US plot to nail Iran backfires

crowonapost · #1 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:17 AM

Can't remember what thread I saw CountrySlim ask what is wrong with the government acknowledging it's inaccuracies but two things happened....

One they failed in spreading the false rumor with Iran &

Two the only place it first came out from was a blog in Iraq...not even the government.

The full story...

The George W Bush administration and General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, plotted a sequence of events that would sensationally build domestic US political support for a possible strike against Iran. Key to this was to be the display of a major cache of Iranian weapons for use by Shi'ite militias in the Iraqi city of Karbala. The weapons turned out to have nothing to do with Iran, and worse, the Iraq government suddenly distanced itself from the US's plan. - Gareth Porter

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shi'ite militias in Iraq has encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to endorse US charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around the central city of Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms was of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shi'ite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the US military from a big blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander General David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic US political support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq, and especially its alleged export of arms to Shi'ite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shi'ite militias that would be revealed to the public after the Maliki government had endorsed it, and that would be used to accuse Iran publicly.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Petraeus was preparing a briefing to be given "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability". The centerpiece of the Petraeus document, completed in late April, was the claim that arms captured in the southern city of Basra bore 2008 manufacture dates on them.

US officials also planned to display to reporters Iranian weapons captured in both Basra and Karbala. That sequence of media events would fill the airwaves for several days with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in Iraq, aimed at breaking down US congressional and public resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling would have to be attacked.

But events in Iraq did not follow the script. On May 4, after an Iraqi delegation had returned from meetings in Iran, Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a news conference that Maliki was forming his own cabinet committee to investigate the US claims. "We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation," he said.

Another adviser to Maliki, Haider Abadi, told the Los Angeles Times' Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had given the delegation evidence disproving the charges. "For us to be impartial, we have to investigate," Abadi said.

Dabbagh made it clear the government considered the US evidence of Iranian government arms smuggling to be insufficient. "The proof we want is weapons which are shown to have been made in Iran," Dabbagh said in a separate interview with Reuters. "We want to trace back how they reached [Iraq], who is using them, where are they getting it."

Senior US military officials were clearly furious with Maliki for backtracking on the issue. "We were blindsided by this," one of them told Zavis.

Then the Bush administration's plot encountered another serious problem.

The Iraqi commander in Karbala had announced on May 3 that he had captured a large quantity of Iranian arms in and around the city. Earlier, the US military had said that it was up to the Iraqi government to display captured Iranian weapons, and now an Iraqi commander was eager to do just that. Petraeus' staff alerted US media to a major news event in which the captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

But when US munitions experts went to Karbala to see the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing they could credibly link to Iran.

The US command had to inform reporters that the event had been canceled, explaining that it had all been a "misunderstanding". In his press briefing on May 7, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner gave some details of the captured weapons in Karbala but refrained from charging any Iranian role.

The cancelation of the planned display was a significant story, in light of the well-known intention of the US command to convict Iran on the arms smuggling charge. Nevertheless, it went unreported in the world's news media.

A report on the Los Angeles Times' blog "Babylon and Beyond" by Baghdad correspondent Tina Susman was the only small crack in the media blackout. The story was not carried in the Times itself.

The real significance of the captured weapons collected in Karbala was not the obvious US political embarrassment over an Iraqi claim of captured Iranian arms that turned out to be false. It was the deeper implication of the arms that were captured.

Karbala is one of Iraq's eight largest cities, and it has long been the focus of major fighting between the Mahdi Army and its Shi'ite foes. Muqtada declared his ceasefire last August after a major battle there, but fighting resumed there and in Basra when the government launched a major operation in March. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters have fought in Karbala over the past year.

The official list of weapons captured in Karbala includes nine mortars, four anti-aircraft missiles, 45 rocket propelled grenade (RPG) weapons, 800 RPG missiles and 570 roadside explosive devices. The failure to find a single item of Iranian origin among these heavier weapons, despite the deeply entrenched Mahdi Army presence over many months, suggests that the dependence of the Mahdi Army on arms manufactured in Iran is actually quite insignificant.

The Karbala weapons cache also raises new questions about the official US narrative about the Shi'ite militia's use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) as an Iranian phenomenon. Among the captured weapons mentioned by Major General Raied Shaker Jawdat, commander of the Karbala police, were what he called "150 anti-tank bombs", as distinguished from ordinary roadside explosive devices.

An "anti-tank bomb" is a device that is capable of penetrating armor, which has been introduced to the US public as the EFP. The US claim that Iran was behind their growing use in Iraq was the centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for an Iranian "proxy war" against the US in early 2007.

Soon after that, however, senior US military officials conceded that EFPs were in fact being manufactured in Iraq itself, although they insisted that EFPs alleged exported by Iran were superior to the home-made version.

The large cache of EFPs in Karbala which are admitted to be non-Iranian in origin underlines the reality that the Mahdi Army procures its EFPs from a variety of sources.

But for the media blackout of the story, the large EFP discovery in Karbala would have further undermined the credibility of the US military's line on Iran's export of the EFPs to Iraqi fighters.

Apparently understanding the potential political difficulties that the Karbala EFP find could present, Bergner omitted any reference to them in his otherwise accurate accounting of the Karbala weapons.

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

Oxymoron · #2 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 10:16 AM

It doesnt matter if the US president is Bush, McCain or Obama Iran is playing with Fire and no way will the US let them achieve a nuclear weapon. I predict a forceful regime change in Iran within the next 6-10 months.

Heckler · #3 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

It doesnt matter if the US president is Bush, McCain or Obama Iran is playing with Fire and no way will the US let them achieve a nuclear weapon. I predict a forceful regime change in Iran within the next 6-10 months.

Too funny! Iran is "playing with fire?"

I guess we're the only ones who get to play?

Not much to like about hypocrisy.

Oxymoron · #4 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Too funny! Iran is "playing with fire?"

I guess we're the only ones who get to play?

Not much to like about hypocrisy.

Last time I checked the US is the Superpower not Iran. If they continue on this track our Navy and AIrforce will have to elect their new goverment.

KimJongIlls_hairstylist · #5 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

It doesnt matter if the US president is Bush, McCain or Obama Iran is playing with Fire and no way will the US let them achieve a nuclear weapon. I predict a forceful regime change in Iran within the next 6-10 months.

Our army has 10 million troops. If you loan us some boats, we will do it by July. It is not like we have anything else to do.

pjwky · #6 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowonapost

Can't remember what thread I saw CountrySlim ask what is wrong with the government acknowledging it's inaccuracies but two things happened....

One they failed in spreading the false rumor with Iran &

Two the only place it first came out from was a blog in Iraq...not even the government.

The full story...

The George W Bush administration and General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, plotted a sequence of events that would sensationally build domestic US political support for a possible strike against Iran. Key to this was to be the display of a major cache of Iranian weapons for use by Shi'ite militias in the Iraqi city of Karbala. The weapons turned out to have nothing to do with Iran, and worse, the Iraq government suddenly distanced itself from the US's plan. - Gareth Porter

************************************************** ***
Yes, and everyone gets in such an uproar about Obama's preacher: here we have a sitting president caught once again in a form of deception to lie to the American people, and the nut gallery can't let go of some foolish statements by a crack-pot preacher. ...pjwky

Heckler · #7 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

Last time I checked the US is the Superpower not Iran. If they continue on this track our Navy and AIrforce will have to elect their new goverment.

Might does not make right.

So you want more abysmal failures like Iraq?

What a fucking moron.

crowonapost · #8 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:03 PM

To understand Iran is to understand history.
To understand your enemy understand WHY, they are angry with you.

How the shaw came to power.
The Pahlevis were the last dynasty to hold court in Iran. Reza Shah was the last of them. The Pahlevis come from a land where the royalty has always been stupid rich. They all had lush lifestyles. The shift to a globalized economy degraded their economy. Reza Shah’s predecessor began selling Iranian assets in an attempt to live the lush lifestyle leaders had always enjoyed. They sold control of many key trades, including the rights to oil. It was 1901 Mozzafer al-Din Shah Qajar sold the rights to extract and sell oil in Iran to a company known as the Burmah Oil Company. When they found a reserve in 1909 the Anglo Persian Oil Company (APOC) was created.

The venture in Iran represented the last time a nation would use such a solid crack the whip mentality. After the fall of Mozzafer al-Din Shah Qajar, Reza Shah came to power. By this time the refinery that APOC built was beginning to look like a southern plantation. The British workers were lived in beautiful homes built for them. They had lawns and resorts. Hotels and restaurants. The Iranian workers were given a mat to live on. Their whole family had to live on it. They had no sewage and no running water. There was no electricity. Disease was rampant, and the Iranians were never trained to do the managerial or technical jobs. They could only be roughnecks, thereby assuring that they could not revolt. A revolt would shut down the plant and it would not be able to be opened back up by Iranians.

APOC lied about its profits and came through with even less than they promised to give Iran. Which was a drop in the bucket anyways. Mossadegh was the emerging leader. He was told to run for office by his friends in the neighborhood. He never suggested he should work in government, but what his people asked him he did. He rode a tidal wave of success in government. He never backed down from his morals. He left government all together a couple of times because he would not compromise what he believed was right and wrong. Reza Shah was his enemy. Mossadegh fought for the average Iranian. His biggest platform began as a fifty fifty profit split with APOC, as well as the right to audit their books. Brittan Laughed. Every time there were talks Brittan would insult the Iranians and crack the whip even harder.

Mossadgeh was a secularist who believed that government and religion had a necessary divide. Although he was also devout. Reza Shah was pro west. He sought the favor of the West because he wanted its lifestyle for himself. Everytime Brittan got tough with Iran they cried to America for help. And they got it. By the 40s it was getting bad. Mossadgeh by now was fighting for nationalization of Iranian oil. Anglo Persian Oil had been changed to Anglo Iranian Oil. FDR had been trying to get Brittan to adopt a policy more open to fairness. This was the last time the government of Brittan would work so diligently on the behalf of a private firm. He never managed to convince them.

Iranians were tired of the sweatshop conditions and began to show dire unrest. By now in America the Dulles brothers had managed to attain the posts of Secretary of Defense and director of the CIA. Between the two of them they had control over the covert and overt operations of the military might of America. Kermit Roosevelt was the odd ball Roosevelt. He had been in Iran finding ways to get rid of Mossadegh. Mossadegh by this time had emerged as one of the greatest leaders in Persian history. Not modern Persian history, but the entirety of Persian history. All around the world he was admired. After be recalled by his people after a self imposed exile he was appointed Prime Minister by his enemy Reza Shah. Shah means king. By political power only he would later force Reza Shah into peaceful exile. The King. FDR denied any requests by the Dulles brothers to launch a coup. Iranians looked to America as their saving grace. We helped them out a lot. But when FDR was done Ike came in. Right away he granted permission to run operation Ajax. Mossadgeh was overthrown and the people never knew why.

1953 is when Mossadgeh was overthrown by the US and the pro western exiled King was brought back. America continued to send aid to the Iranians. Millions of dollars. Tons of food. But of course they never mentioned that they were the ones who overthrew Mossadegh. The American people were proud. They neither knew of Operation Ajax. They felt good to be doing such a nice thing for such an unlucky country. The Iranians loved the US because of the help. By the 70s Reza Shah had become amazingly oppressive. Dissention was quashed by the SAVAK. Reza Shah had become a dictator. Many fought him, but his power had been consolidated by the US and he was damn near bullet proof.

In the 70s is when the news of Ajax leaked. The Iranians were dumbfounded. They could not believe that the US did it. It was like finding out that your favorite uncle had sold you into slavery. In 1979 hostages were taken. A group of college kids stormed an embassy and held Americans captive. The college kids were mad and wanted to do something, but after they realized that they were face to face with real people they got scared. During the incident, none of the hostages were beaten, starved, or mistreated. After the drama was over the workers were brought back to the US. Before their arrival the White House gave memos to the press asking them to begin to mention Munchausen’s syndrome. They should talk about relating to ones captors, and how they begin to sympathize because they go crazy. As soon as the workers were landed they were whisked away to a mental care facility. Their credibility had been destroyed.

The American people were pissed. How could our little Iranians bite us like this? They have to be stupid and wars began.

Now the point of all this is that while all the maneuvering was going on the Iranian people, as well as the American people were lied to. The Ajax leaders manipulated public opinion for a quarter century. The Embassy workers had nothing to do with it. The College kids had nothing to do with it. They floated in their bubble believing what their leaders said was the truth. Just like today, but the leaders were practiced politicians who knew the dirty deed that had taken place. This is what they do. they have been groomed in politics. I am not saying Mossadegh was right. Neither Reza Shah. Neither Kermit Roosevelt. Neither FDR. Neither Ike. Neither the Dulles brothers. What I am saying is that their little game of politics took the lives of the residents of Iran who were unaware of any of it. It cost the Embassy workers more than a year of their lives and they were unaware.

Next time you stand up to support your leaders why don’t you make sure they deserve it. Politicians from all over the world will do what ever it takes to mold public opinion into a thing that will benefit their lifestyle. Rarely does this end up being good for their nation, but they usually don’t care. FDR was different. But as soon as he left and Ike came in we went after South America Africa and the Middle East. The fear many have of America is its bi polar attitude. This is evident now. We are coming off a president who used diplomacy. He also had many military plans, but was unable to pursue them. The world only saw the diplomacy. Then when people get tired of that the current administration came in and shocked and awed the world. Now when this one is done we will be back to diplomacy. FDR would not allow the coups anywhere. Then the next administration was coup coup for cocoa puffs. How the hell CAN any other nation trust us? We will be your best friend during one presidency, then the next we are mauling you. I am not promoting. I am not spinning. This is simple history. By the way APOC became British Petroleum the year after Mossadeghs overthrow.

Oxymoron · #9 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Might does not make right.

So you want more abysmal failures like Iraq?

What a fucking moron.

Iraq has been the second most succesful invasion and occupation in modern history, Afghanistan being the first. Our casualties are low and we now control a Nation of some forty million people, with three different groups all hostile to each other. Iam willing to wager you cant name a more succefusl occupation in modern history, and take your personal insults where they belong Yo MAMA.

A. Crowley · #10 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:08 PM

The most successful occupations in modern history belong to Israel without question.

Despite numerous UNSC resolutions condemning them for forty years, the US continiues to shove billions of dollars at the aggressors annually, and even calls them the "choosen People".