The CIA's Regime Change Playbook (1953)

An absolute must-read, 1953 Iran coup - a crime authored in London and Washington, by John Wright (rt.com, 17/8/18):

"This week marks 65 years since the Western-orchestrated coup in Iran. August 19, 1953 is the day that Iranians were taught a hard lesson in the rules of the game when it comes to empire and hegemony. For on this day, the country's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown at the hands of Washington and London. It was, by any measure, an act of international banditry that continues to cry out for just redress.

"Operation Ajax was planned, organized and unleashed by the CIA in conjunction with MI6 in response to the decision that was taken by Mossadegh - acting with the support of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) - to nationalize Iran's oil and husband the resulting revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people. Up to this point, the lion's share of the revenue garnered from the exploitation of Iranian oil was sucked out of the country by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - the British state-owned oil company established in 1908 with this objective in mind and the forerunner of today's global oil conglomerate BP.

"London's colonial assertion of control over Iran's natural resource was undertaken at the point when its Royal Navy was moving from coal to oil-powered engines. In the interests of an empire that covered a quarter of the world at that time, the global reach of the Royal Navy was indispensable. Thus, the domination and exploitation of Iran's oil assumed, for London, a priority of critical strategic importance. None other than Britain's future prime minister, Winston Churchill, proclaimed the importance of Persian [Iranian] oil with customary bombast: 'Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams. Mastery itself was the prize of the venture.' Such an open celebration of the opportunity for national enrichment at another country's expense is so unabashed it would make a low-rent mafia hood blush.

"Over the years of Britain's control of Iranian oil, Tehran received a derisory percentage. It was a one-sided arrangement of such unabashed colonial arrogance that it could only succeed in triggering a rise in national consciousness. And it was on the back of this rise in national consciousness that Mohammed Mossadegh was appointed Iran's prime minister in 1951 by a reluctant shah, upon being nominated for the post by the country's parliament (Majlis) by an overwhelming majority. The young shah, Mohammad Reza, whose father had been forced of the throne in 1941 by the British and the Soviets due to his pro-German sympathies in World War II, sat on the throne as a constitutional monarch during this period.

"Mossadegh and the nationalist current he represented was anathema to the shah's ambitions that were encouraged by the British with the protection of its oil interests in mind, resulting in rising tensions as the country approached a crossroads in its history. Upon coming to power, Mossadegh carried through his plan of nationalizing and seizing control of Iran's oil reserves from the British, while confiscating the assets of the AIOC. Mossadegh justified his actions thus: 'Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries [over a just distribution of oil revenues] have yielded no results... With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.' He went on: 'Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.'

"The British responded by making it impossible for Iran to sell its newly nationalized crude on the world market. However, for a colonial power whose empire had gone into steep decline, this wasn't enough to satisfy its desire for retribution. Lacking the requisite strength and ability to settle accounts on its own, it was then that London turned to Washington, which had been established as the first among equals of Western imperial powers, for assistance. The reasoning employed by London to draw the Americans into their feud with Mossadegh was that Iran was in danger of turning communist, citing the growing popularity of the country's Tudeh (Communist) Party as evidence. With Washington in the throes of anti-Soviet and anti-communist fever, it succeeded and the plan to topple Mossadegh - Operation Ajax - was put in motion with the CIA assuming the lead role. Key to its success was the bribing of senior army and police officers, along with journalists, religious clerics, and members of the Iranian parliament, who were tasked with whipping up anti-Mossadegh sentiment. A smear campaign, designed to inflame the religiosity of a large section of the Iranian population, accused Mossadegh of being a communist.

"According to declassified CIA documents, when it began on August 15, the coup appeared to have failed. Mossadegh's security forces made dozens of arrests and forced the shah, who was also in on the conspiracy, to flee the country. However, utilizing the momentum of mass demonstrations that were organized with money provided by the CIA, on August 19, 1953, Mossadegh was arrested along with thousands of his supporters. Thereafter, the shah returned from exile to become Washington's placeman, ruling the country with extreme brutality and corruption, until the Iranian Revolution removed him and his clique from power in 1979.

"The context to this history is, of course, Washington's unremitting demonization of Iran today. The false depiction of the country as a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the region has been used to justify the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), the tightening of sanctions, and the looming threat of war. The fact that the precise opposite is the case - ie that Iran has been indispensable in combating Western-backed terrorism in the region and stands as a pillar of resistance to the sectarian regional ambitions of key US strategic allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia - has been willfully abstracted in favor of this Alice in Wonderland narrative.

"The CIA- and MI6-orchestrated coup to topple Mohammad Mossadegh reminds us that no region has endured more at the hands of US hegemony than the Middle East. It cements, as well, Mossadegh's place in history as a man with the courage to defy the West. It is a proud legacy of defiance that lives on in the refusal of the Iranian people to submit to Washington's writ in our time. While that will be rightly celebrated in Tehran on the 65th anniversary of the CIA-led coup, the eve of the occasion was marked in Washington this week by the creation of a so-called Iran Action Group, tasked with coordinating its policy towards Iran, and with 'changing its regime's behavior'."

As it happens, Friday's Australian republished a Wall Street Journal piece - part of the propaganda barrage currently softening us up for a hot war with Iran - contained an unctuous column by Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the late King of Kings and Light of the Aryans, Mohammad Reza. Some gems:

"My life's mission is not to assume a personal leadership role in the future state; it is... to serve as a source of hope... for the Iranian people."

On the other hand, if they really want me...

"The Iranian people have a message: we want our country back."

We the people! LOL

"From the inception, the regime has sought to subvert Iran by transforming it from a nation into a cause... It denies our people the right to gather for special occasions at the tombs of their heroes."

What? The tomb of granddaddy, Reza Shah? Certainly not Mossadegh's.

"[Iranians] want to be sought out by other other countries as trusted friends and partners as they take charge of their country and lead it into a new chapter of history."

Reza wants a kiss and a cuddle from USrael, just like his Dad.

Conspiracy Realists

Conspiracy theorists?

"The lesson was meant to be about Napoleon, but a history teacher in the Parisian suburb of Vitry-sur-Seine decided instead last week to hold a discussion with her teenage pupils about the terrorist attacks in [Paris]... For Marie, 30, the teacher, the shock of 3 days of terror in which 17 people were killed was compounded by the discovery that her 14-year-old pupils, most of North African origin, did not believe the attack had happened. 'They're lively, intelligent children,' she said. 'But most of them are convinced it's some sort of conspiracy involving the government, Israel or the CIA.... The parents think the same way. It's sad, really'." (We're not Charlie here: Muslim teens in banlieues, Matthew Campbell, The Sunday Times/The Australian, 19/1/15)

No, conspiracy realists:

"Five former US intelligence officials have revealed that the CIA and Mossad cooperated on the assassination of Imad Mughniyah*, the military chief of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, in February 2008. The bomb which killed Mughniyah... was triggered remotely from Tel Aviv by agents with Mossad, who were in communication with US operatives on the ground in Damascus. 'The way it was set up, the US could object and call it off, but it could not execute,' said a former US intelligence official." (CIA aided Mossad to assassinate terrorist, Adam Goldman, Washington Post/Sydney Morning Herald, 2/2/15)

[*Chris Wallace: Director [of National Intelligence Mike] McConnell... the assassination of terrorist Imad Mughniyah this week - did the US have anything to do with that? McConnell: No, Chris. I'm aware of the circumstances around it, and we are now - interestingly from the kinds of capabilities we're talking about, we can see how various parties are commenting and so on. And the big question of course - Hezbollah has blamed Israel. But there's some evidence that it may have been internal - Hezbollah. (Transcript: DNI Mike McConnell on 'FNS', foxnews.com, 17/2/08)]

Follow the Thread...

So who was behind the latest suicide bombings at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut?

The Al-Qaida-linked Abdullah Azzam Brigade, we are told in press reports.

And who is/was Abdullah Azzam?

Azzam was the CIA's right arm in its jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s:

"Azzam traveled the globe under CIA patronage. He appeared on Saudi television and at rallies in the United States. A CIA asset who appeared as the embodiment of of the holy warrior and 'toured the length and breadth of the United States in the early and mid-1980s recruiting for holy war, ostensibly only in Afghanistan." (Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, & the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani, 2004, p 127)

He was also the teacher of the CIA's star recruit in its Afghan jihad, a wealthy Saudi contractor by the name of Osama bin Laden.

So was Azzam a Saudi?

No. He was a Palestinian, born in the West Bank. He was part of the refugee exodus into Jordan during the Israeli conquest and occupation of the West Bank in June, 1967.

So who was ultimately responsible for the latest bloody Beirut bombing?

If the phrase 'the big picture' has any meaning, Israel and the CIA.

Just follow the thread...

Intelligence You Can Trust

"Positions have hardened in the international standoff over Syria, as US officials said privately that a flood of previously undisclosed intelligence... convinced them the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against its own people... One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the CIA with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Assad's chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said." ('Flood of intelligence' proof of chemical strike, Adam Entous/Sam Dagher, The Australian/The Wall Street Journal, 29/8/13)

Didn't Einstein once say: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe"?

[PS - 30/8: "The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons... has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus reported... Senior Israeli security officials arrived in Washington on Monday to share the latest results of intelligence-gathering, and to review the Syrian crisis with national security adviser Susan Rice." (Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack', Harriet Sherwood, theguardian.com, 28/8/13)]

The New Nasser?

"The two men can be seen together all over central Cairo, on banners, flags and on posters on sale to tourists and locals... The first man is the pan-Arab nationalist former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, hammer of the Muslim Brotherhood, who died in 1970. The second is General Abdel Fatah as-Sisi, head of Egypt's armed forces and, since the July coup that ousted the Brotherhood-backed president, Mohamed Morsi, the supreme power in the country. In the coffee shops of Cairo, where political discussions have bounced off peeling walls since Nasser's death, a vigorous debate is taking place over whether Sisi has deliberately risen in the former's likeness - and what parallels between the two men's careers may mean for post-revolutionary Egypt. While Sisi has pledged stability as a central plank of the military-led government he will shepherd towards elections in 9 month's time, he has also tapped into themes that Nasser used to enshrine his legacy as one of modern Egypt's most celebrated figures... In his public appearances since the 3 July coup, Sisi has mirrored Nasser's key messages of nationalism, scepticism of Western intentions, Arab dignity and strong leadership." (Egypt wonders if army chief is another Nasser, Martin Chulov, The Guardian, 8/8/13)

"Yet, considering the society from which [Nasser] emerged, the obstacles which he overcame, the personnel available to him, one is compelled to give a fairly high rating to the man of the Suez and Aswan, of the Sinai, of Yemen, and of Abu-Zaabal (his concentration camp). In the words of a CIA agent who had dealings with him between 1952 and 1954 (quoted by Joachim Joesten): 'The problem with Nasser is that he has no vices. We can neither buy nor blackmail him. We hate this guy's guts, but we can't touch him: he's too clean...'" (Nasser, Jean Lacouture, 1973, pp 375-376)

So how just how 'clean' is Sisi? 

"In August 2012, the newspaper at-Tahrir... reported that Gen. Sisi had 'strong ties with US officials on both diplomatic and military levels.' He had studied in Washington, attended several military conferences there, and engaged in 'co-operation with regard to war games and intelligence operations in recent years,' it said." (Profile: Egypt armed forces chief Abdul Fattah as-Sisi, bbc.co.uk, 3/7/13)

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak spoke by telephone to his Egyptian counterpart Gen. Abdel Fattah as-Sisi on Friday morning, according to Arabic-language news agency Al-Hayat. According to the report, al-Sisi affirmed Egypt's commitment to maintaining the 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Israel in the phone call, ahead of a meeting with Mohamed Morsy." ('Egypt affirms commitment to Israel peace treaty', The Jerusalem Post, 24/8/12)

Go figure.

Still Controversial After All These Years

The SBS World News bulletin at 6:30 tonight ran an item on Syria by ABC America. In reporting the reluctance of US officials and politicians to put 'boots on the ground' there, despite the Syrian opposition "begging" for this, the reporter, Reena Ninan*, sought to explain the US administration's reluctance to get more heavily involved in Syria by referencing the US response to the al-Qaeda bombing of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998:

"Following the US embassy bombings in Africa, a cruise missile strike was launched on an alleged Sudanese chemical weapons factory in 1998 after soil samples came back positive for chemicals used in VX [nerve agent] but that intel. turned out to be controversial..."

Rubbish! There is no controversy regarding this episode whatever:

"On August 17, 1998, Clinton went on national television and admitted that he had had a sexual relationship with [Monica] Lewinsky. Three days later, Clinton ordered the cruise missile attack against al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and against the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, where the CIA believed al-Qaeda might be running a chemical weapons factory based on a soil sample scooped up by an agent that tested positive for a chemical component of VX nerve gas. Much of the 'actionable' intelligence that Clinton had relied on in these strikes proved to be faulty. The CIA was not able to establish that a high-level al-Qaeda meeting had in fact taken place at Khost. And the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory proved to have no connection to either al-Qaeda or VX. It had been, however, a vital facility for producing desperately needed drugs for Sudan's civilian population and its destruction resulted in further deprivation for the Sudanese." (A World of Trouble: America in the Middle East, Patrick Tyler, 2009, pp 479-480)

It seems to be that, for corporate talking heads such as Ninan, USraeli terrorism is always and forever controversial but never the Arab variety.

[*Middle East correspondent for Fox News, 2007-20012]

He Who Pays the Piper...

... calls the tune:

"A distant sponsor finances the war among the olive groves and walnut trees high on the Jebel Akrad mountains. Sometimes he supplies the rebel fighters there with weapons and ammunition. More often he gives them money, hundreds of thousands of Syrian pounds, that are carried along hidden trails by a courier coming from Turkey. With the sponsor's support, the rebels can raid, harry and ambush the logistic routes and outposts of the Syrian army in the valley beneath them. Without it, the hundred men of the Thwar [sic: thuwwaar] Tahrir khattiba [sic:katiiba], one of a dozen rebel units in the area, would be little more than desperate renegades struggling to survive. There is one major problem in the relationship. The rebels do not know who their sponsor is. 'We know what we are fighting against, but we don't know exactly who we are fighting for,' admitted the khattiba's [sic] commander, Lieutenant Ahmad, a tall athletic man in his mid-20s who was an infantry officer in the Syrian army before defecting 7 months ago to join the rebel Free Syrian Army. 'A middleman in Turkey masks the sponsor's identity. We can never deal with him directly. At the moment there are no conditions to the money and weapons we receive, but I'm worried that one day there might be.'... There are strong moral arguments for arming the rebels and ending President Bashar al-Assad's regime, but who exactly is financing the revolution and what is their agenda?" (Mystery donor causes unease among rebels, Anthony Loyd, The Times/The Australian, 19/7/12) 

Here we are - 2012 - and the source of the FSA's funds is a complete mystery! Who could the mystery donor possibly be? Well, as Dr Phil never tires of reminding us - the best predictor of future behavior is the past. So, going with Dr Phil's dictum, I offer the following extracts from CIA agent Wilbur Crane Eveland's 1980 book Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East in answer to Anthony Loyd's question:

"Leaving on the morning of July 24 [1956], I drove to Damascus and, as usual, registered at the Omayad. [Michail Bey] Ilyan [leader of the conservative Populist Party and wealthy landowner from Aleppo] would hear of my arrival, I knew, but this time I was reluctant to meet in his suite, which I assumed to be a target for bugging by the local surete. Employing what I could remember of my counterintelligence training, I searched my room for listening devices. Finally, feeling fairly secure, I was ready to discuss money with Michail Bey.

"When he arrived I pointed a finger at my ear and then turned up the radio to indicate that our talk would be secret and that the whinning Oriental music would prevent any eavesdropper from hearing what was said. This conspiratorial beginning seemed to delight Ilyan, who drew his chair close to mine and hunched over with elbows on his knees. Head bowed, looking alternately at me and the floor, my conspirator flicked his worry beads at a speed I thought might match that of the abacus clicking in his head to come up with a price tag for his operations.

"Telling him I'd been back to Washington and now had word of American plans, I said that we were prepared to consider helping him and his fellow Syrians help themselves... I asked what plans he had in mind, what support he'd need... and how long it would take to get results.

"A good 15 minutes of silence and worry-bead twirling followed as Ilyan stared intently at the rug on the floor. Finally, he made his proposal. 'Ya Ahmee, it will take money - much of it and soon - to care for the press, the 'street', key army officers, and others. When I asked him if the politicians too would want money, or if saving their country and their fortunes would be enough, Ilyan gave me a look I'd last seen when my mother had prepared to wash out my mouth with soap. 'Mr Eveland,' Ilyan said, 'we don't expect anything for ourselves. It's just those who have been offered dirty money to oppose us whom we'll have to buy off.' Far from convinced that I'd met my first honest man in the Middle East, I said I'd have to assure Washington that no pockets would be lined with our money. I'd not meant to offend him, of course, I added.

"Since getting down to specifics seemed impossible before we had a firm plan of action, I decided to try for an estimate of money and a time frame. After more silence, tongue clicking, and rustling of beads, Ilyan asked for 'a half-million and at least 30 days.' Since he hadn't said which currency he was referring to - about 3 Syrian pounds made a dollar - I deliberately chose the lesser possibility, saying that it would take time for the people who handled such things to collect that much Syrian currency on the Lebanese money market." (pp 202-203)

"Harvey Armado, head of the regional finance office of the Beirut CIA station, was one of the busiest members of the staff. Beyond his fiscal responsibility for the administrative and operational activities of all stations in the Middle East, Armado worked under direct orders from Washington on worldwide financial transactions. Having no prohibitions on foreign-exchange transactions, Lebanon was an ideal location for such activities... [W]hen I called on Armado to say I needed a half-million Syrian pounds, he hardly blinked. Did I need new money, old money, a mixture? Bundled or boxed? When I professed ignorance, Harvey suggested a combination of old and new Syrian bills from various banks in Syria, so that their Lebanese origin could not be traced from the bands on the bundles. 'Give me 2 days,' he said, 'and I'll have it for you in a nice suitcase purchased in Damascus.'" (pp 217-218)

"Now the winding mountain road I'd travelled so often before made it possible for me to watch for the headlights that would betray any car in pursuit. Ten miles into the mountains, as instructed, I reverseed my direction and checked the deserted highway over which I'd just passed. Coming back, at the Bludhan turning I swung left onto the casino road, which was steep, narrow, and winding - just right for me to be able to be sure I was alone. Finally I reached the old French gambling casino Ilyan had spoken of, which was dark - there was only a watchman's light inside. Turning around in the parking area, I drove back and found the side road that Ilyan had designated for our meeting place.

"There was no sign of life anywhere, as my odometer showed me that I'd gone the 2 miles described as the point at which I should make a U-turn and pull off the road. Alone in the stillness, I took stock of my situation. I was frightened. My mind kept racing. I thought I heard noises. Was I just imagining things? Then, from behind, I heard dogs barking, and soon a swaying lantern came into view. It was a Bedouin camel caravan, I realized. Just before it reached me, I stepped from the car and pretended to relieve myself in the ditch. Too scared to do anything more, I simply hoped that they weren't robbers and shuddered with relief as the caravan passed out of sight and beyond hearing.

"What seemed like an eternity was in fact only about 10 minutes before a car's headlights came bouncing into view and the dark bulk of Ilyan's limousine showed that my wait had come to an end. Shocked to see that he himself was not driving, I demanded to know why he hadn't come alone. His answer was simple enough: he'd never learned how to drive. In any case, he said, he trusted his driver, Artim, as he would a brother. So, as America's candidate for changing Syria's government puffed complacently in the back-seat on a long cigar, Artim and I transferred the suitcase, and finally the Chrysler went off in a cloud of dust.

"Sighing with relief, I drove back to Beirut, gradually relaxing as the cold mountain air blew about me. When I arrived at my apartment, I poured myself a stiff drink, sat on the balcony, and stayed until the sun came up, still thinking that the suitcase I'd handled might have a profound effect on 7 million Syrian lives." (pp 222-223)

God's Busy Right Now

"Rabbi David Saperstein, reading from the psalms in English and Hebrew, noticed from the altar that the good men and women of the congregation that day, including the Bidens and other dignitaries, had not yet stood. Finally Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the African Methodist Church asked that everyone rise. At that moment Saperstein saw something from his angle of vision: 'If I had seen it in a movie I would have groaned and said, 'Give me a break. That's so trite'. A beam of morning light shone through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine." (The Promise: President Obama, Year One, Jonathan Alter, 2010, p 102)

OK, you may scoff!

Obama may not be God, but he sure knows how to play Him:

"The drafting of the President's kill list begins with a weekly teleconference between more than 100 national security officials, who pore over biographies of suspected terrorists in Yemen and Somalia before recommending targets. Those in Pakistan, where the CIA operates drones, are selected in a separate process and forwarded to the White House. On his own insistence, Mr Obama signs off on every strike, either by the military or CIA, and reserves for himself the ultimate decision on whether or not to give the go-ahead when civilian lives are at risk. That process has often required greater moral and legal trade-off than Mr Obama would have envisioned when he took office - as in the case of Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader.

"Mehsud, whose organisation fought the Pakistani government, primarily, did not meet the Obama administration's criteria for targeted killing, as he did not demonstrate an imminent threat to to the US. But Pakistani officials, on whose approval the covert drone program there depended, wanted him dead. Mr Obama and his advisers ultimately decided he could be regarded as a threat; if not to the homeland, then to US personnel in Pakistan - thus qualifying him for killing. In August 2009, Mehsud came into the CIA's sights while visiting his in-laws' home in Pakistan. John Brennan, Mr Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, relayed the message from the CIA that they were in a position to kill Mehsud - but not without collateral damage. Mr Obama told the CIA to take the shot and Mehsud was killed, with his wife and an unknown number of family members." (Obama gives nod for drone killings, Catherine Philp, The Times/The Australian, 31/5/12)

Greg Sheridan Nailed on Q&A

Given the presence on the Q & A panel last night of ex-CIA interrogator turned whistleblowing author (The Interrogator: A CIA Agent's True Story), Glenn Carle, the subject of torture was inevitable. Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, The Australian's foreign editor, and an unabashed apologist for all things USraeli (who had earlier in the discussion loudly declared that worked for Murdoch), was decidedly shifty. Torture was out, he said, but that old euphemism for same, 'enhanced interrogation techniques', now that was a different matter:

GS: "I don't think that it's about black and white. I don't think you're obliged to give the Taliban that you captured on the battlefield a slice of apple pie, a cup of tea and a warm environment. I think you're allowed to be pretty robust in your questioning, and the moral dilemma comes about when you think this person has information which may well save innocent lives if he gives it to us. Now..."


Tony Jones (interrupting): Can I ask you what is the limitation you put on this because you know that American Republican officials at very senior levels talk about enhanced interrogation techniques and there's a whole set of things you can and can't do to people?

GS: "Well, I think there have got to be rules and the CIA as I understand it ask for proper legal guidance all the time and find it very difficult to get legal guidelines. There have got to be rules..."

Tony Jones (interrupting): But they ended up doing a lot of waterboarding for example, so just to test you here, do you think waterboarding is legitimate?

GS: "Well, I would say this. Although I have the greatest respect for our fellow panelist there are other authors with similar knowledge who are of the view that enhanced interrogation techniques did provide life-saving information. Now it seems to me..."

Tony Jones (interrupting): Just to get back to my question. Do you condone waterboarding?

GS: "If the technique doesn't leave any lasting physical or psychological damage then I think you have to examine whether in an extreme case it might be allowed but I wouldn't allow a blanket policy saying yes you can waterboard. But I wouldn't absolutely rule out things which are pretty stressful in the interrogation department."

***

Tony Jones (addressing Glenn Carle): You're the expert on the subject. Do the ends justify the means?

GC: "No they don't. We just heard really the world as described by Rupert Murdoch and the Republican Party in the US, not a word of which makes sense as related to the truth and the law and our heritage and effective interrogation... There are four people who've written and spoken out about quote enhanced interrogation techniques since they occurred after 9/11. Two army officers who were interrogators, an FBI officer who was an interrogator, and a CIA officer - myself. None of us knew each other. All of us say almost verbatim the same things, which is that it doesn't work, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's unnecessary. The only people who've spoken out in favour of quote enhanced interrogation techniques - the only ones - are one of two categories. Either the individuals who made the policies and are trying to defend them for their legacy and for legal defence reasons, or the shills for the policies themselves. They're the only ones..."

So let me get this straight, as they say, here we have an ex-CIA man, who has seen and heard it all (and for whom, incidentally, Sheridan has professed nothing but the greatest respect), not only dismissing him as a mere mouthpiece for Murdoch and the Bushies, but nailing him as a shill for the waterboarders. Television doesn't get more real than that.

The CIA Holocaust

When the party's over, anyone seriously concerned with the issues of terrorism and mass murder (indeed anyone serious) will know that Osama bin Laden and his fanatics are mere pikers in comparison with his killers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

But don't just take my word for it. Listen to what 14 ex-CIA officials had to say back in 1987 about the agency's then 40-year killing spree. The truly staggering and deeply resonant figure they advance (see below) beggars belief. Factor in the agency's death-dealing in the 24-year period since 1987, the extent of which I am not privy, and the mind, as they say, boggles.

My reference to the assessment of these former CIA officials comes from a polemic by Washington Post journalist (and peace activist) Colman McCarthy published in The Guardian Weekly of December 20, 1987:

"Philip Roettinger is an old boy enrolling in a new school. Tall, straight-backed, and well-spoken, Roettinger, 72, is an alumnus of the CIA. Among other inglorious deeds in the spying trade, he was part of the 1954 successful effort to overthrow left-leaning Guatemalen President Jacobo Arbenz... Roettinger, ex-CIA case officer and former Marine colonel, is now president of the newly formed Association for Responsible Dissent (ARDIS). Some of that dissenting was heard recently when Roettinger and 13 other former CIA officials - from undercover agents to counterintelligence specialists - announced the purpose of their group: 'We are going to try to expose covert action. We're going to try to get it legally banned because we can find no reason, no justification, for covert action on the part of the American people'.

"The group spoke of the congressional and public records being 'replete with accounts of US covert operations that killed, wounded and terrorized millions of people whose countries were not at war with the United States nor possessed the capabilities to do remarkable physical hurt to the United States, who themselves bore the United States no ill will nor cared greatly about the issues of 'communism' or 'capitalism'. With the group estimating that 'at least 6 million people have died as a consequence of US covert operations since World War II', one question rushes in from the cold. With 6 million dead, why not go beyond the banning of only covert actions to abolishing the CIA altogether?" (Excesses of the CIA)

Indeed!

Operation Ajax Redux 2

"Egypt's embattled President Hosni Mubarak appears likely to remain at the helm, according to a US-approved transition plan for presidential elections to be held within 8 months. Despite 13 consecutive days of protests involving millions of Egyptians calling for his resignation, the 82-year old dictator has persuaded foreign powers that Egypt would be best served if he oversaw the transition. As the largest opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, caved in to pressure to hold talks with new Vice-President Omar Suleiman, the Obama administration's special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, spoke of Mr Mubarak in glowing terms. Speaking to the Munich Security Conference via video link at the weekend, Mr Wisner, a former US ambassador to Egypt, described Mr Mubarak as an 'old friend' of the US. 'You need to get a national consensus around the preconditions of the next step forward, and the President must stay in office to steer those changes through', Mr Wisner said. 'I therefore believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical, it's his opportunity to write his own legacy'." (Mubarak likely to hang on during transition, Jason Koutsoukis, The Age, 7/2/11)

OK, seeing that the USraeli-engineered coup against the will of the Egyptian people and for Egypt's continued subordination to Israeli interests appears to be firming (read my 3/2/11 post Operation Ajax Redux if you haven't already done so), let's take another look at the forces at work behind it:

If the coup has found its General Zahedi in Omar Suleiman, as I've suggested in my 4/2/11 post Smooth Operator, could it have its Kermit Roosevelt in Frank Wisner?

Frank Wisner Jr, that is. You see, there was a Frank Wisner Sr, who was, as it happens, in like flynn on Operation Ajax:

"Over the course of his meetings in Washington, ['Monty'] Woodhouse [chief of the British intelligence station in Tehran during the early 1950s] detected 'steadily increasing interest' in his proposal for what the British called 'Operation Boot'. Frank Wisner, a New York lawyer who had become the CIA's director of operations, was strongly positive. So was Wisner's newly named boss, Allen Dulles... By the time Woodhouse flew home, the incoming [Eisenhower] administration had committed itself... to a covert operation aimed at removing [Iranian prime minister Mohammad] Mossadegh. It had also accepted Britain's nominees to play the two key roles: General Zahedi as Iraq's designated savior and Kermit Roosevelt as the CIA field commander who would place him in office." (All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kinzer, 2008, p 152)

Frank Sr then moved on to direct the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954:

"Once the plan [to oust Arbenz] received official sanction, the CIA and State Department began to divide up responsibilities for its execution... Frank Wisner, the CIA's deputy director for 'plans' (ie 'operations'), was in command. He had served as Mission Chief for the CIA's predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), in Istanbul and Bucharest during WWII, and had abandoned a prestigious law firm in Manhattan after the war to return to the dark arts in 1947... The plot was code-named Operation Success, reflecting the optimism of its creators. Wisner and his crew immediately began daily meetings on Guatemala. Wisner's first major decision was to choose a field commander. Once Kermit Roosevelt had turned Dulles down, Wisner appointed Colonel Albert Haney, then CIA station chief in South Korea." (Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Schlesinger & Kinzerpp, 1982, 108-109)

Kermit Roosevelt? Fascinating how these names just keep on popping up.

Alas, after helping screw first Iran, then Guatemala, Frank Sr topped himself some years later. But not before siring that chip off the old block, Frank Jr:

"Frank Jr is well known around [CIA headquarters] Langley [Virginia], with a career in the Defense and State Departments along with ambassadorial service in Egypt, the Philippines, and then India. In each of these places Wisner insinuated himself into the social and military branches of the power elite. He became their spokesperson. Wisner and Mubarak became close friends when he was in country (1986-1991), and many credit this friendship (and military aid) with Egypt's support of the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Not once did the US provide a criticism of Egypt's human rights record. As Human Rights Watch put it, the George HW Bush regime 'refrained from any public expression of concern about human rights violations in Egypt'. Instead, military aid increased, and the torture system continued. The moral turpitude (bad guys, aka the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy advocates, need to be tortured) and the torture apparatus set up the system for the regime followed by Bush's son, George W after 9/11, with the extraordinary rendition programs to these very Egyptian prisons. Wisner might be considered the architect of the framework for this policy. Wisner remained loyal to Mubarak. In 2005, he celebrated the Egyptian election (Mubarak 'won' with 88.6% of the vote). It was a 'historic day' he said, and went further, 'There were no instances of repression; there wasn't heavy police presence on the streets. The atmosphere was not one of police intimidation'. This is quite the opposite of what came out from election observers, human rights organizations and bloggers... The Democratic and Republican ghouls came together in the James Baker Institute's working group on the Middle East. Wisner joined the Baker Institute's head Edward Djerejian and others to produce a report in 2003 that offers us a tasty statement, 'Achieving security and stability in the Middle East will be made more difficult by the fact that short-term necessities will seem to contradict long-term goals'. If the long-term goal is Democracy, then that is all very well because it has to be sacrificed to the short-term, namely support for the kind of Pharaonic State embodied by Mubarak. Nothing more is on offer. No wonder that a 'Washington Middle East hand' told The Cable, '[Wisner's] the exact wrong person to send. He is an apologist for Mubarak.' But this is a wrong view. Wisner is just the exact person to send to protect the short-term, and so only-term, interests of Washington. The long-term has been set aside." (The empire's bagman, Vijay Prashad, counterpunch.org, 2/2/11)

Whether it's Operation Ajax of 1953, Operation Success of 1954, or Operation Ajax Redux of 2011, ain't it great to see folks like the Wisners doing their bit to keep USrael safe from the Reds and the Fundies. Shame about the Egyptian people though. But then of course, they are brown...

Smooth Operator

Operation Ajax Redux (see my last post) has its General Zahedi:

"Omar Suleiman, Hosni Mubarak's intelligence chief and now his vice-president, is the keeper of Egypt's secrets, a smooth behind-the-scenes operator who has been intimately involved in the most sensitive issues of national security and foreign policy for nearly 20 years. Famously loyal to Mr Mubarak, Mr Suleiman looks likely to determine his fate... Despite his military bearing, Mr Suleiman has a penchant for dark suits and striped ties. Acquaintances remark on his exquisite manners - and his taste for good cigars. 'Suleiman is an imposing man', said the former British ambassador David Blatherwick. 'He's pretty wily, very polished and extremely intelligent. People are scared of him, for obvious reasons'... In the mid-1990s he is said to have worked with the CIA on handing over wanted militants, a practice that continued as 'extraordinary rendition' after the terrorist attacks on the US of September 11, 2001. For 30 years before that Mr Suleiman served in the army... rising to be director of military intelligence. He was trained in the Soviet Union - and, later, in the US... The Israelis trust him, not least because of his open line to the President. 'Suleiman doesn't pull the strings in Egypt', a well-placed source told Haaretz. 'He pulls the ropes'. Western governments regard him as a safe pair of hands." ('Consummate insider' a loyalist to the core, Ian Black, Guardian/Sydney Morning Herald, 3/2/11)

"[Chief of Egyptian general intelligence (EGIS)] Suleiman, who understood English well, was an urbane and sophisticated man. Others told me that, for years, Suleiman was America's chief interlocutor with the Egyptian regime - the main channel to President Mubarak himself, even on matters far removed from intelligence and security. 'He was a very bright guy, very realistic', said [Edward] Walker [Jr, ambassador to Egypt, 1994-1997]. 'And he was often at odds with the way the interior ministry was dealing with things. He understood the consequences of some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way'." (Ghost Plane: The Untold Story of the CIA's Torture Programme, Stephen Grey, 2007, p 142)

Operation Ajax Redux

With the appearance of Mubarak's goons (naively described on SBS TV News tonight as simply "demonstrators loyal to Hosni Mubarak") attacking protesters with molotov cocktails and guns in Cairo's Tahrir Square, you don't have to be the proverbial rocket scientist to know that a counter-revolutionary plot of some kind has been hatched in the back rooms of Washington, Tel Aviv and Cairo.

To understand something of its dimensions, it is well to bear in mind my adaptation of Dr Phil's immortal advice: the best indicator of present American skullduggery is past American skullduggery.

Which brings us to the need for a working knowledge of Operation Ajax, the successful CIA-engineered coup against the democratically-elected government of Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. Needless to say, the only real difference between Tehran then and Cairo today is that, in the former, Mossadegh represented the will of the people, and was therefore the target of the coup, whereas in the latter the people themselves are the target.

The following account is from Stephen Kinzer's wonderful book, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (2006):

"After the National Security Council meeting in March, planning for a coup began in earnest. [CIA director] Allen Dulles, in consultation with his British counterparts, chose a retired general named Fazlollah Zahedi as titular leader of the coup. Then he sent $1 million to the CIA station in Tehran for use 'in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh'. [Secretary of State] John Foster Dulles directed the American ambassador in Tehran, Loy Henderson, to contact Iranians who might be interested in helping to carry out the coup.

"Two secret agents, Donald Wilber of the CIA and Norman Darbyshire of the British Secret Intelligence Service, spent several weeks that spring in Cyprus devising a plan for the coup. It was unlike any plan that either country, or any country, had made before. With the cold calculation of the surgeon, these agents plotted to cut Mossadegh away from his people. Under their plan, the Americans would spend $150,000 to bribe journalists, editors, Islamic preachers, and other opinion leaders to 'create, extend and enhance public hostility and distrust and fear of Mossadegh and his government'. Then they would hire thugs to carry out 'staged attacks' on religious figures and other respected Iranians, making it seem that Mossadegh had ordered them. Meanwhile, General Zahedi would be given a sum of money, later fixed at $135,000, to 'win additional friends' and 'influence key people'. The plan budgeted another $11,000 per week, a great sum at that time, to bribe members of the Iranian parliament. On 'coup day', thousands of paid demonstrators would converge on parliament to demand that it dismiss Mossadegh. Parliament would respond with a 'quasi-legal' vote to do so. If Mossadegh resisted, military units loyal to General Zahedi would arrest him. 'So this is how we get rid of that madman Mossadegh!' Secretary of State Dulles exclaimed happily when he was handed a copy of the plan...

"The American press played an important supporting role in Operation Ajax, as the Iran coup was code-named. A few newspapers and magazines published favorable articles about Mossadegh, but they were the exceptions. The New York Times regularly referred to him as a dictator. Other papers compared him to Hitler and Stalin. Newsweek reported that, with his help, Communists were 'taking over' Iran. Time called his election 'one of the worst calamities to the anti-communist world since the Red conquest of China'.

"To direct its coup against Mossadegh, the CIA had to send a senior agent on what would necessarily be a dangerous clandestine mission to Tehran. Allen Dulles had just the man in Kermit Roosevelt, the 37-year-old Harvard graduate who was the agency's top Middle East expert. By a quirk of history, he was the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who half a century earlier had helped bring the United States into the 'regime change' era.

"Roosevelt slipped into Iran at a remote border crossing on July 19, 1953, and immediately set about his subversive work. It took him just a few days to set Iran aflame. Using a network of Iranian agents and spending lavish amounts of money, he created an entirely articial wave of anti-Mossadegh protest. Members of parliament withdrew their support from Mossadegh and denounced him with wild charges. Religious leaders gave sermons calling him an atheist, a Jew, and an infidel. Newspapers were filled with articles and cartoons depicting him as everything from a homosexual to an agent of British imperialism. He realized that some unseen hand was directing this campaign, but because he had such an ingrained and perhaps exaggerated faith in democracy, he did nothing to repress it...

"At the beginning of August, though, Mossadegh did take one step to upset the CIA's plan. He learned that foreign intelligence agents were bribing members of parliament to support a no-confidence motion against him, and to thwart them, he called a national referendum on a proposition that would allow him to dissolve parliament and call new elections. On this occasion he shaded his democratic principles, using separate ballot boxes for 'yes' and 'no' voters. The result was overwhelmingly favorable. His enemies denounced him, but he had won a round. Bribed members of parliament could not carry out the CIA's plan to remove him through a 'quasi-legal' vote, since there no longer was a parliament.

"Roosevelt quickly came up with an alternative plan. He would arrange for Mohammad Reza Shah to sign royal decrees, or firmans, dismissing Mossadegh from office and appointing General Zahedi as the new prime minister. This course could also be described as 'quasi-legal', since under Iranian law, only parliament had the right to elect and dismiss prime ministers. Roosevelt realized that Mossadegh, who among other things was the country's best-educated legal scholar, would reject the firman and refuse to step down. He had a plan for that, too. A squad of royalist soldiers would deliver the firman, and when Mossadegh rejected it the soldiers would arrest him.

"The great obstacle to this plan turned out to be the shah. He hated Mossadegh, who was turning him into little more than a figurehead, but was terrified of risking his throne by joining a plot. In a series of meetings held late at night in the backseat of a car parked near the royal palace, Roosevelt tried and failed to persuade the shah to join the coup. Slowly he increased the pressure. First he arranged to fly the shah's strong-willed sister, Ashraf, home from the French Riviera to appeal to him; she agreed to do so after receiving a sum of money and, according to one account, a mink coat. When that approach failed, Roosevelt sent two of his Iranian agents to assure the shah that the plot was a good one and certain to succeed. Still the shah vacillated. Finally, Roosevelt summoned General Norman Schwarzkopf, a dashing figure who had spent years in Iran running an elite military unit - and whose son would lead the Desert Storm invasion of Iraq four decades later - to close the deal.

"The shah received Schwarzkopf in a ballroom at the palace, but at first refused to speak. Through gestures, he let his guest know that he feared that microphones were hidden in the walls or ceiling. Finally the two men pulled a table into the center of the room and climbed on top of it. In what must have been unusually forced whispers, Schwarzkopf made clear that the power of both Britain and the United States lay behind this plot, and that the shah had no choice other than to cooperate. Slowly the shah gave in. The next day he told Roosevelt he would sign the firman, but only on condition that immediately afterwards, he could fly to his retreat on the Caspian Sea...

"That was not a resounding committment to the coup, but it was good enough for Roosevelt. He secured the firmans and, on the afternoon of August 14, gave the one dismissing Mossadegh to an officer who was part of the plot, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri, commander of the Imperial Guard. Late that night, Nassiri led a squad of men to Mossadegh's house. There he told the gatekeeper that he needed to see the prime minister immediately. Then, much to Nassiri's surprise, a company of loyalist soldiers emerged from the shadows, surrounded him, and took him prisoner. Mossadegh had discovered the plot in time. The man who was supposed to arrest him was himself arrested...

"Roosevelt, however, was not... discouraged. He had built up a far reaching network of Iranian agents and had paid them a great deal of money. Many of them, especially those in the police and the army, had not yet had a chance to show what they could do. Sitting in his bunker beneath the American embassy, he considered his options... [H]e summoned two of his top Iranian operatives and told them he was determined to make another stab at Mossadegh.

"These two agents had excellent relations with Tehran's street gangs, and Roosevelt told them he now wished to use those gangs to set off riots around the city. To his dismay, they replied that they could no longer help him because the risk of arrest had become too great. This was a potentially fatal blow to Roosevelt's new plan. He responded in the best tradition of secret agents. First he offered the two agents $50,000 to continue working with him. They remained unmoved. Then he added the second part of his deal: if the men refused, he would kill them. That changed their minds. They left the embassy compound with a briefcase full of cash and a renewed willingness to help.

"That week, a plague of violence descended on Tehran. Gangs of thugs ran wildly through the streets, breaking shop windows, firing guns into mosques, beating passersby, and shouting 'Long Live Mossadegh and Communism!' Other thugs, claiming allegience to the self-exiled shah, attacked the first ones. Leaders of both factions were actually working for Roosevelt. He wanted to create the impression that the country was degenerating into chaos, and he succeeded magnificently.

"Mossadegh's supporters tried to organize demonstrations on his behalf, but once again his democratic instincts led him to react naively. He disdained the politics of the street, and ordered leaders of political parties loyal to him not to join the fighting. Then he sent police units to restore order, not realizing that many of their commanders were secretly on Roosevelt's payroll. Several joined the rioters they were supposed to suppress...

"Roosevelt chose Wednesday, August 19, as the climactic day. On that morning, thousands of demonstrators rampaged through the streets, demanding Mossadegh's resignation. They seized Radio Tehran and set fire to the offices of a progovernment newspaper. At midday, military and police units whose commanders Roosevelt had bribed joined the fray, storming the foreign ministry, the central police station, and the headquarters of the army's general staff.

"As Tehran fell into violent anarchy, Roosevelt calmly emerged from the embassy compound and drove to a safe house where he had stashed General Zahedi. It was time for the general to play his role as Iran's designated savior. He did so with gusto, riding with a group of his jubilant supporters to Radio Tehran and proclaiming to the nation that he was 'the lawful prime minister by the shah's orders'. From there he proceded to his temporary headquarters at the Officers' Club, where a throng of ecstatic admirers were waiting.

"The day's final battle was for control of Mossadegh's house. Attackers tried for two hours to storm it but were met with withering machine-gun volleys from inside. Men fell by the dozen. The tide finally turned when a column of tanks appeared, sent by a commander who was part of the plot. The tanks fired shell after shell into the house. Finally resistance from inside ceased. A platoon of soldiers gingerly moved in. Defenders had fled over a back wall, taking their deposed leader with them. The crowd outside surged into his house, looting it and then setting it afire...

"In the days that followed, the shah returned home and reclaimed the Peacock Throne he had so hastily abandoned. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest. General Zahedi became Iran's new prime minister." (pp 123-128)

Puts those "demonstrators loyal to Hosni Mubarak" in a new light, no?

Round Round Get Around... 5

Jeeesus, do-they-get-around:

2001

"There is a second piece of evidence that suggests Israeli operatives were spying on al-Qaeda in the United States. It is writ in the peculiar tale of the Israeli 'art students', detailed by this reporter for Salon.com in 2002, following the leaking of an internal memo by the Drug Enforcement Administration's Office of Security Programs. The June 2001 memo, issued 3 months before the 9/11 attacks, reported that more than 120 young Israeli citizens, posing as art students and peddling cheap paintings, had been repeatedly - and seemingly inexplicably - attempting to penetrate DEA offices and other law enforcement and Defense Department offices across the country. The DEA report stated that the Israelis may have been engaged in 'an organized intelligence gathering activity', but to what end, US investigators, in June 2001, could not determine... According to the memo, 'the most activity [was] reported in the state of Florida' during the first half of 2001, where the town of Hollywood appeared to be 'a central point for these individuals with several having addresses in this area'. In retrospect, the fact that a large number of 'art students' operated out of Hollywood is intriguing, to say the least. During 2001, the city, just north of Miami, was a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity and served as one of the chief staging grounds for the hijacking of the World Trade Center planes and the Pennsylvania plane; it was home to 15 of the 19 future hijackers... among the 120 Israeli spies posing as art students, more than 30 lived in the Hollywood area... As noted in the DEA report, many of these young men and women had training as intelligence and electronic intercept officers in the Israeli military - training and experience far beyond the compulsory service mandated by Israeli law." (from High-Fivers & Art Student Spies: What did Israel know in advance of the 9/11 attacks? Christopher Ketcham, counterpunch.org, 7/3/07)

2010

"Sales people working neighborhoods in Northern Utah County have been asking some odd questions that have nothing to do with making the sale. Folks are reporting that they're asking about the new National Security Agency's data center that is being built at Camp Williams. The sales people say they're Israeli art students and are selling their works to raise money for a gallery. Some have even produced what appear to be legitimate Israeli passports. So, why would art students be interested in an NSA data center?... Saratoga Springs residents have complained to their police department about the art students. Officer Matt Schauerhamer tracked down one group at a restaurant. He does not know if they were spies, but they're definitely not artists. 'I told them, 'If you're actually an artist, why don't you draw something?' I gave them a piece of paper and my pen. They produced a picture that was about on par with what my kindergartner could have done'. Officer Schauerhamer cited the group for soliciting without a city business license and then passed along their information to Immigration & Customs Enforcement. He said ICE is investigating." (From Door-t0-door spies in Utah County? Brent Hunsaker, abc4.com, 29/9/10)

"The CIA took an internal poll not long ago about friendly foreign intelligence agencies. The question, mostly directed to employees of the clandestine service branch, was: Which are the best allies among friendly spy services, in terms of liaison with the CIA, and which are the worst? In other words, who acts like, well, friends? 'Israel came in dead last', a recently retired CIA official told me the other day. Not only that, he added, throwing up his hands and rising from his chair, 'the Israelis are number 3, with China number 1 and Russia number 2', in terms of how aggressive they are in their operations on US soil." (SpyTalk: Israeli spies wooing US Muslims, sources say, Jeff Stein, washingtonpost.com, 2/9/10)

Removing the 'I' From CIA

Robert Baer, "a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East" and "the author of See No Evil & The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower," sounds as though he'd be eminently qualified to opine on matters Mossad. And yet, after reading his Wall Street Journal feature Assassins forced from the shadows in yesterday's Australian, I can only conclude the opposite.

Baer's theme is that "technology has made the old-fashioned 'hit' all but impossible," and that poor old Mossad, hitherto able to practice its dark arts in the shadows, has now fallen victim to closed-circuit TV cameras: "Nearly the entire hit was recorded on CCTV cameras, from the time the team arrived at Dubai's airport to the time the assassins entered Mabhouh's rooms." (Ironically, in the same issue of The Australian, there's a piece from Haaretz by Zvi Bar'el, Welcome to the city of spies & spires, which celebrates Dubai as "a hotbed of espionage." It concludes: "Dubai is a wonderful place. It has no substitute. Ask Mossad, the CIA or the British Secret Intelligence Service." Go figure.)

Anyway, back to Baer. Assassins is typical of the rubbish that fills the opinion pages of the corporate (and particularly the Murdoch) press, exhibiting both a failure to do one's homework before putting pen to paper and an astonishing and unforgivable ignorance of the issues and forces that fuel conflict in today's Middle East:

"[T]he Mabhouh assassination had all the hallmarks of an Israeli hit: a large team and an almost flawless execution. If it had been a Russian hit, for instance, they would have used a pistol or a car bomb, indifferent to the chaos left behind."

Oh, I see, an almost flawless execution - such as Mossad's famous April 1973 attack on 3 Palestinian leaders in Beirut, which, in addition to the targets themselves, resulted in the deaths of the wife of one (when she got in the way), an Italian stewardess (by mistake) and 2 Lebanese police (simply doing their job). And that nonsense about pistols and car bombs, as if Mossad somehow subjects its numerous Palestinian targets to clean and painless deaths. To cite some other Mossad 'hits' from the 70s: 1) Ghasan Kanafani (and his niece) - murdered in Beirut when a remote-controlled bomb exploded in his car in July 1972; 2) Wael Zuaiter - gunned down in Rome in October 1972; 3) Basil Kubaisi - gunned down in Paris in April 1973' 4) Muhammad Boudia - murdered in Paris when a remote-controlled bomb exploded in his car in June 1973; 5) Amed Bouchikki (another mistake) - gunned downed in Lillehammer, Norway in July 1973.

"Why were identities stolen from people living in Israel?" Stolen or volunteered? Baer hasn't bothered reading Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky: "Many immigrants to Israel are also asked if they will give up their passports to save Jews. For instance, a person who had just moved to Israel from Argentina, probably wouldn't mind donating his Argentine passport. It would end up in a huge, library-like room, containing many thousands of passports divided by countries, cities, and even districts, with Jewish- and non-Jewish-sounding names, also coded by ages - and all data computerized." (By Way of Deception, 1990, p 75)

"When I first came into the CIA as a young field operative, there was endless debate about whether assassinations were worthwhile... In the mid 1970s the Church-Pike committees investigating the agency put an end to CIA assassinations... Post 9/11 the CIA got back into the assassination business, but in a form that looks more like classic war than the Hollywood-style hit. The CIA had fired an unknown number of Hellfire missiles at al-Qa'da and Taliban operatives in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan... In addition to the intended targets, thousands of other people have been killed. What strikes me, and what makes these assassinations so different from... Dubai, is that they are obscured by the fog of war. Western TV cameras are not allowed in to film the collateral damage; besides, we're all but at war with Pakistan's Pashtuns, who live in these mountains*. But Israel is not at war with the Palestinians, or even really with Hamas. It is at war with Hamas militants, people who have shed Israeli blood. The Israelis know who they are, and as a matter of course send hit squads into Gaza and the West Bank to kill them. The Israelis call them 'targeted killings': assassinations by another name."

Israel is not at war with the Palestinian people? It's only at war with Hamas militants? Is Baer for real? Was Gaza, for example, only a war against Hamas militants? Is the moon made of green cheese? Where are the references to Israel's dispossession and occupation of the Palestinians? And what about the shedding of Palestinian blood? Why is the Israeli presumption - that every Palestinian murdered by its death squads deserves to die - unquestioned? And where is the acknowledgment that, with their so-called 'targeted assassinations' (properly called extra-judicial killings), the Israelis are playing judge, jury and executioner in one?

The CIA wasn't always so dumb. At least one of Baer's predecessors, Wilbur Crane Eveland, had a grasp of Middle East basics:

"The basic question is a simple one, involving nothing more than human rights: Can there be any justice in denying to 4 million Palestinians, now living under Israeli occupation or abroad, the same rights of citizenship and statehood enjoyed by 3 million Israelis and guaranteed (by Israel's Law of Return) to every Jew on the face of the earth?" (Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East, 1980, p 343)

"In March 1979, Aharon Yarif, director of the Israeli Institute of Strategic Studies (and former head of Israeli intelligence) reported that in the past 14 years Israel had lost about 630 people to terrorism (adding, strangely, that 'this is what we lose each year to traffic accidents', and that the PLO 'have not disrupted normal life', 'stopped immigration', or 'stopped tourism'). In contrast to this, military action by Israel or its surrogates in Lebanon between April 1978 and September 1979 killed hundreds of innocent Lebanese men, women, and children; Israeli troops adopted a 'scorched earth' policy, plundered archaeological treasures, and shot those who opposed them rather than taking prisoners. Over 200,000 people have been forced to flee from devastated southern Lebanon (where over 100 homes were destroyed in a 24-hour period and, although the United States futilely protested, a State Department spokesman emphasized that the administration was not contemplating any reduction in the $2.7 billion in military aid already committed to Israel - a sovereign country in whose affairs we couldn't intervene. While this went on, new Israeli settlements proliferated in Israeli-occupied Jordan and Syria." (ibid, p 352)

Baer's Assassins is typical of the predictable, pro-USsrael pap which passes for comment in the pages of Murdoch fishwrap.

[*"Our study shows that the 114 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan... from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 834 and 1,216 individuals, of whom around 549 to 849 were described as militants in reliable press accounts, about two-thirds of the total on average. Thus, the true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32%." (The year of the drone, counterterrorism.newamerica.net) While having a shot at Russia's alleged indifference to the chaos left behind, Baer is typically indifferent to the chaos left behind by the US in Pakistan.]

Narco-Terrorists Allege Narco-Terrorism

"Investigators from the United States and Columbia have dismantled an international cocaine smuggling and money-laundering ring that allegedly used part of its profits to finance Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based Shiite militia... The US Drug Enforcement Administration led the investigation, playing a central role in nailing down the alleged Hezbollah connection, Ms Sanchez [ Columbian investigator] said. But US officials in Bogota and Washington declined to discuss details of their evidence." (Cocaine ring 'gave profits to Hezbollah', Chris Kraul & Sebastian Rotella, LA Times, repub. Sydney Morning Herald, 23/10/08)

Ho, hum. Of course, trying to smear the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah in this way has obvious propaganda advantages. And those parties doing the smearing - sorry, conducting the investigation - know a narco-terrorist when they see one. Take note:-

"In a monumental historical study of the link between the drug trade and counterinsurgency, The Politics of Heroin... Alfred McCoy has traced the global expansion of drug-production centers - in Burma (Myanmar), Laos, Columbia, and Afghanistan - to the political cover provided by CIA-sponsored covert weapons. At the heart of the global drug trade after the Second World War has been the trade in opium, the raw material base for the industrial manufacture of high-grade heroin... From 1948 to 1950, the CIA allied 'with the Corsican underworld in its struggle against the French Communist Party for control over the strategic Mediterranean port of Marseille'. The Corsicans triumphed and 'used their control over the Marseilles waterfront to dominate the export of heroin to the US market' for 'the next quarter century'. At the same time, 'the CIA ran a series of covert operations along the China border that were instrumental in the creation of the Golden Triangle heroin complex'. Beginning in 1950, these operations were aimed at creating an anti-Communist Chinese force to mount an invasion of mainland China... The CIA applied these tactics to Laos from 1960 to 1975 when it created a secret army of 30,000 Hmong peasants to battle Laotian Communists near the border with North Vietnam. The Hmong's main cash crop was opium, and the CIA readily turned the other way as the Hmong commander, General Vang Pao, used a Corsican charter to export his crop to distant markets." CIA and USAID funds eventually enabled him to construct airstrips, buy planes, and form his own air-transport company, dubbed by those in-the-know Air Opium. The general went on to supply top-grade heroin to US troops in Vietnam, while the CIA looked the other way. (Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War & the Roots of Terror, Mahmood Mamdani, 2004, pp 66-69)

Moving right along: With the US Congress' capping of CIA funding in 1984, the Reagan administration turned to the drug trade to finance the US proxy terrorist force known as the contras in their attempt to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua: "... CIA assets became key to providing a protective cover for the flow of cocaine from Central America to the United States in return for a reverse flow of materials and armaments from the CIA to the contras... Alfred McCoy observed in his study on the global drug trade, 'the [Columbian] Medellin [cocaine] cartel's rise coincided with the start of the CIA's... support and supply of contra guerillas'. Indeed, McCoy noted that 'all major US agencies have gone on the record stating, with varying degrees of frankness, that the Medellin cartel used the contra resistance forces to smuggle cocaine into the United States'." The "affinity [between US covert military operations and criminal drug syndicates] came to the surface during the Iran-contra affair, most dramatically in the person of Oliver North... It is now widely known that North had formed a private network to fund the contras after official aid was sharply reduced. At the heart of this network was the Israeli connection, and its most ambitious initiative involved the sale of arms to Iran, with the proceeds used to purchase war supplies for the contras. Israel emerged as a significant military supplier to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua in the late 70s and early 80s after those countries were found guilty of human rights violations and the Carter administration terminated aid to all three. As 'a quid pro quo for El Salvador's decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem', Israel supplied the military regime 'with over 80% of its weaponry for the next several years, including napalm for use against the Salvadoran civilian population'. In Guatemala in 1983, as the government carried out massacres of Indian villagers, a Time magazine correspondent reported the 'Israelis have sold the government everything from anti-terrorism equipment to transport planes' and that 'army outposts in the jungle have become near replicas of Israeli army field camps'. Finally, Israel moved into Nicaragua as soon as the Carter administration cut off aid: 'Israel sold [US-backed dictator] Somoza 98% of the weapons he used against the Nicaraguan population' between September 1978 and his ouster the following July [by the Sandinistas]." Israel's arming of Iran arose in the context of the Iraq-Iran War: "The Israelis both openly defied the official American ban on the supply of US arms to Iran and tried to get the Reagan administration to deal with the Iranians. In return, they agreed to take on at least a part of the burden of supplying the contras as Congress began to put restrictions on the supply of US military aid. The heart of the deal that came to be known as Iran-contra was that the US agreed to sell arms to Iran, either directly or through Israel, at prices sufficiently inflated to use the difference to purchase arms for the contras... Most observers agreed that the idea for the deal came from the Israelis." (ibid, pp 109-113)

But there's more. The CIA turned to the drug trade to fund the mother-of-all contra-style insurgencies, that of the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan: "Organized and centralized under CIA control, the drug trade combined the peasant's market wisdom with the mujahideens' capacities for extortion and entrepreneurship. Alfred McCoy traced the different steps in the drug economy, beginning with peasant production: 'As the mujahideen guerillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax'. It no doubt helped that for the grower the price of opium was 5 times that for wheat... Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories'... the CIA provided the legal cover without which this illicit trade could not have grown to monumental proportions: 'During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the US Drug Enforcement Administration in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests... US officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies 'because US narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there'. Prior to the Afghan jihad, there was no local production of heroin in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. The production there was of opium, a very different drug, which was directed to small, rural, regional markets. By the end of the Afghan jihad, the picture had changed drastically: the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's leading producers of both opium and processed heroin... The heroin economy literally poisoned Afghani and Pakistani life. The figures who thrived in this cesspool had been hailed by Ronald Reagan as 'moral equivalents of America's founding fathers'." (ibid, pp 141-143)

PS: "From his jail cell in Russia, Israeli soldier of fortune Yair Klein is still fighting the Moscow court's decision to extradite him to Columbia, where he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for training militias for drug barons." (Despite recent case, Israelis never excelled as mercenaries, Yossi Melman, Haaretz, 24/6/08)