CNN Report on Threatened Iranian Retaliation for Syria Strike
Posted: September 6, 2013 Filed under: Chemical 12 Comments
I call bullshit on this right now.
UPDATE: New Iranian statement denying this report here.
Arms Control Law
A blog for analysis and discussion of legal issues relevant to arms control
Recent Posts
- New Article: Disarmament is Good, but What We Need Now is Arms Control
- Russia’s apoplexy over biological research – Implications for the BTWC and its Articles V and VI
- What Nuclear Weapons-Related Activities Are Covered by the Environmental Remediation obligation of the Nuclear Ban Treaty? Part 2: Policy Considerations and Ways Forward
- Guest Post: What Nuclear Weapons-Related Activities Are Covered by the Environmental Remediation obligation of the Nuclear Ban Treaty? Part 1: A Question of Interpretation?
- Podcast on AUKUS
Archives
- April 2023
- November 2022
- June 2022
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
Categories
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Mid Mo Design.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Arms Control Law
%d bloggers like this:
So this is interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/09/07/world/europe/07reuters-syria-crisis-attack.html?ref=world&_r=0&pagewanted=print
Direct Link Between Assad and Gas Attack Elusive for U.S.
Interesting, thanks for the link. I observe that most elements in the article remain unsubstantiated.
And this for a fuller narrative:
touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77304650/
I second your bull-shezam on this story!
I think the original source was Reuters. It looks like CNN, CBS, WS and a bunch of other were just “punk’d”!
This new piece on CNN supports the view that whatever communications there were, were between the IRGC and Hezbollah, independent of the Iranian government. I’ve heard a theory that the USG actually leaked this intel in order to inform Rouhani of what the IRGC was up to, so he could put a stop to it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/06/opinion/ghitis-iran-syria/index.html?c=politics&page=1
Dan,
The theory is not consistent with the knowledge in the public domain!
Soleimani, in an interview on Iranian TV a little more than a year ago regarding a question related to another alleged US intercept, said (roughly) the following (can’t find the quote right now):
We all eavesdrop on each other for intelligence purposes. Americans eavesdrop on us – we know that. They (the Americans) or Israelis (not the word he used) like to float these things. But they know better. Iran-Hezbollah communication regarding operations and actions is never wired. They (Hezbollah) are very close to us and most of our sensitive communications never gets on the air or on the wire.
Of course, it is possible that Soleimani’s statement was simply “deception”. Any thing is possible! But, at the least, it is not consistent with the position of Iranians – that they know Americans are listening and they don’t put stuff on the wire or on the “air”.
So your view would be that this story is just a complete fabrication? That was my first instinct as well. It seems so totally out of step with the efforts and direction of the Rouhani government lately. I know Rouhani isn’t in control of everything over there. So it is of course possible that the IRGC could be doing this on its own or under the direction of Khamenei. I don’t have nearly enough knowledge about how things work in the power centers of Tehran to understand any better.
Which doesn’t discount the likelihood of retaliation, of course.
In 1983 U.S. warships bombarded Lebanon. . . at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and. . . the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley.
Within weeks, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by a massive truck bomb that killed 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers. The truck driver- suicide bomber was an Iranian national named Ismail Ascari whose truck contained explosives that were the equivalent of 21,000 pounds of TNT. Two minutes later a second suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into the French military compound in Beirut killing 58 French paratroopers.
The coordinated dual suicide attacks were reportedly supported, planned, organized, and financed by Iran and Syria.
There is always the possibility that Iran and Hezbollah know that the NSA intercept everything (ya’think?), and so when the pick up a phone and start talking then they do so to *deliberately* mess with Obama’s brain.
Think about it; the USA spends billions on this stuff, and Iran twists it to their advantage with the cost of a single phone call.
Cui bono?
This furthers the idea that Syria is about sending a message to Iran, and that Iran is BAD (or else why would they threaten Americans?).
And we know that that the major media are biased war-promoters.
Dan Rather, an iconic US journalist: “Look I’m an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I’m some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of ‘win’ might be. Now, I can’t and don’t argue that that is coverage without prejudice. About that I am prejudiced.” So Dan brought us through the criminal war against Vietnam and the Nixon presidency. — from Norman Solomon’s “War Made Easy” — How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Interesting point made at Friday’s State Department press briefing:
Reporter: “Can you – and I noticed that unlike Beirut and – or unlike Lebanon and Turkey there was no new warning today, no new even internal thing that went up on the Embassy website in Baghdad. So I’m just wondering is that – does that – is that report accurate? Is there such a threat? Are you concerned about it? And if you are, is anything being done to reduce it?”
Spokesmodel: “Well, I’m not going to comment on reports about alleged intelligence that may or may not exist. Clearly, we remain concerned in looking at the security throughout the region. Again, you noted that we have not taken any action in terms of our posts in Iraq, so I think I would probably leave it at that for now on that point. Again, we’ll keep reevaluating, but nothing to announce for any other posts at this time.”
I think it is very safe indeed to call bullshit on this one.
Certainly the State Dept by its own confessed inaction is not taking this “threat” seriously.
Good info. Thanks Johnboy.