Oud-geheime
dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen hebben een memorandum
voor president beest Trump geschreven, met de waarschuwing geen
oorlog met Iran te beginnen, dit daar ze de tekenen daartoe
zien…… Zoals ze ook president George W Bush (nog zo’n gevaarlijke
malloot, dat geldt overigens ook voor Obama de gespletene)
waarschuwden geen oorlog te beginnen met Irak in de 6 weken voordat
de VS illegaal, een op leugens gebaseerde oorlog begon tegen dat
land…….
We
weten wat van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak heeft gebracht: meer dan 1,5
miljoen vermoorde Irakezen en een land dat in chaos is gedompeld en
in puin ligt (reken maar niet, met IS in het defensief, dat de
ellende voor de bevolking daar voorbij is…..)
Een
en ander is ook ingegeven door het bezoek dat de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu volgende week
aan de VS zal brengen, deze psychopathische moordenaar ‘is gewond
geraakt’ door met bewijs onderbouwde zware beschuldigingen van corruptie……* En als bij
gewonde roofdieren moet je dan extra oppassen, immers een oorlog met
Iran zou Netanyahu nu wel uitermate goed uitkomen…….
Uiteraard zal de VS komen met een zogenaamd bewijs waarop het ‘niet anders kan’ dan Iran aanvallen, ofwel een ‘false flag’ operatie, zoals de VS die door haar bloedige geschiedenis heen heeft gebruikt voor het uitoefenen van ongebreidelde agressie, of beter gezegd: grootschalige terreur………..
Lees het volgende uitstekende memorandum en oordeel zelf:
Intelligence
Veterans Warn of Growing Risk for War With Iran Based on False
Pretexts
February
26, 2018 at 9:05 am
Written
by Anti-Media
News Desk
(CN) — As
President Donald Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu next week, a group of U.S. intelligence
veterans offers corrections to a number of false accusations
that have been leveled against Iran.
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
The President
FROM:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War
With Iran
INTRODUCTION
In
our December
21st Memorandum to you,
we cautioned that the claim that Iran is currently the world’s top
sponsor of terrorism is unsupported by hard evidence. Meanwhile,
other false accusations against Iran have intensified. Thus, we feel
obliged to alert you to the virtually inevitable consequences of war
with Iran, just as we warned President George W. Bush six weeks
before the U.S. attack on Iraq 15 years ago.
In our
first Memorandum in this genre we
told then-President Bush that we saw “no compelling reason” to
attack Iraq, and warned “the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic.” The consequences will be far worse, should
the U.S. become drawn into war with Iran. We fear that you are
not getting the straight story on this from your intelligence and
national security officials.
After
choosing “War With Iran” for the subject-line of this Memo, we
were reminded that we had used it before, namely, for a
Memorandum to President Obama on August 3, 2010 in
similar circumstances. You may wish to ask your staff to give you
that one to read and ponder. It included a startling quote from
then-Chairman of President Bush Jr.’s Intelligence Advisory Board
(and former national security adviser to Bush Sr.) Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, who told the Financial
Times on
October 14, 2004 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George
W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him wrapped around
his little finger.” We wanted to remind you of that history,
as you prepare to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next
week.
*
* *
Rhetoric
vs. Reality
We
believe that the recent reporting regarding possible conflict with
nuclear-armed North Korea has somewhat obscured consideration of the
significantly higher probability that Israel or even Saudi Arabia
will take steps that will lead to a war with Iran that will
inevitably draw the United States in. Israel is particularly inclined
to move aggressively, with potentially serious consequences for the
U.S., in the wake of the recent incident involving an alleged Iranian
drone and the shooting down of an Israeli aircraft.
There
is also considerable anti-Iran rhetoric in U.S. media, which might
well facilitate a transition from a cold war-type situation to a hot
war involving U.S. forces. We have for some time been observing with
some concern the growing hostility towards Iran coming out of
Washington and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is warning that the “time
to act is now” to thwart Iran’s aggressive regional ambitions
while U.S. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley sees a “wake-up”
call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel.
Particular concern has been expressed by the White House that Iran is
exploiting Shi’a minorities in neighboring Sunni dominated states
to create unrest and is also expanding its role in neighboring Iraq
and Syria.
While
we share concerns over the Iranian government’s intentions
vis-à-vis its neighbors, we do not believe that the developments in
the region, many of which came about through American missteps, have
a major impact on vital U.S. national interests. Nor is Iran, which
often sees itself as acting defensively against surrounding Sunni
states, anything like an existential threat to the United States that
would mandate the sustained military action that would inevitably
result if Iran is attacked.
Iran’s
alleged desire to stitch together a sphere of influence consisting of
an arc of allied nations and proxy forces running from its western
borders to the Mediterranean Sea has been frequently cited as
justification for a more assertive policy against Tehran, but we
believe this concern to be greatly exaggerated. Iran, with a
population of more than 80 million, is, to be sure, a major regional
power but militarily, economically and politically it is highly
vulnerable.
Limited
Military Capability
Tehran’s
Revolutionary Guard is well armed and trained, but much of its “boots
on the ground” army consists of militiamen of variable quality. Its
Air Force is a “shadow” of what existed under the Shah and
is significantly outgunned by its rivals in the Persian Gulf, not to
mention Israel. Its navy is only “green water” capable in that it
consists largely of smaller vessels responsible for coastal defense
supplemented by the swarming of Revolutionary Guard small speedboats.
When
Napoleon had conquered much of continental Europe and was
contemplating invading Britain it was widely believed that England
was helpless before him. British Admiral Earl St Vincent was
unperturbed: “I do not say the French can’t come, I only say they
can’t come by sea.” We likewise believe that Iran’s apparent
threat is in reality decisively limited by its inability to project
power across the water or through the air against neighboring states
that have marked superiority in both respects.
The
concern over a possibly developing “Shi’ite land bridge,” also
referred to as an “arc” or “crescent,” is likewise
overstated. It ignores the reality that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all
have strong national identities and religiously mixed populations.
They are influenced — some of them strongly — by Iran but they
are not puppet states. And there is also an ethnic division that the
neighboring states’ populations are very conscious of– they are
Arabs and Iran is Persian, which is also true of the Shi’a
populations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.
Majority
Shi’a Iraq, for example, is now very friendly to Iran but it has to
deal with considerable Kurdish and Sunni minorities in its governance
and in the direction of its foreign policy. It will not do Iran’s
bidding on a number of key issues, including Baghdad’s relationship
with Washington, and would be unwilling to become a proxy in Tehran’s
conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iraqi Vice President Osama
al-Nujaifi, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Prime Minister Haider
al-Abadi government, has, for example, recently called for the
demobilization of the Shi’ite Popular Mobilization Forces or
militias that have been fighting ISIS because they “have their own
political aspirations, their own [political] agendas. … They are
very dangerous to the future of Iraq.”
Nuclear
Weapons Thwarted
A
major concern that has undergirded much of the perception of an
Iranian threat is the possibility that Tehran will develop a nuclear
weapon somewhere down the road. We believe that the current Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, even if imperfect, provides the best
response to that Iranian proliferation problem. The U.N. inspections
regime is strict and, if the agreement stands, there is every reason
to believe that Iran will be unable to take the necessary precursor
steps leading to a nuclear weapons program. Iran will be further
limited in its options after the agreement expires in nine years.
Experts believe that, at that point, Iran its not likely to choose to
accumulate the necessary highly enriched uranium stocks to proceed.
The
recent incident involving the shoot-down of a drone alleged to be
Iranian, followed by the downing of an Israeli fighter by a Syrian
air defense missile, resulted in a sharp response from Tel Aviv,
though reportedly mitigated by a warning from Russian President
Vladimir Putin that anything more provocative might inadvertently
involve Russia in the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is said to have moderated his response but his government
is clearly contemplating a more robust intervention to counter what
he describes as a developing Iranian presence in Syria.
In
addition, Netanyahu may be indicted on corruption charges, and it is
conceivable that he might welcome a “small war” to deflect
attention from mounting political problems at home.
Getting
Snookered Into War
We
believe that the mounting Iran hysteria evident in the U.S. media and
reflected in Beltway groupthink has largely been generated by Saudi
Arabia and Israel, who nurture their own aspirations for regional
political and military supremacy. There are no actual American vital
interests at stake and it is past time to pause and take a step
backwards to consider what those interests actually are in a region
that has seen nothing but disaster since 2003. Countering an assumed
Iranian threat that is minimal and triggering a war would be
catastrophic and would exacerbate instability, likely leading to a
breakdown in the current political alignment of the entire Middle
East. It would be costly for the United States.
Iran
is not militarily formidable, but its ability to fight on the
defensive against U.S. naval and air forces is considerable and can
cause high casualties. There appears to be a perception in the
Defense
Department
that Iran could be defeated in a matter of days, but we would warn
that such predictions tend to be based on overly optimistic
projections, witness the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In
addition, Tehran would be able again to unleash terrorist resources
throughout the region, endangering U.S. military and diplomats based
there as well as American travelers and businesses. The terrorist
threat might easily extend beyond the Middle East into Europe and
also the United States, while the dollar costs of a major new
conflict and its aftermath could break the bank, literally.
Another
major consideration before ratcheting up hostilities should be that a
war with Iran might not be containable. As the warning from President
Vladimir Putin to Netanyahu made clear, other major powers have
interests in what goes on in the Persian Gulf, and there is a real
danger that a regional war could have global consequences.
In
sum, we see a growing risk that the U.S. will become drawn into
hostilities on pretexts fabricated by Israel and Saudi Arabia for
their actual common objective (“regime change” in Iran). A
confluence of factors and misconceptions about what is at stake and
how such a conflict is likely to develop, coming from both inside and
outside the Administration have, unfortunately, made such an outcome
increasingly likely.
We
have seen this picture before, just 15 years ago in Iraq, which
should serve as a warning. The prevailing perception of threat
that the Mullahs of Iran allegedly pose directly against the security
of the U.S. is largely contrived. Even if all the allegations were
true, they would not justify an Iraq-style “preventive war”
violating national as well as international law. An ill-considered
U.S. intervention in Iran is surely not worth the horrific
humanitarian, military, economic, and political cost to be paid if
Washington allows itself to become part of an armed attack.
FOR
THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William
Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical &
Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence
Automation Research Center (ret.)
Kathleen
Christison, CIA, Senior Analyst on Middle East (ret.)
Graham
E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip
Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew
Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
(associate VIPS)
Larry
C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
Michael
S. Kearns, Captain, USAF; ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
(ret.)
John
Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer; resigned Feb. 27, 2003 as
Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, in protest against the
U.S. attack on Iraq (ret.)
John
Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior
investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Edward
Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals
Processing (ret.)
David
MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, National Intelligence
Estimates Officer (ret.)
Ray
McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA
analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth
Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East (ret.)
Todd
E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Coleen
Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal
Counsel (ret.)
Greg
Thielmann, former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and
Military Affairs Office, State
Department
Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR), and former senior
staffer on Senate Intelligence Committee (ret.)
Kirk
Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
ret.)
Lawrence
Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary
of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and
Mary (associate VIPS)
Sarah
G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Robert
Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann
Wright, Colonel, US Army (ret.); also Foreign Service Officer who,
like Political Counselor John Brady Kiesling, resigned in opposition
to the war on Iraq
Republished
with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo
===========================
* En misdadiger Netanyahu wordt nog serieus genomen ook door de reguliere westerse journalistiek en het grootste deel van de westerse politici…..
Zie ook: ‘Oost-Ghouta >> ‘gematigde rebellen’ schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN……. Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada….‘ (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)
en: ‘VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan…….‘
en: ‘Oost-Ghouta: MSM leugens ofwel het zoveelste geval van ‘fake news’ lekt weg uit uit de massamedia‘