I believe that the FBI’s announcement on November 8 — three days after Trump’s victory — of an alleged Iranian plot to kill an Iranian American journalist was part of an intelligence information operation to manufacture a casus belli to attack Iran. I wrote about this plot in my last post (read here). I have checked with a retired FBI agent, a retired CIA case officer and a senior former DEA agent and asked them to critique my analysis. They all agreed with my conclusion — i.e., the 2019 bust of Farhad Shakeri in Sri Lanka, while trying to move 92 kilos of heroin, was done with the help of DEA and DEA then recruited Shakeri and CC-1 to become confidential informants. Shakeri apparently was directed to move to Iran and get a job in order to create his bona fides as an Iranian intelligence asset. It is likely that the CIA played a role in orchestrating this operation.
Why? This was part of a broader effort to create a reason to attack Iran and present Donald Trump with a war before he could assume the Presidency. Well, that plan appears to be falling apart. Trump dispatched Elon Musk to NYC to talk to Iran’s UN Ambassador on Friday. Why Elon? It is a clear message to Iran that Trump is serious about engaging them diplomatically because he sent a guy that all of the world knows is a new best friend of Donald. Iran will not be wondering if Elon is speaking on his own. Nope. Elon is doing so with the blessing of Donald Trump. By engaging Iran, Trump is trying to prevent a war, not hasten one.
The frantic freakout underway over Trump’s nominations of some junior Neo-cons and war hawks has led to widespread condemnation among the anti-war crowd. While I share their alarm at the names of Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Michael Waltz as folks who are on the record advocating stupid military responses to Russia, Iran and China, let me suggest another way to look at this. Trump’s rapid appointments of his cabinet — the fastest in Presidential history — may be intended as a negotiating ploy, with the Deep State and foreign governments.
What do I mean? I believe Trump’s nominations of what can be charitably described as hardliners, is intended to set a benchmark or signal to other countries — i.e., he’s going to be tough. Yet, at the same time he appears to be assembling a war cabinet, Trump dispatches Musk to chat with the Iranians. Art of the deal? Check out the following video from 2015. Trump is talking about trying to make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. You will be surprised to learn who he says is the party not serious about negotiating:
Trump vid 2015 here
I believe that the FBI’s announcement on November 8 — three days after Trump’s victory — of an alleged Iranian plot to kill an Iranian American journalist was part of an intelligence information operation to manufacture a casus belli to attack Iran. I wrote about this plot in my last post (read here). I have checked with a retired FBI agent, a retired CIA case officer and a senior former DEA agent and asked them to critique my analysis. They all agreed with my conclusion — i.e., the 2019 bust of Farhad Shakeri in Sri Lanka, while trying to move 92 kilos of heroin, was done with the help of DEA and DEA then recruited Shakeri and CC-1 to become confidential informants. Shakeri apparently was directed to move to Iran and get a job in order to create his bona fides as an Iranian intelligence asset. It is likely that the CIA played a role in orchestrating this operation.
Why? This was part of a broader effort to create a reason to attack Iran and present Donald Trump with a war before he could assume the Presidency. Well, that plan appears to be falling apart. Trump dispatched Elon Musk to NYC to talk to Iran’s UN Ambassador on Friday. Why Elon? It is a clear message to Iran that Trump is serious about engaging them diplomatically because he sent a guy that all of the world knows is a new best friend of Donald. Iran will not be wondering if Elon is speaking on his own. Nope. Elon is doing so with the blessing of Donald Trump. By engaging Iran, Trump is trying to prevent a war, not hasten one.
The frantic freakout underway over Trump’s nominations of some junior Neo-cons and war hawks has led to widespread condemnation among the anti-war crowd. While I share their alarm at the names of Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Michael Waltz as folks who are on the record advocating stupid military responses to Russia, Iran and China, let me suggest another way to look at this. Trump’s rapid appointments of his cabinet — the fastest in Presidential history — may be intended as a negotiating ploy, with the Deep State and foreign governments.
What do I mean? I believe Trump’s nominations of what can be charitably described as hardliners, is intended to set a benchmark or signal to other countries — i.e., he’s going to be tough. Yet, at the same time he appears to be assembling a war cabinet, Trump dispatches Musk to chat with the Iranians. Art of the deal? Check out the following video from 2015. Trump is talking about trying to make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. You will be surprised to learn who he says is the party not serious about negotiating:
I discussed some of the Trump picks with Nima and with the Judge and Ray McGovern today. I did not have a chance to present the thesis outlined above. Not saying it is correct. Just suggesting another way to look at what is unfolding. Trump’s rapid organization of his administration is without precedent. Unlike previous Presidents, he is under no pressure to pay off big donors. He came into the election with a plan in mind and has moved quickly to implement it. What is that plan? All of us on the outside can only speculate, but I am pretty sure that Trump is not throwing darts at a board filled with pictures and names. We will have a better idea come January 21st whether he was making terrible errors in judgment or following a plan. I will leave it to you to debate.
Re: Larry J: Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?
Seems like more cope to me; "junior neocons" and his idea Trump is merely singalling or a negotiating ploy look like an inability to face facts. Berletic's take was much more honest.
Greenwald cut this idea down here, as noted down in the comments:
Anyone who appoints Mike Rogers to run the FBI - after he's arguably been the single most ardent, blind and extremist defender of the US Security State and its surveillance and politicized abuses - should forfeit forever any claim to be interested in combatting those agencies:
I find Larry Johnson the least convincing of the various regular bods on the judge's show although I'm interested in his info on the "Iranian" asset that may or may not have been given a legend by the FBI (although them being the agency in charge of such a thing doesn't make any sense and is very unlikely).
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: Larry J: Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?
Wait and see is one thing; fine. If that's the stance then he wouldn't be ascribing all these anti-deep state motives to the people being picked who are either amoral politcal opportunists or full on war-hawks/idealogues depending on who we are looking at. Same with Ritter and his ridiculous defence of Gaetz the other day.
Greenwald's point is clear as day; you don't pick someone who represents the exact opposite of everything you profess as the head the office most connected with that particular area of your policies. If you do that, then you are clearly lying and doing the opposite of what you (Trump) are saying. It's pretty much irrefutable.
As for being focussed on one person, look at the thread where I posted links to the work Michael Tracey has been doing on the prospective cabinet and the whole picture emerges. It's like a bunch of sheep looking at a pack of Wolves at the edge of the nearby woods and saying "Well, they look like Wolves but let's let them get closer and see what they do; they might be friendly" (not that we are sheep or can do anything about it anyway).
Of course we have to wait and see what they actually do but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what they have already done, over their entire career and based on that, painting them as representing the ideas given in all the campaign rhetoric (anti-war when they are war hawks, pro-peace when they are zionist lunatics, etc.) is just foolish. ...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: Larry J: Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?
All of them ask similar questions in line with our 'debate'. These pundits are grappling with the same issues. Hoping we can all emerge at the other end unscathed i.e. not turned into crisp, and we can do a post-mortem on this period thereafter : ).
Re: Larry J: Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?
Hoping we can all emerge at the other end unscathed i.e. not turned into crisp, and we can do a post-mortem on this period thereafter : ).
I will definitely vote for that!
I'm still working through that last crop of Crooke et. al. Looks interesting. ...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: Larry J: Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?
I looked at GG's link from Basil. Not convinced, and also being focussed on one individual. More of the same. Like I said, most of us haven't got that crystal ball. I'll wait meself, being the lesser of the species
on November 17, 2024, 4:38 pm