Freedom Rider: Iran in Obama’s Cross Hairs
Printer-friendly version
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
Barack Obama has become the Great Interventionist, eclipsing George Bush, who only wished he were good at it. Not satisfied to have outdone half of the previous presidential tag-team, Obama takes on Dick Cheney for the title of Great Prevaricator (specializing in tall tales that start big wars). It’s a deadly game. “By claiming that a foreign government was involved in contracting with Mexican drug dealers to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the administration has made a clear case for war against the Iranian government.”
Freedom Rider: Iran in Obama’s Cross Hairs
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
“It was just another example of a plan which would not have existed had it not been instigated by an informant.”
While the nation’s attention has been focused on the Occupy Wall Street movement, new dangers for this country and for the world have been created by the Obama administration. The president has made it clear that America’s interventionist path has not changed direction one bit. If anything, he has done what once would have seemed impossible, accelerating that direction more than his predecessor ever hoped.
In a period of just five months, Barack Obama has assassinated Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki without charge or trial. He attempted to kill Libyan president Moammar Gaddafi the same weekend of the bin Laden assassination. Ronald Reagan also tried to kill Gaddafi, but gave up after one attempt and decided not to spend any effort on regime change in Libya. Obama has out Reaganed Reagan by overthrowing Gaddafi and, along with his NATO partners, waging a war against a civilian population to place a puppet government in charge in Tripoli. Once again he has succeeded in making right wing dreams come true in ways that Republicans did not dare.
The al-Awlaki killing was all the more egregious because the victim was an American citizen. No matter. The president asserts that he has the right to decide if Americans should live or die. The constitutional law professor sees no need to even make his killings look legitimate by seeking indictments. He tells us that al-Awlaki plotted attacks or inspired attacks and we are supposed to believe it and be quiet.
“Obama has out Reaganed Reagan by overthrowing Gaddafi and, along with his NATO partners, waging a war against a civilian population to place a puppet government in charge in Tripoli.”
Not content to act the part of the planet’s self-appointed executioner, Obama is taking actions and making statements which give the impression that he intends to take military action against Iran. Dick Cheney must be very jealous. Last week the administration claimed that yet another terror plot was being fomented on American soil before it was foiled in the nick of time by the FBI.
Of course, it was just another example of a plan which would not have existed had it not been instigated by an informant. The FBI continues in its sorry history of concocting crimes, all of them outrageous, but this has broader and more horrible implications.
By claiming that a foreign government was involved in contracting with Mexican drug dealers to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington, the administration has made a clear case for war against the Iranian government. The calls for more inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities and for even tighter sanctions are just the beginning. Lest we forget, the occupation of Iraq was preceded by a year long campaign for political and public support.
Already, the British government has stated its belief in this preposterous supposed plot. The foreign secretary opined, presumably with a straight face, that the alleged plot “would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders.”
“There is no justification for our government, and by extension American citizens, to kill Iranians.”
It is monstrous that such an obviously ludicrous scenario is being treated as true by the corporate media in this country, and by America’s allies. If Obama chooses to bomb Tehran and Isfahan, Democratic as well as Republican senators and congress members, the corporate media, and pundits regarded as “serious” people will all applaud him. Supporting mass murder will become the sine qua non for any journalist who wants to keep access with the White House, or any political candidate who needs to raise a lot of money. Progressives who marched against the occupation of Iraq will find reasons to demur if Obama goes on the path of mass murder.
For many years, this commentator and many others have been warning that Iran is under threat of American intervention. We may seem like the boy who cried wolf in the old children’s story. These warnings are not created out of thin air. They arise from careful study of this nation’s history and the Obama administration’s patterns of behavior.
Should such an action take place, it must be made clear that it is a crime. There is no justification for our government, and by extension American citizens, to kill Iranians. They are no threat to us and have a right to live without fear of being killed should an American president deem it expedient.
Hopefully that country is not as weak and defenseless as Iraq and Libya. The writing is on the wall and doesn’t look pretty. Remember, the boy in the story was eventually telling the truth. The wolf did show up and it acted as wolves always do.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.com.
- Margaret Kimberley's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Email this page- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Though I agree wholeheartedly that the
"Iranian assassination plot" gambit is ridiculously fake there are a couple of points I would have to disagree with in your assessment Ms. Kimberley. For one, although this does appear to be providing a (false) pretext for starting a war with Iran I very seriously doubt that that is the objective here. Obama is evil but he's no dummy. Surely he knows that the U.S. military is badly overstretched and by any objective estimation has performed embarrassingly badly in Iraq and Afghanistan against extremely poorly-armed, basically untrained guerillas that use homemade bombs. There's no way the U.S. military-industrial complex really wants to screw with a country like Iran. If it did so it would be in for such an embarrassment it would never live it down and would most likely cause itself to be permanently kicked out of the Middle East. Iran has many cards it can play and many pressure points it can put the squeeze on. No, I am pretty sure that this "Iranian plot" is mainly to provide what the administration hopes will be a distraction, something to cause the public and the news cycle to refocus itself away from the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators whose very existence is a great source of embarrassment to the administration considering that if America was a genuine democracy and if Obama was anything resembling a progressive, odds are there wouldn't be thousands of people out in the streets protesting the fact that the government is nothing but a hand puppet of the billionaires. I can't see the U.S. bombing Iran or anything like that.
Secondly, the statement "Barack Obama has assassinated Osama bin Laden and..." is incorrect. There is literally no way in this world that the person who was murdered in Pakistan in early May was the real Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has almost certainly been dead since mid-December 2001 which explains why independent observers (some of them even conservative and during the Bush-Cheney administration no less) have said numerous times that the person in the videos that mysteriously seemed to appear at politically opportune times has significant differences with known photos of bin Laden and cannot possibly be the same person. Which explains why "bin Laden" made a video on the eve of the 2004 election saying "Vote for the Democrats!", other times having "bin Laden" rattling off Democratic talking points so conservatives can compare the Dems to Osama bin Laden, etc. Also bear in mind that the Obama administration refused to release any photos that would prove that it was bin Laden who was killed and remember that the person's body was buried at sea about 12 hours after being killed, buried at sea so nobody could exhume it and take a DNA sample. And also keep in mind the timing of it, barely 2 months before the U.S. was to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan as it had announced months earlier. With "Osama bin Laden" seemingly alive and well, thumbing his nose at America, it would look like what it is, the U.S. retreating in disgrace from a war it is losing. But now they can say they are withdrawing in victory, having killed the main bad guy (and all before the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 false flag operation as well.)
The raid itself that purtportedly killed bin Laden is so transparently phony that it is hard to keep a straight face when reciting its details. OK here we go:
*they supposedly found out months ago that bin Laden was in this compound but yet they waited months to prepare, all the while giving him months to relocate and go to ground again? Instead of immediately flying drones in and leveling the compound with missiles? As casualty-averse as the U.S. military is it isn't that plausible that they would take the route of flying in a commando mission when they could much easier and more safely assassinate him with missiles fired from drones, and certainly if the official story were true then they wouldn't wait more than a few hours let alone several months because the chance would be far too great that he'd leave and disappear again.
*why on earth would bin Laden go to all the trouble and expense to have an elaborate compound built but not have an escape tunnel? In the 40 minutes it took the SEALs to make it into his residence he could have had enough time to escape through a tunnel several times over
*why on earth would bin Laden have an elaborate compound but only have three armed men guarding him? Wouldn't one think that the most wanted man in the world could afford at least ten or fifteen bodyguards? Obviously those that would assassinate him wouldn't only send two or three men to kill him but a dozen or more so what did he expect three armed men to be able to do anyway?
*why on earth would a man who supposedly hates America with every fiber of his being allow his bodyguards to stock up on Pepsi, Coca-Cola and other well-known American products?
The most likely explanation, and the only one that fits with the available evidence, is that the man killed in the raid on the compound in Pakistan was one of the "bin Laden" C.I.A. doubles that was used in some of the fake videos, probably the somewhat-less-obvious one whose beard was eventually dyed the wrong colour in the last ever "Osama" video to be released before the C.I.A. gave up trying to concoct videos because even the mainstream media was asking questions about the Just For Men's beard & moustache dye. Only this explains all the otherwise-unexplainable details such as why they were comfortable waiting so long (several months) because he was their operative, the C.I.A.'s latest fake "Osama"; it explains why he had no tunnel and why only three other guards were there; it explains how a Navy SEAL assassin team could think they were actually assassinating Osama bin Laden but not be (because he looks similar enough to have been used in videos).
Adam Werritty 'plotted with
Adam Werritty 'plotted with Israel' to topple Iran's President Ahmadinejad
Today's Keiser Report (rt.com, go to Programs, click on Keiser Report) reported the following story published in UK media. Werrity is not only the "self-styled adviser" to Liam Fox, but also his mistress.
"Adam Werritty, the self-styled adviser to former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, plotted with the Israeli intelligence service Mossad to topple Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it has been claimed.
Mr Werritty was so highly regarded by Mossad - who thought he was Dr Fox's chief of staff - that he was able to arrange meetings with figures at the highest levels of the Israeli government, according to the The Independent on Sunday.
In one of the most dramatic revelations to emerge about the former Defence Secretary's best man, it is said he visited Iran on several occasions and met Iranian opposition groups in Washington and London over the past few years.
Mr Werritty also joined Dr Fox, while he was shadow defence secretary, on a visit to Iran in the summer of 2007. The paper understands the adviser has visited the country on several occasions before and since, although it is not known how long he stayed or whom he met.
One diplomatic source suggested that Mr Werritty, once back in London, had been debriefed by MI6 about his travels to Iran.
In May 2009, Mr Werritty, who can speak some Farsi, arranged a meeting in Portcullis House between the former Defence Secretary and an Iranian lobbyist with close links to President Ahmadinejad's regime.
In February this year, Mr Werritty then arranged a dinner with Dr Fox, Britain's ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, and senior political figures – understood to include Israeli intelligence agents – during an Israeli security conference in Herzliya, during which sanctions against Iran were discussed.
Despite Mr Werritty having no official Ministry of Defence capacity, an Israeli source said there was "no question" that Mr Werritty was regarded as anyone other than Dr Fox's chief of staff who was able to fix meetings at the highest levels, and was seen as an "expert on Iran".
The Foreign Office declined last night to comment on any aspect of Mr Werritty's activities.
The plot could well have proved impossible, but Mr Werritty's activities are seen to fly in the face of the British Government's efforts to pursue a diplomatic solution, through the UN, to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The new revelations will also fuel concern in the Foreign Office that the man - who had unrestricted access to one of the Cabinet's most important ministers - was at the same time trying to unseat the Iranian President as part of a "shadow foreign policy".
One Whitehall source was scathing of Mr Werritty. The source told the Independent on Sunday: "Ask yourself what he was doing there. It's regime change but only in his own mind. I can't think of anything more stupid, wandering round Iran flying the British flag. Does he really think the answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions – which we all want to resolve – is to have a bunch of people encouraging the opposition there in that way?
"We do have a responsibility to those people, and anything that's done like that has to have government approval, which he doesn't seem to have had. It's ridiculous. You are inviting people to believe you have the Government's resources behind them, and in fact the opposition is likely to be brutally crushed."
The fresh disclosures could form part of the Cabinet Office's inquiry into Dr Fox and Mr Werritty, which is expected as early as Tuesday."
Ms Kimberley's Assessment is Well Spoken- Except...
IMHO: Last May's 'Bin Laden Kill' Tale, sounding like an episode of '24', was just as Fishy, fishy, fishy- as this alleged 'Too Fast & Furious' Iranian 'Plot' Tall Tale- also sounding like a plot from a Hollywood B List movie!
First
Obama is an embarrasment. Was he in that Dave Chapelle skit where white and blacks were trading the people that they didnt want? I don't want Obama associated with Black hisory. He's like frakensteins monster, he's a ghoul.