"Scoop" link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00079.htm

UQ Wire: Brzezinski On The Path To War With Iran
Sunday, 11 February 2007, 11:07 pm

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

CONSPIRACY THEORY GOES MAINSTREAM ON THE ROAD TO TEHERAN

The Rationale for War

“…a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…”
Zbigniew Brzezinski 02 Feb 2007

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

(Two quotations from 1 Feb 2006 Foreign Relations Committee (Senate) testimony by Brzezinski fascinate me:)

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

(and)

" A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II. "
[b]
Lets talk. Mike

I am really glad that Michael Collins is branching away from pure election fraud coverage to this kinda stuff. What's the scoop on Scoop? Will Al let you range wherever you want to go?

The irony about Zbigniew Brzezinski talking the anti-Bush talk is not lost on me. He was one of the main architects for U.S. interventionism in the Middle East after the '73 oil embargo, etc. (Rapid Deployment Force, Diego Garcia, confront the Soviets on the "periphery"... the whole nine yards). That the mid-wife of the original policy is so critical of the current "team" is telling. Brzezinski was also the architect of supporting "Islamic Fundamentalism" (of a more right-wing, sunni type as distinguished from the Iranians) to counter "leftists", most notably in Afghanistan.

The dean of Liberal Imperialism calls the current administration "dangerous"? Shit, that is a "man-bites-dog" story.

Here is a little write up on the man in regards to his "policy" on Iran:


The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully," however these reassurances would not amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4th, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski, and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution came to be, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran. President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup, ordered the Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order. A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power 12 February 1979.

In July 1980, Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up 600 of the loyalist plotters within Iran, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup.[14] Saddam decided to invade without the Iranian officers' assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

Apparently, the Bush "pretexts" are not up to the level of the Brzezinski "pretexts"...

waddadick...

.

The list of Brzezinski credentials is the very reason this testimony should send chills through all of us. This is boldness personified, even if a small group sat down and designated that Zbig would be on point here. From thestand point of those in conflict at the top, you have to wonder if press coverage even mattered. I even managed to amuse myself here,

"Reporter Grey complained vigorously about the lack of corporate media coverage for this testimony. This is one of the minor ironies of this event – a Socialist writer advocating for wide spread coverage of one of the most ardent anti-Communists of our time."

To me it indicates that a) Bush has completely lost it, he's out of control and very dangerous and b) the elite in this country needs to take some continuing education courses. They are not doing their job. The notion of a civil war among "management" is, I fully admint, a comforting assumption. It implies that there is actually a "sane" faction of the powerful who might do something about this. Of course, that may be completely wrong so I'll hasten to add one more piece of support for my "management" civil war - Bush/neocon versus the"sane" faction:

Pace Demurs on Accusation of Iran
http://tinyurl.com/2zgvpc
General Says He Knows Nothing Tying Leaders to Arms in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A18

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq.

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. "What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this."

So here we are 12 days after Zbig fires the open salvo, breaks the oath of Omerta...Bush is still pushing hard at his Iranian evidence. He can't find anyone senior in government to sign on to it. What does he do, he announced it himself then sets up a press conference. Just before the press conference, f'ing VOICE OF AMERICA (don't you love it) finds the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, by "coincidence" asks about the claim of top Iranian involvement in supplying the "insurgents." Pace nailed it, performed the service he was probably supposed to perform at the key moment and bingo, Bush has a press conference where he faces a dilemma. Does he a) overrule the good general and force the General to resign or b) suck it up and say, well old "Pacey" or whatever his nickname is for the General, he's probably right. He does neither!!! It's c) the Qods Force - the what? Yep, he says it's them guys, you bet and they're run by, yep, the religious leader of Iran - for $800 fucking dollars too. Come on down W, its alive -- leaders of Iran supply arms to Iraqi insurgents!!!!! Damn, Finnegan begin again!

No wonder the president seemed so focused and alert at the press conference. He had a plan to eat a tiny bit of crow and then revive the original argument with a scary new force lurking in the woods.
------------------------------------

Alastair is cool as long as it looks like some people might read it and it makes sense. Here is the previous iteration of my notion of how things are done http://tinyurl.com/tfu6g

Alastair caused a huge rukkus in NZ himself. This is truly priceless http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00158.htm
and this is a good blow by blow http://tinyurl.com/29zd6o

The list of Brzezinski credentials is the very reason this testimony should send chills through all of us. This is boldness personified, even if a small group sat down and designated that Zbig would be on point here. From thestand point of those in conflict at the top, you have to wonder if press coverage even mattered. I even managed to amuse myself here,

"Reporter Grey complained vigorously about the lack of corporate media coverage for this testimony. This is one of the minor ironies of this event – a Socialist writer advocating for wide spread coverage of one of the most ardent anti-Communists of our time."

To me it indicates that a) Bush has completely lost it, he's out of control and very dangerous and b) the elite in this country needs to take some continuing education courses. They are not doing their job. The notion of a civil war among "management" is, I fully admint, a comforting assumption. It implies that there is actually a "sane" faction of the powerful who might do something about this. Of course, that may be completely wrong so I'll hasten to add one more piece of support for my "management" civil war - Bush/neocon versus the"sane" faction:

Pace Demurs on Accusation of Iran
http://tinyurl.com/2zgvpc
General Says He Knows Nothing Tying Leaders to Arms in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A18

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq.

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a visit to Australia. "What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this."

So here we are 12 days after Zbig fires the open salvo, breaks the oath of Omerta...Bush is still pushing hard at his Iranian evidence. He can't find anyone senior in government to sign on to it. What does he do, he announced it himself then sets up a press conference. Just before the press conference, f'ing VOICE OF AMERICA (don't you love it) finds the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, by "coincidence" asks about the claim of top Iranian involvement in supplying the "insurgents." Pace nailed it, performed the service he was probably supposed to perform at the key moment and bingo, Bush has a press conference where he faces a dilemma. Does he a) overrule the good general and force the General to resign or b) suck it up and say, well old "Pacey" or whatever his nickname is for the General, he's probably right. He does neither!!! It's c) the Qods Force - the what? Yep, he says it's them guys, you bet and they're run by, yep, the religious leader of Iran - for $800 fucking dollars too. Come on down W, its alive -- leaders of Iran supply arms to Iraqi insurgents!!!!! Damn, Finnegan begin again!

No wonder the president seemed so focused and alert at the press conference. He had a plan to eat a tiny bit of crow and then revive the original argument with a scary new force lurking in the woods.
------------------------------------

Alastair is cool as long as it looks like some people might read it and it makes sense. Here is the previous iteration of my notion of how things are done http://tinyurl.com/tfu6g

Alastair caused a huge rukkus in NZ himself. This is truly priceless http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00158.htm
and this is a good blow by blow http://tinyurl.com/29zd6o

What's so strange about "struggle" among management? Isn't personal conspiracy and back stabbing the basic form of succession in corporations? In the bureaucracy? In the military? In politics? Mostly it is cut-throat enough to make Peter the Great's household blush or to put the Manderin court to shame.

I don't think you will find "sane" factions though... Just, more conservative and more liberal ones, divided into dozens of variations on the common themes.

In fact, they are in nothing but "civil war" from birth... and only crude conspiracy theory sees it otherwise. The bourgoise fights amongst itself, but does not cease to be bourgoise by virtue of it.

Back-stabbers anonympous...

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jsi/lowres/jsin351l.jpg

.

I agree that "management" is in a perpetual state of struggle for the presumed scarce resources of who knows what..oh, money, that's it. Doesn't matter. Your point is correct. And that struggle is hardly worth much attention unless you have to deal with it to survive in some way, or maybe even thrive but...

Here's what's different about this nastiness...

Remember this guy?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... alachi.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Joe_Valachi.jpg)
Joseph Valachi...

"first" to break the oath - Omerta: "Omertà implies “the categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime.” Joe scammed both sides and lived for a while.

Brzezinski took a more dignified path but he sems to break two big rules: 1) he revealed the magical "Tonkin Trick," as the Gulf of...it's been around for a long time but, despite his previous "pretexts," this one (Iran attack) was serious enough to warrant breaking the code here. Can you name someone who did this and remained in the establishment. Zbig didn't call for an investigation, he just said "Here's how it's done, don't let anyone say that they were fooled." That's a lot deeper than just jockying for position to see who gets the corner office.

In addition, Zbig took on PNAC without naming them in his comments on 911. That's very dangerous territory and he knows it. Again, he's fire walking with a calm appearance.


A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II. (Author’s emphasis)

Here's where it becomes a bit edgy, very much so actually. A key elements of the 911 let it/make it happen scenario(s) is the the speculation, or maybe wishful thinking (a unifying attack on the US) in the PNAC document. PNAC 1998 calls for Sadam's ouster (1998) and the subsequent "Pearl Harbor" event of 911 was used to justify the Iraqi war. I've never seen how the very opportunistic response by Bush (some say cynical) to 911somehow proves that the neocons around him enacted the PNAC scenario (which is really a speculation on the timing). It's post hoc ergo propter hoc in the classic form...but now this.

Serious question: What was Zbig doing here?

While I see the PNAC speculation on triggers to their "world undone" through a modern Pearl Harbor having a coincidental relationship to 911, I do think that Zbig is sending some sort of message here. He knows of the PNAC document, the controversy over their Pearl Harbor wish upon a jaded star scenario.

What's up with this?

Here's where it becomes a bit edgy, very much so actually. A key elements of the 911 let it/make it happen scenario(s) is the the speculation, or maybe wishful thinking (a unifying attack on the US) in the PNAC document. PNAC 1998 calls for Sadam's ouster (1998) and the subsequent "Pearl Harbor" event of 911 was used to justify the Iraqi war. I've never seen how the very opportunistic response by Bush (some say cynical) to 911somehow proves that the neocons around him enacted the PNAC scenario (which is really a speculation on the timing). It's post hoc ergo propter hoc in the classic form...but now this.

Serious question: What was Zbig doing here?

While I see the PNAC speculation on triggers to their "world undone" through a modern Pearl Harbor having a coincidental relationship to 911, I do think that Zbig is sending some sort of message here. He knows of the PNAC document, the controversy over their Pearl Harbor wish upon a jaded star scenario.

What's up with this?

Serious answer... I don't see the emphasis in the same way that you do. These guys have been getting themselves elected since the end of the First World War, in part by reference to "the threat". That "threat", except for a short stint in opposition to "Fascists", has always been the Red Menace. In part it was arguable: half the population of the world (albeit by taking quite a "stretch"), continuous wars of National Liberation, nuclear competition, etc. Now, the old tactics and the old methods are mapped to a new client who just doesn't fit the bill. There is no unified ideological, national, or military force that can be remotely claimed to fill the requirement. In turn, the risks that are now taken, in no way justify the potential costs. There is no question that the U.S. can be ruined by wars (such as Iraq and maybe Iran) which are more costly, more dangerous and more negative to domestic and international stability than the effect of "winning" could ever justify. The old illusion was that Vietnam or Korea could be justified by virtue of their impact on Soviet policy or on the strategic initiative of National Liberation movements elsewhere. No such claims can now be made.

I think Zbig is blowing the whistle on "pretexts" that will immediately be exposed, tried and true "tactics" that will simply undermine the old winners in the new conditions, and a level of "adventurism" that quite possibly might end in disaster. Most importantly, he is saying that the "Ideological Struggle", which is not ideological at all, in the War on Terrorism, which is neither, against "Radical Islam", who is not really the "enemy", will all unravel and very quickly at that... if it doesn't cause a major disaster first.

I don't think he is blowing the whistle on a 9/11 conspiracy... or, for that matter, on fake pretexts in general. I think he is blowing the whistle on a BushCo "worldview" which is not sustainable. It's just that his "realpolitik" is showing.

.

More later. Nice work!

I think Zbig is blowing the whistle on "pretexts" that will immediately be exposed, tried and true "tactics" that will simply undermine the old winners in the new conditions, and a level of "adventurism" that quite possibly might end in disaster. Most importantly, he is saying that the "Ideological Struggle", which is not ideological at all, in the War on Terrorism, which is neither, against "Radical Islam", who is not really the "enemy", will all unravel and very quickly at that... if it doesn't cause a major disaster first.


The underlined portion is correct. I bypassed that for my interest in the subtleties of interpersonal communication/jousting.

One thing I noticed in my time in corporate America (over a long while ago) is that people often defined their own position in the company on the basis of who they disliked, hated in some cases. That fits well with your cartoon up thread. The choice of the neocon scare tactics rather than reality in the Ford administration was a fateful one. Instead of an enemy who was short on parts and struggling with the pace of technological advances, we got the "evil empire" astride the globe with technologies so advanced we were doomed absent a major build up. How did we know that the Soviet Union had those secret weapons? By the very fact we didn't know, the argument went. They were so clever, we couldn't discover their secrets. Crazy making logic, to be sure, but we've lived in the shadow of this absurdity for decades.

Why? Because it justified a huge arms buildup. The defense industries just had to find a movement wacky enough to say things like this and voila, plausible deniability.

The Iraq adventure aroused great suspicion among the citizens of this country. These were squelched quickly by a combination of press PR and the Pavlovian response when the people were given an object of hatred, Sadam, etc. Absurd but fatefully true.

What will we do with our very real hate "gap?" It seems we've invented the enemy then developed the policies to create the enemy. Attacking Iran is the collision of the old "pretext" technique, as you rightfully pointed out with examples from Brzezinski, and the need to survive as a viable entity on the world scene. Zbig picked the right alternative and he delivered a masterful dagger to the heart of the absurd logic that is the rationale for a war with Iran.

We live amongst dangerous people, many of whom are located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I think Zbig is blowing the whistle on "pretexts" that will immediately be exposed, tried and true "tactics" that will simply undermine the old winners in the new conditions, and a level of "adventurism" that quite possibly might end in disaster. Most importantly, he is saying that the "Ideological Struggle", which is not ideological at all, in the War on Terrorism, which is neither, against "Radical Islam", who is not really the "enemy", will all unravel and very quickly at that... if it doesn't cause a major disaster first.


The underlined portion is correct. I bypassed that for my interest in the subtleties of interpersonal communication/jousting.

One thing I noticed in my time in corporate America (over a long while ago) is that people often defined their own position in the company on the basis of who they disliked, hated in some cases. That fits well with your cartoon up thread. The choice of the neocon scare tactics rather than reality in the Ford administration was a fateful one. Instead of an enemy who was short on parts and struggling with the pace of technological advances, we got the "evil empire" astride the globe with technologies so advanced we were doomed absent a major build up. How did we know that the Soviet Union had those secret weapons? By the very fact we didn't know, the argument went. They were so clever, we couldn't discover their secrets. Crazy making logic, to be sure, but we've lived in the shadow of this absurdity for decades.

Why? Because it justified a huge arms buildup. The defense industries just had to find a movement wacky enough to say things like this and voila, plausible deniability.

The Iraq adventure aroused great suspicion among the citizens of this country. These were squelched quickly by a combination of press PR and the Pavlovian response when the people were given an object of hatred, Sadam, etc. Absurd but fatefully true.

What will we do with our very real hate "gap?" It seems we've invented the enemy then developed the policies to create the enemy. Attacking Iran is the collision of the old "pretext" technique, as you rightfully pointed out with examples from Brzezinski, and the need to survive as a viable entity on the world scene. Zbig picked the right alternative and he delivered a masterful dagger to the heart of the absurd logic that is the rationale for a war with Iran.

We live amongst dangerous people, many of whom are located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

An observation: It is interesting that Reagan/Cheney/Rumsfeld's "Team B" which rekindled a fear of a "Soviet First Strike" based on no evidence, is exactly the same people as Bush's neocon "A Team" for the war in Iraq. Now, they are Zbig's "F Troop". If history follows the last cycle, now we get a "rational, sane, competent" Democratic "team" that still remains focused on "pretexts" and Iran and the "Islamic Treat", though, once again, relabled.

Where are you going with all this? Is your piece a "one-off" or will you develop the theme? This is an interesting subject.

.

I think I'll write something about the period between Feb 1 and the Bush press conference. The process from start to finish was interesting and then Bush equivocated, as we see with the perpetually entitled, with his introduction of the new evil dooers, the "Force." Maybe speculate a bit on what it's like to have your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs pul the rug out from under you...or tlak about the consequences of the "pretext" game - it's a neutral strategy but outmoded because the application can be so devastating. I think the Cheney - Rummy/Ford and /Bush II is of real interest.

What I can't figure out, even in my moments of "florid"imagination is this: how in the heck do these guys get form the attack to anything remotely approaching success. It's just too strange and the odds are too great.

What informs their thinking. It's like we have a group of policy makers pacing the halls who bear a strong resemlance to Richard Hanssen a la Chris Cooper in "Breach."

http://www.popmatters.com/images/news_art/m/movie-breach-1-mct.jpg
I beg your pardon! You didn't say no
weapons of mass destruction did you?

...the most important question.

What direction would you suggest for a follow up article, presuming you think one is important.?

...the most important question.

What direction would you suggest for a follow up article, presuming you think one is important.?

I would write an article on the points of agreement on a Dem plan for a "revised foreign policy" should they take the white house in '08. Once you get past "competence" and "diplomacy" and all that, what are the Liberal Imperialists agreed upon? I would start with the DLC but not stop there. I would hit the Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden campaigns in particular. Who is hired, who is setting policy, and what are they saying?

On Iran.
On the "War on Terror"
On Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
On Israel, Palestine and Lebanon
On Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia

What about international treaties?

What about Cuba and Venezuela?

I would do a matrix... and I would ask each campaign directly (10 questions) as well as doing the background research. They love questions in writing.

Why the fuck not? You are the well known crusading journalist from "Scoop"...

http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/30_image/front.jpg

:D