RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Kiriakou writes: "We have to be diligent in opposing this run into another war of choice. We can't be tricked or taken by surprise. Not again."

President Trump with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, both of whom are pushing for aggressive action against Iran. (photo: Getty)
President Trump with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, both of whom are pushing for aggressive action against Iran. (photo: Getty)


The Coming US War Against Iran

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

04 May 18

 

spent nearly 15 years in the CIA. I like to think that I learned something there. I learned how the federal bureaucracy works. I learned that cowboys in government – in the CIA and elsewhere around government – can have incredible power over the creation of policy. I learned that the CIA will push the envelope of legality until somebody in a position of authority pushes back. I learned that the CIA can wage war without any thought whatsoever as to how things will work out in the end. There’s never an exit strategy.

I learned all of that firsthand in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. In the spring of 2002, I was in Pakistan working against al-Qaeda. I returned to CIA headquarters in May of that year and was told that several months earlier a decision had been made at the White House to invade Iraq. I was dumbfounded, and when told of the war plans could only muster, “But we haven’t caught bin Laden yet.” “The decision has already been made,” my supervisor told me. He continued, “Next year, in February, we’re going to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and open the world’s largest air force base in southern Iraq.” He went on, “We’re going to go to the United Nations and pretend that we want a Security Council Resolution. But the truth is that the decision has already been made.”

Soon after, Secretary of State Colin Powell began traveling around Europe and the Middle East to cultivate support for the invasion. Sure enough, he also went to the United Nations and argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, necessitating an invasion and overthrow because that country posed an imminent threat to the United States.

But the whole case was built on a lie. A decision was made and then the “facts” were created around the decision to support it. I think the same thing is happening now.

First, Donald Trump said repeatedly during the 2016 campaign that he would pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran sanctions deal. The JCPOA allows for international inspectors to examine all of Iran’s nuclear sites to ensure that the country is not enriching uranium and is not building a weapons program. In exchange, Western countries have lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing them to buy spare parts, medicines, and other things that they had been unable to acquire. Despite the protestations of conservatives in Congress and elsewhere, the JCPOA works. Indeed, the inspection regime is exactly the same one that the United Nations imposed on Iraq in the last two decades.

Trump has kept up his anti-Iran rhetoric since becoming president. More importantly, he has appointed Iran hawks to the two most important positions in foreign policy: former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton as National Security Advisor. The two have made clear that their preferred policy toward Iran is “regime change,” a policy that is actually prohibited by international law.

Perhaps the most troubling development, however, is the apparent de facto alliance against Iran by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent “presentation” on what he called a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program was embarrassingly similar to Powell’s heavily scripted speech before the UN Security Council 15 years earlier telling the world that Iraq had a program. That, too, was a lie.

Saudi crown prince Muhammad bin Salman, the godfather of the Saudi war in Yemen, which in turn is a proxy war against Iran, recently made a grand tour of the United States and France talking about “the Iranian threat” at every turn. The rhetoric coming out of the UAE and Bahrain is at least as hostile as what has been spewed by the Saudis.

Meanwhile, there’s silence on Capitol Hill. Just like there was in 2002.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that I’ve seen this before. Our government is laying the groundwork for yet another war. Be on the lookout for several things. First, Trump is going to begin shouting about the “threat” from Iran. It will become a daily mantra. He’ll argue that Iran is actively hostile and poses an immediate danger to the United States. Next Pompeo will head back to the Middle East and Europe to garner support for a military action. Then US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley will scream in front of the UN Security Council that the US has no choice but to protect itself and its allies from Iran. The final shoe to drop – a clear indication of war – will be if naval carrier battle groups are deployed to the eastern Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, or the Persian Gulf. Sure, there’s always one in the region anyway. But more than one is a provocation.

We have to be diligent in opposing this run into another war of choice. We can’t be tricked or taken by surprise. Not again.



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+55 # laborequalswealth 2018-05-04 08:55
Ah. Yes. Because America doesn't need:
+ Affordable health care
+ Affordable housing
+ Affordable college education
+ Unpolluted land, food, water & air

Nope. None of the above.

What America REALLY needs is another.multi-b illion.$$$.war war war war war.
 
 
+32 # Michaeljohn 2018-05-04 09:51
Right, and North Korea will dig in even deeper in resolve never to give up their nuclear capability.
 
 
-50 # bardphile 2018-05-04 09:54
Well, that's one side of it. I don't want war either, but I wonder what John's solution is to the inevitable event (if no one stops them) of Iran getting the bomb and the means to deliver it?
 
 
+31 # palaherb@gmail.com 2018-05-04 11:18
There is an agreement in place which has verifiable inspections. Perhaps the agreement i not perfect, however it has been effective in stopping the production of potential nuclear bombs. The opportunity for the nations involved to modify the agreement, to make it tighter, to extend it, etc. exists. The "bird" is in the hand. It would be the abrogation of the treaty, i.e., bad faith, that would greatly enhance the potential for war in the Middle East and beyond.
 
 
+35 # economagic 2018-05-04 11:49
How is it "inevitable" that Iran will "get the bomb"? All credible sources, to the best of my knowledge, agree that Iran is upholding its responsibilitie s under JCPOA (which prohibits any program that could lead to weapons grade fissionable material), and it is difficult to imagine how the inspection regime would miss signs of a change in policy.
 
 
+26 # chrisconno 2018-05-04 11:50
Maybe Iran will keep us from attacking and invading them. We are after all the only country to have ever dropped not one but two on civilian cities. And we are constantly threatening to wage war on anybody who threatens our way of life by not wanting us to exploit their resources. We are the biggest threat to world peace which Trump and the republicans are highly motivated by profit to never have peace as a goal.
 
 
+8 # DudeistPriest 2018-05-05 13:11
Quoting bardphile:
Well, that's one side of it. I don't want war either, but I wonder what John's solution is to the inevitable event (if no one stops them) of Iran getting the bomb and the means to deliver it?


Yeah heaven forbid they get a bomb, then the US and Israel couldn't bomb them with impunity.
 
 
+35 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-05-04 09:59
Very true. It is great to have Kiriakou's experience on how these things work. But I think he is fudging something. He writes, "a decision had been made at the White House to invade Iraq. " I'm sure that is how it was termed at the CIA. But "at the White House" literally means GW Bush. I doubt that Bush made any decisons. Probably Cheney did, but it must have been more than just Cheney.

Who really made this decision to invade and destroy Iraq? I'd like to see what Kiriakou has to say on this. My bet is that Israel and Saudi Arabia had a lot to do with the decision. Both hated Saddam for some reason. Saddam never did anything against either one.

As Kiriakou suggests, a decision probably has been made about Iran. Trump did not make it. He's too ignorant and inexperienced to know why this war would be important. There are people at the Pentagon who don't want this war because they cannot win it. The right wing think tankers want it.

There is no doubt that Trump and Hayley will be chanting about a threat from Iran. But who is giving them the script? Both are too stupid to think this up on their own. Who really wants this war. The risks are enormous. Iran will be backed by Iraq, Syria, and possibly Russia and China. Iran has 80 million people who will never surrender. The US can bomb Iran into the stone age, but it cannot defeat them. Who does not care about these risks?
 
 
-12 # Farafalla 2018-05-04 11:55
I can’t ever give you thumbs up knowing your every post is the Putin line on whatever the subject.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2018-05-04 14:09
Quoting Farafalla 2018-05-04 11:55:
I can’t ever give you thumbs up knowing your every post is the Putin line on whatever the subject.

- i know just what ya mean!

when putin's ace troll-farm team, a/k/a rr, is not busy 1) protecting perfectly-peace able putin's perfect rep, or 2) setting progressives against each other, our a-team 3) is merely triangulating everything else every "greater progressive" like me wants to hear

for being our echo chamber i find i can't down-thumb what our a-team says, but since a-team is really just reading my mind, i don't have to read, either, to see what i already think - know that i mean?

mostly when a-team speaks i just kinda check out, phase-out, tune-out - i don't even skim most offerings - i treat most a-team posts like u f o sightings - i saw something but i don't know what it was! - i skip 'em!

yet with apologies i could miss something! - for reading a-team's prolific posts, you "can’t ever give thumbs up knowing every post is the Putin line" i owe you a debt of gratitude, thanks!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2018-05-04 17:12
You know you act more like a troll than anyone here, right?

What is your goal here?
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2018-05-05 06:58
Seriously. Look at EVERY OTHER COMMENT. What do they have in common, that you do not have?

They talk about the article.

But YOUR comments rarely talk about the content. Of the dozens of posts you've made, I estimate 2 or 3 have addressed the material at hand and made a legitimate statement about the article.

Instead, you harass other commenters. Is that a personal hobby or are you being paid?

"knowing your every post is the Putin line"

Also, I suspect you don't understand what the word 'know' means.
 
 
+6 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-05-04 19:59
For sure, Putin does not want a war against Iran. He also wants the war against Syria to stop. Damn, that Putin. He happens to be correct two times.
 
 
+19 # banichi 2018-05-04 14:07
Rodion - actually, a book published in 2004 (Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (2004), ISBN 0-670-03264-6) but written before that, mentions that in interviews with W, Phillips states that he said that once he was president, he would "start a little war" though I don't recall that he said with which country. The implication was that he had planned to do this long before he was elected.

I am very sure that Cheney was instrumental in making it happen, given his history, but also Saudi Arabia and Israel, as you say.

I think what is important here is the reality that our wars have been started out of factors that have nothing to do with the national security of the U.S., most notably the urging of, and payments by, the arms manufacturers and the MICC in general. We are, after all, the biggest bully in the world, and as some character in the movie "Shooter" said, "The truth is what I say it is!" I think it was the Senator.

As always, I try to follow the money. That has been the reason for more violence and wars by this country than any other. Spreading democracy has become only a cover and sad excuse for intervention and regime change.

Long run, an Iran adventure will probably backfire, since I don't think North Korea's Kim is stupid when it comes to noticing that countries we pressure into giving up nuclear weapons get regime changed.
 
 
+2 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-05-05 07:08
Thanks for this reference. I actually like Kevin Philips work. He's a republican who came in out of the cold. He's sort of like Paul Craig Roberts.

It is crazy to think that the US starts wars on the personal whims of total idiots like Bush or Trump. but I guess that is probably true around the world. Saudi Arabia and Israel are the same.
 
 
-6 # DudeistPriest 2018-05-05 13:16
LOL! Paul Craig Roberts? I read his stuff for the laughs. He reminds me of Chicken Little, albeit a very racist, misogynistic Chicken Little.
 
 
+7 # yolo 2018-05-05 13:08
There is another book recently published, Iraq and the Politics of Oil: An Insider's Perspective by Gary Vogler. Which goes a long way in helping to understand the decision making process behind our intervention in the middle east. For a country to maintain it's power it needs access to the raw materials which sustain it. That raw material is oil. Also there is the fact that the two countries which attempted to sell their oil in other than US dollar has been attacked (Iraq & Libya), and guess what Iran just went off the dollar for oil standard.
 
 
+1 # DudeistPriest 2018-05-05 13:23
The decision may have been made before F*cking Moron, but he supports it 1000%. After all his nemesis, Obomber, made the agreement, and the raison de etre for his presidency is to undo everything Obummer did.
 
 
+19 # zakcat@ptd.net 2018-05-04 11:37
During the 1990s, a think tank wrote a paper called "Project for a New American Century". It called for WAR against Iran, Iraq and N.Korea, but concluded it wasn't possible due to lack of 'sufficient provocation'. Well, we got the Iraq war. One down. Cheney and friends, by the way, authored and presented the paper to Congress during Clinton admin.
 
 
+10 # tedrey 2018-05-04 12:42
It also targeted Libya and Syria. They're still working on it. They're still at it.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2018-05-04 17:14
I think Iran is the last one left on the PNAC list.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2018-05-04 20:47
"Project for a New American Century" WAS the "think tank," a rogues' gallery of Bush officials and acolytes, and they referred to the "sufficient provocation" they laced as (for example) "a new Pearl Harbor." That is also the title of a well balanced 2004 book by retired philosophy professor (Claremont Theolog) David Ray Griffin. The web site was shut down in 2006, but many of their papers are still available on the internet, and most of the rest on hard disks the world over.
 
 
+3 # Jim Young 2018-05-06 08:58
Quoting economagic:
"Project for a New American Century" WAS the "think tank," a rogues' gallery of Bush officials and acolytes, and they referred to the "sufficient provocation" they laced as (for example) "a new Pearl Harbor." That is also the title of a well balanced 2004 book by retired philosophy professor (Claremont Theolog) David Ray Griffin. The web site was shut down in 2006, but many of their papers are still available on the internet, and most of the rest on hard disks the world over.


PNAC was renamed in 2006, emerging as the "Foreign Policy Initiative" much like some airlines change their names after a crash (ValuJet became AirTran) or at least retire the flight number.

Another name change, ENRON remnants are doing business as the less noticeable EOG Resources (Enron Oil and Gas Resources).
 
 
+23 # BetaTheta 2018-05-04 11:41
Also, the increasing legal pressure on Trump may make a "wag the dog" option appealing to him. Nothing like a nice war to get "patriots" supporting the commander-in-ch ief, and everyone else intimidated.
 
 
+4 # Robbee 2018-05-04 12:48
Quoting BetaTheta:
Also, the increasing legal pressure on Trump may make a "wag the dog" option appealing to him. Nothing like a nice war to get "patriots" supporting the commander-in-chief, and everyone else intimidated.


- that's precisely why iran, and don't forget n. korea, must fear election years, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHEN DICKHEAD NEEDS A BOOST IN POPULARITY!
 
 
+14 # windrider 2018-05-04 12:59
Just a note on Cheney's justification for the Iraq war; I saw him say in a televised interview that if Saddam gets the bomb "he will use it to defend himself". I was shocked at the time that he would phrase it like that. Seems hard to justify war when the opponent is simply intending to defend. It seems the definition of patriot is to be a proponent of perpetual war.
 
 
+6 # giraffee23 2018-05-04 13:49
Hopefully trump will hold whatever reason he and bolton want to go to war until after Nov 2018. But "hope" is all we have with the liar-in-chief, crazy, impulsive, etc so called pResident.

When we find out how trump won the swing states - will it be too late to save democracy? I worry.

Anyway -- VOTE and get all who can vote to the polls in all elections (local, state, fed, school, county, etc) to make sure good people are elected rather than those supported by BIG $$.

Stay strong Ginsberg until we can get you help. I salute you.
 
 
+8 # allanmillard 2018-05-04 14:39
Kiriakou is right to be alarmed. A factor not mentioned is the desperation in Israel. The Syrian regime change has failed. Sergei Lavrov has said that Russia may arm Syria with the latest anti-aircraft missiles, which would likely give serious pause to even the most hawkish of Israel's generals.

Now that Iran has become the bête noire du jour for the USA and Israel, the best move to prevent war might be for Russia to similarly arm Iran with the best defensive weapons. And as Lavrov was careful to say regarding Syria, because of western attacks on Syria there is no moral barrier to Russia's thinking on deterrence there. The same applies to Iran (past Israeli air raids) and the false USA narrative about Iran being an aggressor. I think it is correct to say that Iran has not invaded or initiated war against any nation or people - including Israelis - for more than two centuries.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2018-05-04 17:28
"The CIA can wage war without any thought whatsoever as to how things will work out in the end."

This is what stands out to me about the MIIC as run by neocons and neoliberals. How many times have they failed -- and actually made things WORSE? As a matter of fact our current situation with Iran is a direct result of our ham-fisted (and illegal) meddling almost 70 years ago!

We have botched things on five continents. We have killed millions and displaced tens of millions. We have wasted trillions of dollars.

But no one ever learns from it. No one apologizes.No one is punished. No one's career suffers.

And, even more remarkably, the fact that what they're doing is illegal doesn't seem to give them even a moment's pause.

The MIIC hates Trump so much but they're just like him.

And the worst thing of all is that they're bringing their immorality, incompetence and scorn for the law back here to US. They do these things here too.
 
 
+3 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2018-05-04 20:04
Yes, you phrase the real problem very well. We are all worried about the consequences both for us and for the poor people attacked by the US military. But the planners and the rulers of the nation don't give the consequences a single thought. Death and destruction mean nothing to them. So why do we accept leaders like this? I would not want these people doing anything.
 
 
+5 # tedrey 2018-05-05 00:55
Only "5" continents? Have they missed Australia?
 
 
+8 # Aliazer 2018-05-04 18:15
Unless the internal enemy is recognized for what it is and globalists of whatever stripe are routed and destroyed, other wars, including one with Iran is a foregone conclusion!!!

Folks, this country has been stolen from the rank and file and if that is not recognized and nothing is done, these wars will go on and millions of deaths will go on forever!!!
 
 
+4 # elizabethblock 2018-05-05 08:25
If Trump trashes the Iran agreement, then no one - not North Korea, not anyone - will trust the United States to abide by its commitments.
In any case, if Trump meets with Kim, Kim will wipe the floor with him. Trump thinks he's a great negotiator, but how great is he when he's dealing with someone whom he cannot bully, cannot threaten, cannot cheat?
 
 
+1 # DongiC 2018-05-06 05:42
America has just about lost all the good will it gained from its valiant efforts against the Axis hordes during World War II. Now, under the influence of the Military Industrial Complex, it walks the path of empire. Access to raw materials paid for in American dollars, is an extremely high priority, Oppose these and you risk war with the US and its allies.

But resistence to American hegemony of the planet is forming among nations like Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, North Korea and Iran. An attack upon Iran may well precipitate a World War I situation where groups of nations are arrayed against each other. A clash between Serbia and Austria quickly developed into a catastrophic conflict where millions were killed with non nuclear weapons. If they had the nukes, then, we probably wouldn't be here now.

So a different America approaches a showdown with Iran which may result in planetary extinction. Oh, did I mention that the American Chief of State appears to have
more than a few screws loose or that he is a notorious bully with an unquenchable compulsion to lie?

I'm kind of frightened by all of this and wonder what kind of life my children and grandson will have. I want them to prosper but fear they will not. Please guys, put your guns away!
 
 
0 # jazzman633 2018-05-07 11:29
Proposed new law: In any military action initiated by the US, the first to be drafted and sent into combat will be all eligible members of the Administration, Congress, and their families. Let's see if these chickenshit politicians love fighting wars as much as they love starting them.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN