Who Ya Gonna Believe: Would You Buy A Used Iran Terror Plot From The Man?

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Can we trust the increasingly bizarre stories our government tells us?

Leave it to the US military-industrial complex to create sympathy for Iran.

The recent allegation that Iran is behind a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on US soil has been met with considerable skepticism—even by the usually docile US corporate media. Not only are folks skeptical, but they’re also feeling bad for Iran, given the real possibility that Iran is the victim of character assassination.

Why? Because the alleged plot doesn’t make any sense. Because the US establishment has high motivation to create reasons for attacking Iran. Because fabrications and false flag attack scenarios have been proposed or tried before—again and again—often with great success.

First off, let it be said that the Iranian leadership is theoretically capable of anything, and that many regimes are. There’s a remote chance that this whole thing is real, notwithstanding how foolish a gambit it would be.

The greater likelihood, however, is that this is something else. Some kind of deliberately conjured cassus belli.

It also comes at a convenient time—diverting attention from a real story about a regime with ties to terrorists. But, instead of a Saudi being a victim, in this other story, Saudis are the perpetrators.

IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL

Here’s an easy way to understand seemingly complex foreign policy: it’s all about oil. Nothing is more important—to continuing the current “American way of life,” to the financial fortunes of the top one percent in this country, and to the US military, which is the world’s #1 consumer of Middle East oil.

When the military-industrial-financial complex is mad at a regime, it is never really about the beliefs or values of the regime, or the way it treats its people. It is always about “legitimate national interests” of the United States (most speeches mention this but don’t explain what it means)—and humanitarian or moral considerations don’t match “national interest.”

The “kooky” Iranian leadership, who wouldn’t be out of place in the freak shows known as Republican Presidential debates, has actually proven itself supremely practical in most matters. Its objective is to remain in power. So it does things that enhance that possibility, and eschews ludicrous schemes that could only get it into deep hot water. The latter is a perfect description of this scheme.

Students of American history know that the “fake-out” is a reliable staple. Whether the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, or the fabricated “humanitarian” motive for intervening to secure the overthrow of Libya’s Qaddafi, when the US leadership has wanted to justify military action, it has always found a way—and had no reservations about creating false incidents and narratives. These never fooled the “enemy;” only the American people and a perennially captive and cooperative establishment media.

Meanwhile, the government, not surprisingly, is rolling out whatever guns it can in support of its claims. But consider who’s backing them. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey was invited to give his views by the often skeptical Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC. Woolsey, it should be remembered, was part of the neocon group agitating for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein—WMDs or no WMDs. On Ratigan’s show, he declared it “highly likely” that the Iranian leadership was behind this, citing various examples of what he said was a propensity to assassinate foreigners. Ratigan did express skepticism about the scenario—Iran using Mexicans on American soil. Woolsey fatuously said it was probably because “we live in an open society” and it would therefore be much easier to carry out in the US.

Perhaps the best counter-analysis can be found here, on the PBS Frontline website, from the independent “virtual” news organization TehranBureau, and written by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI, a USC chemistry professor who has been writing about Iran, its nuclear program and its domestic developments for many years….

I am highly skeptical about the entire episode. In fact, the more I learn about the claim and the indictment, the more I think this may be a classic case of entrapment on the part of the FBI/DEA agents, of the kind that has happened too many times in the past in the United States to be ignored.

… although the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] has carried out assassination operations beyond Iranian borders, some of which I have described here and here, they targeted Iranian dissidents, not foreign diplomats. Even at the height of the assassination wave, the IRI did not go after non-Iranians. It is keenly aware that it is under the American microscope. It is thus hard to believe that the IRI would actually embark on such a useless assassination involving a low-level, non-player individual, dealing with people that they do not know.

Furthermore, the IRI ended its foreign assassinations in the mid-1990s. And, with a single exception more than 30 years ago, the IRI avoided carrying out any such plots on U.S. soil…..

Meantime, it certainly is convenient that we are asked to feel sympathy for a Saudi official under “threat” from rogues. Because there’s another story, and it has been almost uniformly ignored by the corporate media—but could cause the Saudis and the Saudi-American relationship real problems if it is not kept obscured by disinformation that muddies the waters.

In this story, there is also terrorism, but the victim is not the Saudi elite—it is the average American. And the perpetrator is not the Iranian state, but figures connected to the Saudi state. It is our reporting about documented connections between the 9/11 hijackers and one of the most powerful Saudi princes, via a house in Sarasota, Florida. You can, and should, read that story here.

Then note that the Saudis are pledging to exact retribution for this alleged plot, stating that Iran will “pay the price.” If the Saudis feel there’s enough evidence in this flimsy scenario to hit back hard, perhaps our gallant media might want to ask them to comment on the Sarasota 9/11 links?

GRAPHIC: http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8h4Zno7jcnqC5bulZWTbcgu5_M71NKdRufcBi9ndFkEj_WbpXajOdc9rg

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

20 responses to “Who Ya Gonna Believe: Would You Buy A Used Iran Terror Plot From The Man?”

  1. Bruce K says:

    The “all about oil” thesis that I see so much of needs to be developed and defined … proved, intead of continually asserted with nodding heads and knowing glances.

    For one thing, without oil the US would be in much worse problems than we are today and with no hope to bring back jobs, factories or prosperity.

    For another thing there are part of the world that will have to change drastically from what they are today for the world to move forward and no one directly knows exactly what to do or how to do it, but doing it evolves a process that might lead to come kind of progress, and doing nothing leads nowhere … from experience.

  2. WarDepartment says:

    Russ: You left out the mother of all attempted  false-flag attacks on U.S. soil:  the JFK assassination.  It appears that part of the scheme was to paint the designated  patsy Lee Oswald as a “leftist,” with a trail of phony evidence leading to Castro’s Cuba.  The assassination would sway  public opinion in favor of a U.S. attack on Cuba, which was the aim of the Pentagon’s earlier “Operation Northwoods”  that JFK nixed.

  3. calpatriot says:

    Mr. Baker, you seem afraid to mention the biggest false flag of them all. You just dance around it. We all know what it was. And we can be pretty sure that the Saudis didn’t drop Building 7–an incident that hopefully you will discuss someday. 

    But at least you are talking about the false flag tactic, which is a step in the right direction. 

    • Russwnyc says:

      we all don’t “know what it was.” Your certainty is proof you are not a journalist. You read stuff posted online and you believe it. I stood in front of that building and saw it collapse and to this day remain unsure what happened. I’ve spoken to building experts and heard a broad range of analyses, certainly no consensus. More research–by truly open-minded serious investigators, not those starting from a preconceived position–needs to take place. And if you support truly open-minded inquiry, then get your checkbook out, calpatriot. This kind of work is time consuming and costly. Your move.

    • calpatriot says:

      My conclusions are far from preconceived. It took me years of my own research and careful consideration to come to this understanding. But anyone watching that building drop should know that buildings don’t do that without a lot of help. They just 
      don’t. That’s probably why Dan Rather called it for what it was when he saw it on 9/11, comparing it to a controlled demolition. As for the serious investigation, the time for that would have been when all the evidence, the pile of rubble, was still there. But guess what? Mayor Giuliani had all the evidence destroyed–over the bitter protests of fire and building safety experts who wanted the steel saved to learn why three skyscrapers completely collapsed supposedly due to fire–something which has never happened in the history of steel framed buildings. The destruction of this evidence is a crime in itself. But we still have the videos, and they show a building in free fall acceleration for more than a hundred feet. Even NIST, which took seven years to put out a scientifically fraudulent report, was forced to admit this. That means that nothing was holding it up. Simple high school physics. All the structural supports on a number of floors were removed simultaneously. How do you do that without controlled demolition Russwnyc? And then there is Siverstein’s admission on PBS that they “pulled” the building and watched it come down, which he later recanted. More than 150 firemen, police, journalists, and building occupants are on record saying they heard or experienced explosions. Have you listened to them? How about Barry Jennings’ account? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI He was in WTC 7 when a huge blast went off BEFORE the twin towers collapsed. Watch and listen then get back to me. I have done my work, and yes I know what happened with great certainly.

    • Larrypayne says:

      calpatriot, Russ already knows all of what you are saying here. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have the skills required to be a  journalist. The videos of all three buildings falling is absolute visual proof of explosive demolition. You don’t have to be a physicist to see that.

      If the media wasn’t so totally complicit in the coverup this would have been public knowledge on the day it happened. The huge media corporations are as much an enemy to the American people as the actual perpetrators.

      Russ has to deal with those corporations to some degree in pursuing his livelihood. Even most of the alleged progressive websites are gatekeepers on 9/11. Maybe some day he will decide to chuck it all and join us. Paul Craig Roberts did.

    • calpatriot says:

      Of course I know this. Freedom is just a word for nothing left to lose. I am at least grateful that Mr. Baker does not censor comments on his website like so many others. Cheers.

    • Pfgetty says:

      Good point…………..we all point to the politicians as being the bad guys, but the media is right in there with them, purposely keeping this information from the American people.  It is preposterous that they would do this, and actually criminal.  The information should be presented, officially, to the American people.  This evidence, all of it, belongs to all Americans.  Shielding it from us is treason.  Nobody owns this evidence other than the American people.

    • Russwnyc says:

      Mr. Payne, a frequent commenter on this site, apparently has nothing better to do than cast aspersions on the very few journalists who constantly risk their “livelihood” and who make professional sacrifices on a regular basis. He has absolutely no grounds for speculation  about why I (or other journalists whom he does not know) do or do not come to certain conclusions in our work.  Frankly, it’s a rather cowardly and pathetic routine, and typical of a troll to argue with those who are doing good work, rather than with those who aren’t.

      We reserve the right to wish him well and suggest he move on to what he will undoubtedly perceive as greener pastures.  

    • Larrypayne says:

      I’m replying to Russwnyc below.

      Russ, I am not a frequent commenter on your site.
      I’m not sure anyone is by the number of comments you get overall.

      I originally visited this site because I had purchased your book, “Family of Secrets,” and was impressed by all the research you had done and the courage it took to reveal the sordid past of Poppy Bush.

      I thought you might consider 9/11 as worthy a project as the Kennedy assassination. I was disappointed when you would not even admit that it was a false flag event.

      I think most of your potential audience know that 9/11 was an inside job and if you say you don’t know that it was then most of that audience will go to other websites in search of truth.

      That’s what I’m gonna do.

    • Russwnyc says:

      Would you please share with us precisely how you “do your work”? What specific steps have you taken? Who have you interviewed? What documents have you obtained? How have you personally advanced the body of available information?

    • calpatriot says:

      I know you won’t like this answer Russwnyc but it’s a citizen’s job to educate himself, it’s not mine. If you are for real, you have apparently not done it in the ten years since 9/11, so my guess is you never will. And don’t wait for the corporate media to do it for you. That will be a very long wait. Best regards.

    • Barbara says:

      There does seem to be a consensus among these building experts, Russ:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

    • Pfgetty says:

      Yes, it is odd that so many journalists, the alternative types, will jump on stories like WMD and the underwear bomber and this Iranian plat as very suspicious, but will do all they can to avoid any mention of the gigantic body of evidence that proves, beyond any doubt at all, that the official story of 9/11 is a lie and a massive coverup has taken place.  It is so obvious to anyone who has looked at the issue.  Baker and others could not possibly miss it. 
      So, what has happened?  It is an enigma.  We would assume Russ Baker is a pretty honest and hardworking guy.  So why is he censoring himself on 9/11?  What in the world would make him do this, and still let him mouth off about other similiar but less important issues, like this one?
      I don’t get it.  I know there is pressure, but what kind?  Are there some journalists who were just like Baker, basically lying in that he avoided the issue of 9/11, and then made a turnaround and came out and told us why he was withholding this information and his knowledge from the American people?  Are there really no honest and good and forthright journalists out there who succumbed to the pressure, and then realized it was criminal to do so? 
      I wonder what these journalists will think if one day it becomes obvious that 9/11 was an inside job, when the whole world knows it for sure, and these journalists have to tell their grandkids why they joined in on the conspiracy to lie about 9/11, allowing the fraud to be used to kill millions, maim innocent people, deconstruct our constitutional rights, and generally destroy what America used to stand for.  They may be talking to their grandkids through bars.

  4. leftheaded says:

    I’ve noticed that the false flag operations since the anthrax attacks have been orders to be foiled since 9/11. I suspect the MIC knows that the majority of Americas will not buy the next successful one. 

  5. Orangutan. says:

    I wish you and your team could get to the bottom of that Sarasota 9/11 Truth story.  There is much to learn there I think, and I’d like to know.

    Peace.
    http://www.911Blogger.com

  6. MorrisTN says:

    There is a short video on the modern history of Iran on Brasscheck TV
    well worth watching for all of those that don’t know the history
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/iranus-sabre-rattling/the-modern-history-of-iran.html

  7. DRL says:

    What if this most implausible bit of theatrics was designed to discredit the Obama administration? No matter what Obama does now, given the widespread skepticism over the story, he’s going to have egg on his face.

    And / or, what if some factions in the US needed to come up with a wild story, fast, implicating Iran, in order, hopefully, to drown out the news that’s being revealed by the Guardian and Independent, of Fox & Werrity’s close affiliation with US neocons, and ties to Iranian opposition and Mossad? — those two articles are likely to create something of a stir, I should think.

    Interesting times …

    • Tammin says:

      I am not sure we really need an “implausible bit of theatrics” to discredit the Obama administration.  I think they have managed that on their own by turning their back on every guiding principle of their election campaign.

  8. Guest says:

    my butt smells funny and it itches