WAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Mission possible
31-Jul-2008
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.
Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.
However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.
It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization's activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses "refugee camps" inside Iraq as its bases.
The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency's acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran's ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the "logic" of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer's stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer's contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran's nuclear programs.
The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA's ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.
A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there.
Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document "alarming," Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a "top-secret" document protected by Iran's security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document "alarming," at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any "sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger," nor does it provide any "warning of existing or approaching danger," unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen's unfortunate actions and choice of words.
Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government's objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen's alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, "As today's briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb." Heinonen's briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that "Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization." Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. "This is particularly troubling," Schulte went on, "when combined with Iran's determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium." Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, "Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran's civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb."
This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran's ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran's centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran's enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.
A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America's largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America's biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of "diplomacy," on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.
I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.
Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to "observe" a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns' mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a "significant concession" on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.
Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA's mandate in Iran.
Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran "was not serious" about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).
The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that "a blockade is a major military operation, too. It's an act of war." Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.
One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, "How did that happen?" The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don't have the moral courage to admit it.
Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine intelligence officer who has written extensively about Iran. This article was first published in truthdig.com.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Don’t be fooled
by Yek Irani on Fri Aug 01, 2008 02:30 PM PDTThis guy Scott Ritter is an Israeli agent. If I’m not mistaking, he even used to be an Israeli citizen. These are all part of psych operations. Israel is scared like a rat. Israel has never in its shameful history won a single war without the US treasure and blood. The only war that the US told Israel you have to fight on your own was in 2006 with Lebanon.There are two myths that the Israeli dominated media in the US tries very hard to advance. 1) Israel is very strong. 2) Israel is a democracy. Both of them cannot be further from the truth. Israeli soldiers commit suicide and desert more than any other country in the world and Israel could not beat a bunch of ragtag in Lebanon. And also Israel is as much democracy as Apartheid South Africa was. These tactics that are being used by Scott Ritter and Seymour Hirsch and alike were used also during the Messadegh era. If you study the Mossadeg era, you will see that a reporter from New York Times (his name escapes me now) used the exact same tactics but expressing no war at that time.
asdf
by Internets on Fri Aug 01, 2008 02:23 PM PDTSo?!... Olmert's resignation may bring in Mofaz who is more of a hawk on Iran and since this sitting lame duck administration is going to be history on Jan 20th 2009, it means more reason for Cheney to implement his final wet dream!. If McCain should look likely to prevail before the General, the attack on Iran would happen in late September to early October. Should Obama prevail, sometimes between November 3rd and early January 2009. Your simplistic dismissal is naive ;)
Name Change!
by Killjoy (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 01:44 PM PDTI received this piece of news in the mail about ten minutes ago
احمدی نژاد اعلام کرد از سال آینده نام کشور تعویض
خواهد شد. وی علت را اینگونه توضیح داد
اولاً : ایران نامی زنانه است
دوماً : عراق 8 سال به آن تجاوز کرده است
سوم اینکه امریکا به آن نظر بد دارد. وی همچنین نام جدید کشور را نریمان اعلام کرد.چون هم نر است و هم ایمان دارد
objectives of the war? (to Private P)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:52 PM PDTPrivate P. says: "A war against Iran is as necessary and unavoidble as any other such military conflict - regardless of the tragic human aspects - to move history forward and balance geopolitical forces."
By no means I am angry to hear this, attacking Iran has been an AIPAC/Neocon plan for sometime and long before nuclear related issues. However with the certainty that you convey in your statement, I was wondering if you can elaborate on the objectives of such a war?
MEK = traitor
by Shamse Vazir (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:34 AM PDTMEK are the lowest of the low. Before the revolution they were out trying to sell Iran to the Soviet Union. If they had their way Azerbaijan be a part of Russia. After the revolution they came up with the criminal and idiotic idea of taking over the US embassy. Doing that cost Iran some 8 billion dollars and the good will of the whole world. Next they decided to violently overthrow the IRI and failed. Having failed at that they threw their lot in with Saddam. Again if they had their way Khuzistan would be a part of Iraq. Once again they failed and moved on to brutalize the Kurds in Iraq. Their whole history is dotted with crime and treason.
Now leave it to the idiots in France and UK to coddle them and fall to their propaganda. At least the US is smart enough not to trust them and realize they are nothing but a bunch of terrorists.
They are hated in Iran and for good reason. No Iranian government be it IRI, the Shah or anything else should and would deal with them except to prosecute them for their treason.
Does not see the forest for the trees
by Private Pilot on Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:30 AM PDTA very interesting piece. As usual, however, Mr. Ritter - like almost all other "analysts" at his level get so focused on the "trees" - especially in their respective "fileds of expertise" - that he does not see tyhe "forest".
A war against Iran is as necessary and unavoidble as any other such military conflict - regardless of the tragic human aspects - to move history forward and balance geopolitical forces.
Sad, and will probabaly make most people very angry to hear this, but deying reality is just that - denial!!!
Private Pilot
The Presidential election is
by asdf (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:41 AM PDTThe Presidential election is on November 3rd. ...Olmert has also resigned and the Israeli government is going to be unstable for the next few month...these factors make the attack highly unlikely.
MEK: The lowest of the low!
by Anonyyo (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:40 AM PDTWords start to fail you when it comes to describing MEK traiters!
Trying to describe how disgusting and shameless are
these misguided desperate losers is beyond words!
Anonymous500
by Internets on Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:36 AM PDTThere is an old quote that goes something like this: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.". This is attributed to Abraham Lincoln and if I were you, I'd heed to honest Abe's advice ;)
Appalled
by Internets on Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:32 AM PDTActually the relationship between the oil prices and a potential attack on Iran, work in the exact opposite of your assertions. This means that the lower the oil prices, the more likely an attack on Iran, simply because in this economy the possibility of $200 to $400 per barrel of oil, will cause a global level economical catastrophe. The heady run up of oil prices and the subsequent speculation mostly on the call side (the dumb money), has now built up a glut of oil which will ensure that a major supply disruption will not be likely, if there is a quick and devastating aerial attack on Iran. By some accounts, there are now many oil tankers sitting around with oil filled to the hilt, without many takers. This glut of supply has forced down the oil prices somewhat in the recent past and is also a supplyline insurance, if an attack happens post September 08.
If oil prices drop to below $100, this will make an attack a lot more likely since a sharp shoot up to $200 (since oil has already flirted with $150) will not have as damaging psychological effect as a $400 price. I think that your way of thinking and logic with reference to "following the money" is just too simplistic and if you wish to follow the money, follow it with some deeper thoughts ;)
Ritter is charged with espionage???
by whereisyoursource? (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 09:59 AM PDTwhy you have been accused of espionage being investigated by the FBI?
Anon 500: Can you provide your source??
The Level of Expert Knowledge of Scott Ritter on Iran!!
by Anonymous500 (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 09:23 AM PDTThis is for those samrties on this BB who are prasing Scott Ritter's "knowledge" about Iran because he has written books and articles and has a keen eye for anlaysing events and shuch jazz.
Check the level of "knowledge" of this Johny late comer to Iranian politics that I have quoted from his article about the MEK.
He writes, "The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi."
According to his "haloo-pashand" the People Mojahedin Oragnization of Iran emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the regin of "Reza Shah"!!!
This Mr. Professor ex-Marine, knows it all, does not know that it is not during Reza Shah's but it was Mohammad Reza Shah reign that the PMOI emerged; Reza Shad was forced to abdicate his throne in in 1941 as his son Mohammad Reza Shah became the next king. a
Now some body may say, perhaps he made a mistake and confused Reza Shah with Mohammad Reza Shah. Okey, let us grant him that; but why is it that an organization that is apt to blend among people should not expose the secrets of a deadly regime such as IRI to the rest of the world and especailly to USA? Oh I got it, because USA is evil and bad and Islamic Republic of Iran is good and dandy.
This ex-Marine, was an "intelligence" officer in the Marine Corpse whose duty was to analyze intelligence, right? Why do we analyse intelligence? So that you could boast about your ability to analyze, or because you want to safeguard American society? Of ocurse, as any honorable US Marine will tell you it is the latter. Right?
Now the question is this: Let us imagine that eveything that Ritter says about the MEK is true and indeed the MEK is giving intell to CIA. As an American Marine and intelligence officer, does Ritter object to this alleged helping hand of the MEK to the CIA? Does CIA help protecting american national interests?
As a Marine, is Ritter telling us that the CIA should not be previe to what the IRI is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon? He is adament that we lack human intel in Iran. Why is he finding fault with the intel that the MEK is alalegedly providing for America? Ahha!! Because all this intl is "bogous" and "concocted" by the MEK because this organization wants the US and Isreal bomb Iran to oblivion!!! This is exactly what the IRI is saying and this is what this ex-Marine is rpeating verbatim.
This is despite the fact that the PMOI nd the NCRI and all other honorable Iranian political groups and personalities are on record: We don't want external war or bombing of Iran, niether do we want appeasment of these TERRORIST mullahs. There is not one honorbale Iranian politician that has upported IRI's nuclear bomb procurment activities.
Now does Ritter have any verifiable intel and counter intel sources saying that the MEK is actually providing intel for the CIA? No, but he is just repeating what Seymour Hirch is saying. This intel office is just repeating, like a parrot, what a number of leftist journalists have been saying. Does Hirch hava any such verifiable sources that MEK is giving CIA intel. None, other than hear say. some high ranking xyz told him that he had heared that MEK was doing xyz!!
Ironically when the hearsay is against the PMOI these idiots jump on the band wagon, but when it is against their criminal allegations against the PMOI then they keep their mouth shut.
But there is another cynical and, in my judgment criminal, intent on the part of Ritter: he accuses the PMOI of actual acts of sabotage in Iran without any verifiable evidence to support his allegations. For example he accuses both the CIA and the MEK of being involved in the the recent explosion in one of the SEPAH'S garrisons in Tehran. How does he know that the CIA operatives or MEK elements were involved in that explosion that led to the demise of 15 SEPAH operatives?
To be previe to such intel, Ritter mus have high sources in the SEPAH, an enemy organization that has been decalred as a Terrorist Org by the American Gov. To have knowledge about who carried out these operations, Ritter has to have knowledge about the identity of the people who carried out these operations in Iran. Can Ritter tell us which one is the case?
In other words, Mr. Ritter Are you getting intel from SEPAH to accuse CIA agents of terrorism acts in Iran? do you realise the implications of what you are saying< If tomorrow the IRI executes PMOI or CIA agaents accusing them of being inolved in sabotage, would you Mr. Ritter stand by your story that these were true CIA agents? Is it a wonder why you have been accused of espionage being investigated by the FBI?
Ritter's knowledge of the PMOI and of ts four decades of struggle against the IRI is amnifestly lacking. Not only he does not know much about the PMOI, he does not care to know either. Thus his anology that the PMOI is a replica of Ahmad Chelebi's Org is an indication of his ignorance about both PMOI and Ahmad Chalabi. While under American protection, Chalabi acted as a spy to IRI passing operational details to the QODS Terrorists as American GIs were fighting against IRI-based Terrorist bands in Iraq. It is thsese criminal bands who regularly murder oridnary Iraqi citizensa and our American GIs.
On the other hand, while under American protection the PMOI in Iraq is helping the same American GIs that the likes of Chalabi facilitated their murder. What does our proud ex-Marine Scott Ritter do? He condamns the PMOI for having given intel to America to safeguard our troops?
Now if you are a proud Marine, which one should you be supporting: the PMOI or those who murder our GIs in Iraq? Worse yet, this ex-Marine out of his anaimalistic hatred towards Bush and his administration does not find an iota of truth in what the world over is telling: the IRI is meddling in Iraq, is sending terrorists and trained killers to force American pull out from Iraq.
Now if you are a proud Marine, would like to see American forces pulled out from Iraq before some semblence of normalcy is there considering the fact that the IRI would fill the vaccum overnight turning Iraq to its political appendage?
Does any one on this BB want to see Iraq become another mini-Velayat-e Faqih? Does any one other than a bunch of Hezbollahi supporters of the regime want IRI to add more years to to its demonic existence by gubbling up Iraq?
The reality is that Scott Ritter does not know a dink about Iran, the Iranian politics, Iran's past 100 year of history for democracy. Not only his knowledge of complex Iranian history is lacking, so is his ability to analyze intelligence. His rendition of the PMOI is VEAK's version verbatim since his trip to Iran.
Scot Ritter can write any kind of lies that the IRI is feeding him. It is up to the Iranian people to judge the veracity of this type of IRI-based propaganda by a discredited ex-Marine who has been investigated by the FBI for his alleged espionage against the USA.
Take a Deep Breath!
by Appalled (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 08:51 AM PDTEveryone, Take a deep breath, Relax and don't worry. There ain't going to be no WAR!(sorry for the bad grammar, I have lived in US too long). All of this stuff is what is referred to as Psyche War. Just like the warnings of Seymour Hirsch for the last who knows how many years from his reliable sources inside the highest echelons of the US intelligence agencies that there was going to be imminent US attacks on Iran to this former American Intelligence officer Scott Ritter's warnings, it is all about Psyche war. The Iranian government knows it all too well. They have already said so publicly that if the US was going to attack Iran, they would have done it by now. You want more proof,follow the money! The oil prices have been dropping for the past 2 weeks and are $25 lower than at their height. Oil analysts are predicting the price to go even lower to around $100-110 a barrel by the end of the year. Mr. EL Presidente Mahmoud Khoshkel Khan said in response to the question about the oil prices," it is artificial and not reflective of supply & demand". There you are, so don't worry be happy, live your lives and don't forget to go shopping at your local Mall or Wal Mart. I need my stock prices to go higher. Thanks and god bless you.
Anti-War
by Shamse Vazir (not verified) on Fri Aug 01, 2008 08:29 AM PDTA lot of people on this site are shilling for war with Iran. I wonder who they think is going to fight it? Do they think that American soldiers are just going to go an get themselves killed so that IRI is overthrown. If so what would America want in return? Why should American soldiers who are really just normal people risk their lives. Meanwhile the war mongers sit in their nice homes mostly in Tehrangeles and watch it on TV being too scared to fight for what they believe in. All I hear is poorly written arguments and name calling from the arm-chair generals. It is becoming like Orwell's 1984 where war is peace and everything is turned upside down. Now peace loving people are being called fascists and war mongers are supposed to be the salivation of the world.
I am against war and I put my money where my mouth is. Why don't the war mongers get up and go to Iran to fight?
Being the embodiment of
by Fred on Fri Aug 01, 2008 01:47 AM PDTAs usual Ritter mixes valid points and twists out of shape or outright disregards historical facts on the altar of his political agenda which is providing him material success, notoriety and cult following in certain circles. Nevertheless, Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies including those come-lately nationalist Haji professors should not be having difficulties in defining treason.
Truth has been revealed only to pro-war people
by Mammad on Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:38 PM PDTListen to the new "theory": All the anti-war people are misguided, all the pro-war people, both in and outside of the closet, are not!!!
Even the US does not say that it has been at war with the IRI for the past 3 decades. But, as usual, "kaaseh haaye daagh tar az aash" - the more Catholic than the Pope - say so!!!
SR has been an intelligence officer for the US. He has been an IAEA inspector. He correctly predicted invasion of Iraq long before anybody else. He correctly stated that Iraq did not have any WMD, long before anybody believed it.
But, hey, he is misguided, because he is telling the truth that some people do not like to hear: He is anti-war.
And, yes, because the IRI has committed crimes, let the US do whatever it wants to Iran, because the crimes of the IRI would easily justify the US war of aggression.
If this is not treason against our native land, what is?
Mammad
Mr. Kashani; I
by varjavand on Thu Jul 31, 2008 09:35 PM PDTMr. Kashani; I suggest that you forward a copy of your highly intellectual comment to Mr. Ritter because I don’t believe he is a regular visitor of this site. I hate to see this misguided American writer miss the opportunity to be enlightened by your comment. I am sure after he reads your comment; he will throw all the books he has written, as well as countless number of articles he has published, in trashcan and apologize to you for revealing the truths about this grave situation and possibly convert to a warmonger like you. Varjavand
War is only source of hope for Rajavists and Pahlavists
by 1965Tehrani (not verified) on Thu Jul 31, 2008 09:08 PM PDTFor Iranians who sympathize with the Rajavist Mojahedin-e Khalq and supporters of the former Shah's regime, a U.S. attack on Iran is their single greatest hope for coming to power in Iran. That is why they are so desperate to serve as mercenaries in the service of the U.S. government. That fact (along with the U.S. government's outlay of hundreds of millions of dollars to Sunni fundamentalist, Kurdish "Marxist", and Arab separatists) explains the views of some of the individuals who post on Iranian.com. They represent a relatively small minority among Iranians, but they are a loud (and thanks to Uncle Sam's covert funding) well-paid minority--at least their leaders are well-paid.
Re: My misguided Amercan friend,
by mostaghel on Thu Jul 31, 2008 08:53 PM PDTFK: I know you are not going to like what I have to say below given your known allegiance to zio-nazis ():
When people's freedom is jeoperdized and trampled on as was Iranians' in 1953, it is inevitable that enemosity will rage and will get worse over the years.. Luckily, even though militarily still strong, US is going down, economically and otherwise. Iran's devine drive to independence will continue, war or no war!
Thanks.
This is another American
by abbas-2 (not verified) on Thu Jul 31, 2008 08:16 PM PDTThis is another American whose displeasure with the current administration in the US blinds his eyes to fabricate all kinds of stuff about Iran, US, Israel, the nuclear issue, etc. Anyone who has lived in Iran knows the kind of regime that has imposed itself on the Iranian nation. Mr Ritter, the kind of destruction that the Iranian regime has inflicted on its people is nothing, NOTHING, compared to your griviences of your government. In the final analysis you are defending a regime whose world view and utopia is worse than anything you have read, based on your own writings. The ideal of the Iranian regime is a women under the veil who is not even allowed to talk (let alone do anything else), a man who does not shave and is a perfect yes-man to the clerics, a world in which everybody hails the muslim prophet, a house that is as plastic as a container, etc. Enlarge your worldview and study the ideals of the regime that you are defending. Learn.
War is Inevitable
by Jeesh Na'daram (not verified) on Thu Jul 31, 2008 08:01 PM PDTWar with Iran is inevitable just as prejudice and hatred of lesser casts is an inevitable part of European-American character. I admire Scott's careful examination of the present situation with Iran, but facts have little to do with anything here. Fact is that Israel instigates. Fact is that US, as a de facto territory of greater Israel, follows her covert lead pretending to own the world. The press sensationalizes, blindly following what it is fed by anonymous source. And European-Americans do their thing; mainly spread hatred of any non-white, non-Christian, non-English speaking poor souls in Iran who happen to look different and talk "weird!"
The sad part of this fiasco is that Iran will suffer. "To Hell With the Mullahs", it is Iran I am crying about. The people and their warm, hospitable and rich culture are in peril. Israel and Iran should be close friends. They have the Arabs as mutual enemies after all. And the Arab Mullahs are enemies of Iran, Israel and the rest of the world. But killing the patient to remove the cancer is the biggest farce of all.
No matter where you stand on this whole tragedy, you realize that nothing will get settled until the bombs fly. The first step is usually labeling your enemy as less than human (i.e. greatest sponsor of terrorism, global arrogance and the Zionist regime). The next step is beating of the drums and the perfunctory security council topper ware party where fabricated "yellow-Cake" is passed around for everyone to touch and feel. And the press will be selling their Rupert Murdock, Fox News bullshit mix for all to swallow. Then we will be watching shock and awe and people here go about their daily pursuits pretending no one is getting murdered, raped or tortured in their name –yep, I realize there is no justice in all this but it is sadly true. It happens all the time with US of A getting in the middle of this type of shenanigans in some continent a couple of times each decade.
For Iran and its people there are no good choices after all. Die a slow death at the hands of the Mullahs is still better than being raped by the GI’s or killed by Israeli bombs. So they will fight and they will fight good as they have always done to defend the land. Only if Iran had Nukes, then the bullies would have no choice but to get lost and people would have the chance to finally deal with the Mullahs. Now wouldn’t that be a great scenario?
My misguided Amercan friend,
by Farhad Kashani on Thu Jul 31, 2008 07:04 PM PDTMy misguided Amercan friend, it has been the fascist regime in Iran who has been facilitating war with the U.S for the last 30 years. If you think this Iran - U.S fued has just recently started , you must've been living in LALA land.