Bamford theorizes Iraq is giant Iranian intel sting against US

[greenman3610]

Anyone catch this?

video from Keith Olberman-
james Bamford theorizes about Iraq as a gigantic
Iranian intel sting against the US...
ie.
Chalabi is Iranian agent. Chalabi
feeds US distorted intel, helping draw US into war
against Iran's enemy number one.
US knocks out Saddam, and gets itself bloodied and bogged down in the
process. Iran picks up a rich, powerful Shiite Ally on its
flank, and strengthens control by right wing
Mullahs in the bargain.


http://www.corvusworld.com/corvuswire/cleanbreak.wmv

I put this theory to Juan Cole a few years ago and he
poo pooed it. Interesting to note that Bamford takes it
seriously.

[megatherium]

1. I believe Bamford has this exactly correct. nt

[aquart]

2. Well, it sure turned out that way.

[leveymg]

3. So, how is having the threat of a StratCom strike against Iran helping

Iran? Yes, clearly and predictably Iran was going to be a major beneficiary of the downfall of Saddam and the breakup of Iraq, the majority of which was going to become a Shi'a close ally of Iran.

But, how does Tehran benefit from threats of a first-strike by the US and Israel against its nuclear program? Unless, of course, that keeps the Iranian Right-wing in power. But, is that really what the neocons want, too? After all, Chalabi was working with the neocons and Mossad to stovepipe phony Iraq and Iran WMD intel into the White House. Are the mullahs working with Mossad and BushCo, again; Iran-Contra, redux?

Bamford's a smart man, but this one has a lot of threads that need to be tied up before its a REALLY convincing explanation.

[jmowreader]

4. Give me a break

Chalabi's out for himself. He doesn't work for the Iranians. (He might take money from them, but he's not loyal to anyone save Ahmad Chalabi.)

Chalabi wanted to run Iraq, damn the consequences. (I was going to set up this big Chalabi = Gollum comparison, but we all know Chalabi is not Gollum--Chalabi has more hair and wears clothes.) The only way to do it was to run Saddam off. Chalabi fed all this bullshit to the US, and Bush--who was getting bored chasing Osama around Afghanistan--grabbed onto it.

The aftermath of the initial invasion was fairly predictable: the US figured out just how big of a crook Chalabi is, the Shia majority in Southern Iraq (which is sympathetic to Iran) rose up, and the Iranians gained a foothold in Iraq.

[teryang]

5. Getting foreign policy advice from Chalabi and pro-Zionists in

...the defense and lobbying sectors was unlikely to produce results in our national interests. We've ended up with the kind of polarization we have now by adopting extremist policies. The neo-cons abandoned a moderately pro-Israel policy which balanced the need for even handedness on the world stage, against support of a traditional pro-western state for an extremist policy. The latter is permanently damaging American security interests in several dimensions.

Imposing our will on the mideast by force will ultimately weaken us severely and make us vulernable to security threats indefinitely around the world.

[loudsue]

6. So true, teryang. Until dubya, all U.S. presidents had the intelligence

and presence of mind to stay the hell out of the mideast hornets nest, except to broker peace agreements.

Dubya and his neocon cabal were just so fucking stupid, they had to try to bat down the hornet's nest with a broomstick, just to watch the wasps in the nest go fucking nuts.

He blew up frogs as a kid, too. The neocons probably ALL tortured small critters as kids. You can tell by the way they act.

Getting in the middle of the mideast territorial, tribal politics was the STUPIDEST thing any American president ever did.

:kick::kick::kick: