some sort of “false flag” operation by whatever groups or countries might benefit from further deterioration in U.S.-Iranian relations. If the Obama administration can’t back up their allegations in a convincing way, they are going to face a diplomatic backlash and they are going to look like the Keystone Cops. They could even face a situation where rightwing war-mongers seize on their initial accusations to clamor for harsh action (a development that has already begun), while moderates at home and abroad lose confidence in the administration’s competence, credibility, and basic honesty.
    So my advice to Holder & Co. is this: you better show us what you’ve got, and it had better be good.

    SOURCE – link to

    P.S. Obama says they wouldn’t have been able to get an indictment if they didn’t have the evidence to back it up. Lol! CLEARLY, OBAMA IS A SHAMELESS LIAR!

    P.P.S. REGARDING THE U.S. ATTORNEY WHO OBTAINED THE INDICTMENT (PREET BAHARARA), SEE – Lawyer Overseeing News Corp.’s Internal Hacking Probe Is Old Pals With US Attorney Leading Investigation, by Alex Alvarez, Mediatite, 08/10/11
    LINK – link to


    (excerpts) Preetinder S. Bharara[1] (born 1968), commonly known as Preet Bharara, is U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2]
    Bharara was born in 1968 in Firozpur, Punjab, India, to a Sikh father and Hindu mother.[1] He grew up in suburban Monmouth County, New Jersey..
    …Bharara previously served as the chief counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer…
    …Bharara was nominated to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York by President Barack Obama on May 15, 2009 and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He was sworn in to the position on August 13, 2009…

    SOURCE – link to

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 14, 2011, 4:28 am

      RE: “Obama says they wouldn’t have been able to get an indictment if they didn’t have the evidence to back it up. Lol! CLEARLY, OBAMA IS A SHAMELESS LIAR!” – me, above

      SEE: Obama Weighs in on ‘Facts’ of Alleged Iran Terror Plot, By Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 10/13/11

      (excerpts) I winced when I read in today’s Times that Barack Obama has now staked a bit of his own presidential credibility (diminishing as it is) on supporting the increasingly desperate tale told by his Justice Department about the alleged Iran terror plot.

      Mr. Obama insisted that American officials “know that he had direct links, was paid by, and directed by individuals in the Iranian government.”
      “Now those facts are there for all to see,” Mr. Obama said. “We would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment.”

      This guy is not just a lawyer, not just a Harvard trained lawyer, but a constitutional scholar. He, of all people, should know that accusations are not facts until proven in a court of law, and we’re a LONG way from there. It’s really shameful for him to use the term at all, and deeply prejudicial to the detainee’s (I almost want to say “victim”) chance for a fair trial…

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to

      • Shingo
        October 14, 2011, 4:46 am

        “Now those facts are there for all to see”

        Hang on a minute.

        Has the government shared these sources so that they are all to soo? I was under the impression ghtta they were refusing to let anyone see those “facts” on the grounds of national security.

        This looks like Iraq WMD all over again. They tell a lie, then repeat it over and over and then say that “there is no dispute they exist”.

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 3:21 pm

        FROM JAMES BOVARD, 10/12/11:

        (excerpt) All this hoopla over the alleged Iranian plot to use Mexican drug lords to carry out an assassination of a Saudi at a fictitious DC restaurant –I knew there was something very strange about this…
        And then I read that the linchpin of the case is a paid Drug Enforcement Administration informant who recently faced drug charges and had “cooperated” with authorities to avoid going to prison himself.
        Geez, doesn’t anybody in the mainstream media have a BS radar any more?
        DEA informants are notorious for being even more dishonest than congressmen. Here is a link to an NPR story last year on one slippery DEA informant…

        SOURCE – link to

      • DICKERSON3870
        October 14, 2011, 6:06 pm

        RE: “Obama says they wouldn’t have been able to get an indictment if they didn’t have the evidence to back it up. Lol! CLEARLY, OBAMA IS A SHAMELESS LIAR!” – me, above

        SEE: Strange Culture 2006 NR 74 minutes
        On the eve of his new exhibit, artist and professor Steve Kurtz was shocked by the news that his wife had died of heart failure. The medics on the scene became suspicious of Kurtz’s artistic media, which includes genetically modified foods, and the FBI accused him of bioterrorism. This disquieting true story is brought to life by actors Tilda Swinton, Josh Kornbluth and Peter Coyote in Lynn Herschman Leeson’s chilling dramatic documentary.
        Netflix Availability: Streaming and DVD
        NETFLIX LISTING – link to
        ALSO ON YouTube (VIDEO, 1:14:52) – link to

  34. DICKERSON3870
    October 13, 2011, 11:12 pm

    RE: “…here are three sane voices on the red-herring car-salesman Iranian terror plot.” ~ Weiss

    LAST (I hope), BUT NOT LEAST: Will the Washington Bomb Plot Force Obama into War with Iran? ~ By Tony Karon,, 10/12/11

    (excerpts)…Accepting at face value the claim that this plot was the work of the Iranian government requires a suspension of disbelief. “This plot, if true, departs from all known Iranian policies and procedures,” wrote Gary Sick , a former National Security Council Iran aide now at Columbia University. Despite its animus toward the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Iran has always relied on trusted proxies like Hizballah to carry out assassinations, giving Tehran plausible deniability. “Iran has never conducted — or apparently even attempted — an assassination or a bombing inside the U.S.,” Sick noted. “And it is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions. In this instance, they allegedly relied on at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and U.S. intelligence agents.”…
    …The Washington bomb plot makes sense only if the goal was, in fact, to provoke the U.S. into attacking Iran…
    …But Tehran is not the only power center whose hard-liners might like to provoke an outbreak of hostilities between Iran and the U.S., prompting further speculation abroad over the nature and possible authorship of the plot…
    …Still, even though the plot was thwarted, it could yet provoke an escalation, or even a confrontation, between the U.S. and Iran. The poisoning of the atmosphere will, in all likelihood, further dim the already diminished hopes for any diplomatic progress on the nuclear standoff. And if the Administration fails to win support for a significant escalation of sanctions or other form of punishment for the Tehran regime after presenting evidence of the latest allegations of Iranian malfeasance, the ball will land back in Obama’s court. Having made the case that Iran crossed a red line, he will be under pressure to act — or risk entering a highly polarized election season haunted by a “soft on Iran” charge.


  35. POA
    October 13, 2011, 11:30 pm

    Gads, whats with Witty???

    If you were that fuckin’ dense, would you post at a blogsite to advertise the fact?

    • Walid
      October 14, 2011, 1:21 am

      Anybody here remembers the last June 12, 2010 Times of London and Haaretz articles about SA having opened and tested an air corridor across its territory for Israel’s safe passage to bomb Iran? At that time, SA denied it. Looks like with this new wild tale directly involving SA, it’s now justified to actually do it and SA couldn’t be faulted for it. Israel and its US neocon friends aren’t the only ones obsessed with bombing the heretical Iran. Wouldn’t be surprised either to see anther corridor opened over Turkey. If you want know what’s in the works in the area, keep your eyes and ears on l’éminence grise, Erdogan but don’t be misguided by the darts he’s been throwing at Israel.

  36. American
    October 14, 2011, 12:00 am

    And away we go! “Official sources” blah,blah blah, and Obama and his zio girlie, Victoria, at State spreading the word on Iran as threat to the US.
    I would bet every Head of State and foreign official they are selling this story to are secretly rolling their eyes and groaning…”oh for gawd’s sake,not again”.
    If there any facet of the US reputation and credibility left to ruin I can’t imagine what it is.

    link to

    Obama said Attorney General Eric Holder “laid out a very specific set of facts” and the United States would not have brought the case forward if it weren’t able to back up the allegations.
    “What we know is that an individual of Iranian-American descent was involved in a plot to assassinate the ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia,” Obama said. “And we also know that he had direct links, was paid by and directed by individuals in the Iranian government. Now, those facts are there for all to see.”
    He praised the “outstanding” U.S. intelligence work that helped thwart the alleged plot, which he said would also have killed innocent civilians.

    The United States is offering “specialized briefings” to officials in other countries who have sought more information about the alleged plot, said State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland. She cited Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as having wanted more information.
    A senior administration official said the impetus for the specialized briefings came from U.S. officials. Briefing teams — composed of senior officials from various agencies — are going to China, Turkey and Russia and perhaps to other countries.
    The news came on the same day that the United States reported having had “direct contact with Iran” about the alleged plot and as the Obama administration ratcheted up its rhetoric against the Islamic republic.
    State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland disclosed the contact to reporters. A senior administration official told CNN it occurred Wednesday and was initiated by the United States.

  37. yourstruly
    October 14, 2011, 12:18 am

    occupy wall street and then what?

    it’ll be up to us

    the what kind of world

  38. American
    October 14, 2011, 12:34 am

    OT, but good…the more the Israel firsters interfer and smear, the more they will draw the attention and ire of the public that is supporting OWS. WS and zionism will become the same for the public.

    link to

    Hedge Fund-Bankrolled Emergency Committee For Israel Smears Occupy Wall St. Protests As ‘Anti-Semitic’
    By Eli Clifton on Oct 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    The Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), has joined the pack of conservative groups working to discredit the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The ECI — a Bill Kristol-Gary Bauer-Rachel Abrams-conceived organization — launched a YouTube ad this morning, seeking to paint the Wall Street protests as anti-Semitic.

    The ad, which was faithfully promoted by ECI’s go-to media outlets — Politico’s Ben Smith, the Weekly Standard, and Commentary — alleges that Democratic party leaders are “turning a blind eye to anti-Semitic, anti-Israel attacks,” and urges President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to “stand up to the mob.” Watch it:

    While the anti-Semitic signs and clips shown in the commercial are deeply offensive, the Occupy Wall Street protesters have consistently rejected the attempts of a small number of extremists to hijack the movement. In fact, on Friday, “new media activist” Daniel Sieradski organized over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters to participate in Kol Nidre, the prayers that begin Yom Kippur.

    ThinkProgress reported in June that two-thirds of ECIPAC’s contributions in the past election cycle came from Daniel S. Loeb, CEO of Third Point Management, a New York based hedge fund.

    Loeb’s $100,000 in support for ECI follows his track record of falling out of love with Obama after the White House pushed for financial regulatory reforms.

    On April 26, the Wall Street Journal reported on Loeb’s change of heart and quoted from an email Loeb wrote and circulated in late 2010.

    “I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the president will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words,” Mr. Loeb wrote in an email about four months ago expressing frustration with the president’s posture toward Wall Street. “I mean, he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn’t mean it.”

    Indeed, in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, Loeb has contributed nearly $170,000 to a stable of Republican candidates including radical Islamophobe Rep. Allen West (R-FL).

    And last week, the New York Times reported that Loeb had signed on to support Mitt Romney.

    While the ECI appears to be in the business of taking any and all opportunities to paint the Obama administration and the Democratic party as anti-Israel, their attempts to smear the Wall Street protests as anti-Semitic closely aligns the right wing pro-Israel group with the domestic political and business interests of its biggest financial backer”

  39. American
    October 14, 2011, 12:38 am

    Meanwhile the bomb Iran bandwagon is the roll….the Israel firsters are if they ever left.

    Congress put out a new resolution on Iran today.


    From the Heritage Inst:

    Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at AEI, called for an end to diplomatic outreach to Tehran, colorfully writing in the New York Daily News:
    The terror plot was no rogue action. Obama may hold an olive branch, but the White House must recognize the Iranian regime’s fist holds only blood.
    The time for talk has ended.


    Romney Advisers Advocate War With Iran
    By Ben Armbruster

    Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Mitt Romney announced his campaign’s foreign policy team. While ThinkProgress pointed out that many of Romney’s advisers helped push the United States into war with Iraq, it might also be interesting to know what the former Massachusetts governor will be hearing from his top aides regarding Iran. Prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan, who is among Romney’s foreign policy advisers, has actually spoken out in favor of talking to Iran. However, that view is by far an outlier among Romney’s team. While some of them have tried to push the claim that Iran is working with al Qaeda, others have said or written that the U.S. should take a more militaristic approach toward the Islamic Republic:

    ELIOT COHEN: Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Cohen, now director of the strategic studies program and Johns Hopkins University, called for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And that thinking doesn’t appear to have changed. In 2009, Cohen again called for the overthrow of the Iranian regime and said either attack Iran or it gets nukes. “The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.”

    MICHAEL HAYDEN: On CNN last year, former CIA director (and prominent torture advocate) Michael Hayden said attacking Iran over its nuclear program might not be a bad idea. “In my personal thinking — I need to emphasize that — I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes,” he said.

    ERIC EDELMAN: Edelman was a career diplomat and former aid to Vice President Dick Cheney. Earlier this year in an article in Foreign Affairs, Edelman, along with two other co-authors, said that the U.S. will either have to attack Iran or contain its nuclear weapons capability. “The military option should not be dismissed because of the appealing but flawed notion that containment is a relatively easy or low-risk solution to a very difficult problem,” they wrote.

    NORM COLEMAN: Coleman, the former Republican senator from Minnesota, said in 2007 that if Israel ever attacks Iran, the United States should join in. “If something is taken,” Coleman said, “the United States is going to be part of that. We have to understand that. There is no saying, ‘Israel did it.’”

    KIM HOLMES: In 2005, the Heritage Foundation’s Kim Holmes worried that the Europeans, by negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program, might be preventing the U.S. from using military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Holmes called it a “serious mistake” to allow Iran to obtain the bomb because “Iran itself is simply too untrustworthy to be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

    • Shingo
      October 14, 2011, 1:15 am

      The whole story is falling apart before our eyes.

      The New York Times ran a headline “U.S. Challenged to Explain Accusations of Iran Plot in the Face of Skepticism”

      CNN notes the growing skepticism about the allegations.

      The Christian Science Monitor ran a headline “Used-car salesman as Iran proxy? Why assassination plot doesn’t add up for experts”

      Tom Kean, former chairman of the 9/11 Commission said You don’t go in somebody’s capital to blow somebody up.”

      Reuters tand the headline “Officials concede gaps in U.S. knowledge of Iran plot”

      link to

      • American
        October 14, 2011, 4:14 pm

        One thing I want to know that wasn’t revealed that’s very important.

        Did the FBI’ send’ the informant to set up ‘this guy.’


        Did this informant ‘find the guy himself’ and take it to the FBI?

        If the informant ” found the guy himself” chances are that someone– MEK, Israelis, –paid the paid informant to set up a scenerio that could be touted as a threat by Iran on US soil.
        Naturally the Israelis have more to gain than the MEK would—since no one is up for a US war for Israel’s benefit some thing had to be set that could be called a threat to the US…not just Israel.

      • Taxi
        October 14, 2011, 6:13 pm

        I’m with you American. Every keen step of your breakinitdown.

      • anonymouscomments
        October 14, 2011, 9:29 pm

        How about a slightly tweaked option- select elements in the USG loyal to Israeli interests worked with the informant to concoct this story, and similar elements actively ran with the *obviously* absurd story (clearly unconnected to any real Iranian power structure).

        Basically saying, Israeli interests were key in pushing it, but it had to be people within our USG doing it. Why else would the USG even take the pile of BS and shove the steaming pile, patently false conclusions and all, at the press? The Israelis can trick the USG, but not with this crap.

      • American
        October 15, 2011, 2:15 am

        “Basically saying, Israeli interests were key in pushing it, but it had to be people within our USG doing it.”

        There are plenty of zionist Israelis within the USG. There isn’t a US agency that doesn’t have Israel Firsters and Obama doesn’t have a single FP advisor who isn’t a zionist Israel firster….so the set up would be would have been easy pezzy. And as we know, Obama would and did run with it in this election year when he is dependent on Jewish political money….as the msm reminds us all the time .

  40. eddymbeach
    October 14, 2011, 4:49 am

    The U.S.A. must not overlook the threat of all the other undetected used car salesmen; they may be more of a threat than the MSM!

    • Shmuel
      October 14, 2011, 5:12 am

      Hmmm. Was there more to the famous quip about Nixon (“Would you buy a used car from this man?”) than meets the eye?

      @ stevlaudig and piotr – It seems that Israelis prefer Iranian pistachios!

      In June 2008, then US Ambassador to Israel Richard H. Jones wrote:

      “Israel is the world’s largest per capita consumer of pistachio nuts and therefore an important market – estimated at $20 million – for pistachio producers. Of the two largest producers of pistachios – the Unites States and Iran – only the US has duty free access to the Israeli market under our Free Trade Agreement…while Iran’s product is banned by Israel’s Trading with the Enemy Act.

      “Evidence strongly suggests that most, if not all, of the pistachios entering Israel are actually of Iranian origin.”
      link to

      As piotr intimates however, perhaps what we should really be asking is “Would you buy a used flying carpet from this man?”

      • piotr
        October 14, 2011, 7:43 am

        I was quite surprised when I visited IKEA near Boston that they have a selection of Iranian carpets, duly (or proudly) labeled as such. Apparently some Iranian products are not subjected to sanctions.

        In the same time, shouldn’t we have intelligence estimates that Iran can achieve flying carpets withing 2 years, and develop a credible program to stop that evility dead in its tracks? I keep thinking that the nuclear program in Iran is just a white elephant to divert our attention from the real threat. Which could have the form of anti-ship missiles, but imagine what could be achieved with flying carpets!!

        Even one functional unit could wreck havoc. Imagine kidnapping the wife of PM of some ME country and terrifying the population by offering to release her (some ladies that fit that description are well known to have quite a temper).

        Sorry for meandering thoughts. Ladies in ME often have problems with maids who, as a rule, come from countries with well-known extremist movements. Rather than looking for the help of Zeta Cartel, for a fraction of the money one could recruit some girls from Philippines or Nepal and insinuate them to be maids of some VIPs. Then they could collect intelligence, and/or commit an assassination, or, oven better, a character assassination. For example, Mrs. Netanyahu conjectured that her former maid was connected to Nepalese maoists, and little did she know that she was a victim of a recrutee of Quds Force.

  41. talknic
    October 16, 2011, 3:56 am

    Why? American ‘interests’

    A map is a prerequisite

    From the North working clockwise..

    Iran has territorial waters, exploration and resource rights over a big chunk of the oil and gas rich Caspian Sea.

    Iran has huge gas reserves to the East it can sell to India.

    South, Iran has territorial rights over almost half the Persian Gulf and the ability to close the Straits of Hormuz.

    West, Iran borders Iraq etc

    Iran sits in the centre of a region the US will need to control, as expressed in the New American Century, for its energy needs according to the Department of Energy’s 25-50 year predictions.

    Department of energy makes recommendations. Govt institutes policies based on recommendations. Oil companies carry those policies out on the ground. Department of Energy bases policy recommendations on the success and needs of those companies to be able to implement Govt energy policies into the future. Govt makes policy. Companies carry out policies and around it goes.

Leave a Reply