There is an article (or here) by Clayton Hallmark in which he ties together Karl Rove, Michael Ledeen, the Niger uranium scandal, and even Robert Lady, the Milan-based CIA agent who is wanted in Italy for the kidnapping, rendition and torture of Abu Omar (the Italians gave everybody a heads-up that they were going to arrest a bunch of CIA agents, allowing the agents, including Lady, to flee the jurisdiction). Lady possibly used to be in charge of a covert American unit in Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua which infiltrated anti-American groups. I don't know the timing of this, but if it goes back twenty years ago - Lady is supposed to be 51 - it might tie into Iran-Contra, and through Iran-Contra to Ledeen. That would make for a huge Unified Theory of American Political Corruption, tying everything from Iran-Contra to the Niger forgeries (did Ledeen actually get Jonathon Pollard his job in the Navy?), to the rendition of Abu Omar, all back to Michael Ledeen, making him the most powerful living American! This is all very interesting, but I was struck by a comment made on this article by Jebelia at the Portland Indy Media site, and I reprint it in full:
"Ledeen may say he wants the US to attack Iran, but when you are as corrupt as Michael Ledeen, words are meaningless. Watch what the neocons do; don't put too much faith in what they say. And keep in mind that when Ledeen was on Reagan's National Security Council his major responsibility was to supply US arms to Iran through Israel.
Bush and his collective brain used the pretext of an attack on the US by Islamic extremists to overthrow a secular Arab government - that of Iraq. The entirely predictable result of the Iraq invasion is that the Arab consensus which was always the source of whatever integrity and stability Iraq possessed has broken down. This breakdown inevitably resulted in a civil war between the Arab Shi'ite and Sunnite communities in Iraq which will negatively affect all of Iraq's Arab neighbors. (Actually a civil war was not the inevitable consequence of the fall of Saddam's government. If the US had not disbanded the Iraqi military, or if it had quickly organized a large peacekeeping force from surrounding Arab countries as Dilip Hiro urged, the disaster we are seeing could have been avoided, but either of those options were anathema to the neocons.) For decades the main goal of Israeli foreign policy has been to prevent the Arabs from getting together economically politically, and secular Arab nationalism has been seen as the greatest threat to Israel.
The Shi'ite clerical hierarchy that has controled Iran for 26 years now controls Iraq as well, thanks to the US of A. I foresaw this result before the invasion, and I am not psychic, terribly bright or especially well-informed. It is therefore difficult for me to believe that the experts at the Pentagon and Herzliya who planned this operation did not foresee it as well. It must be that either 1) there was a deal made between Iran, Israel and the Bushies in advance of the invasion of Iraq (even in advance of 911?), or 2) that the Israelis and neocons believed that the chaos caused to the Arab world would be worth the danger of empowering the Shi'ite theocrats without striking a deal.
So maybe the end game of the War on Terror/Clash of Civilizations will include a nuclear attack on Iran, but we're now just in the early stages. The next target is the only country in the region that has not surrendered to the US or Israel and has remained true to non-sectarian Arab nationalism - Syria."
I agree with this ten thousand percent. Ledeen writes a column in the National Review each week advocating an American attack on Iran ("faster, please"). Do you think he wants an American attack on Iran? He was heavily involved in Iran-Contra, which involved illegally supplying the leaders of Iran with arms. He hangs out with Manocher Ghobanifar, a man connected with the people who run Iran. The Americans have now clearly manipulated the situation in Iraq - through disbanding the Iraqi army, setting up an election guaranteed to disenfranchise Sunnis and create a wider Sunni-Shi'ite rift, provoking a civil war through failing to provide security and probably through faked terrorist attacks on Shi'ites, and installing a very Iran-friendly Iraqi government, including neocon friend Chalabi - to lead to a de facto annexation of Iraq by Iran. Are we to believe this was an accident or a mistake?
It's clear that calls by various neocons, including Ledeen, for an attack on Iran are not directed at the American people or lawmakers, but at the people and leaders of Iran. The talk of war, even nuclear attack, coupled with other American actions, including the neocon support of the anti-Iranian MEK terrorist group, probable CIA incursions into Iran to create havoc by setting off bombs, and the recent highly publicized crash of a U-2 obviously spying on Iran, are intended to create a strategy of tension in Iran, pushing the country into the hands of religious leaders. The results of the recent Iranian elections prove the success of this strategy. Why would the Zionist neocons want to create an Islamic dictatorship in Iran, led by Shi'ite clergy, with effective control over Iraq?
The Israelis and their agents in the American government tricked the Americans into the attack on Iraq, in part through the use of the forged Niger documents. The long-term Israeli plan has to answer the question of how Israel will build 'Greater Israel' when faced with a completely hostile Muslim world. The only answer is based on three principles:
- The divide-and-conquer approach as set out by Oded Yinon (and written about here many times);
- The 'doctrine of the periphery', the idea that Israeli interests can be advanced by making alliances with those non-Arab states like Turkey and Iran which are not adjacent to Israel; and
- The Shi'ite-Sunni rift within Islam.
Israel's obvious enemies are mostly Sunnis. If you're going to be fighting Sunnis, the obvious trick is to create a new ally, a Shi'ite empire consisting of Iran and Iraq. The minor annoyance of Iranian support to Hezbollah is far outweighed by the advantages of creating a new and very powerful player in the Middle East, a player who, for religious reasons, probably hates your enemies more than it hates you. 'Greater Israel' can extend all the way to the Euphrates over Sunni lands, and your new friend may even help you (it will be a much bigger challenge heading towards the Nile!). In connection with this, watch the American media to sharpen its distinctions within Islam and concentrate on the fact that 'terrorists' are mostly Sunnis.
Looked at in terms of the necessary arrangements in the Middle East for the creation of 'Greater Israel', the neocon plan is rather obvious (although it took this constant pushing of the idea of a war on Iran coupled with the contradictory action of Americans in Iraq to make it obvious to me). Neither Ledeen nor any other neocon has any intention of actually attacking Iran. The talk of attacks is merely intended to keep Iran in the hands of the radical theologians, who have been given a Shi'ite Empire through the handing over of Iraq. You need no other proof than the forced presence of the detested Chalabi, whose job all along was to forge an alliance with Iran. The new Shi'ite Empire will completely mess up the Middle East, and create tensions that will keep Israel's enemies busy for years, while Israel slowly builds 'Greater Israel'. It is a brilliant plan, which can only be foiled if pan-Arab nationalism can win out over fractures within Islam. The two countries most in danger of an American attack are Syria and, eventually, Egypt, and it is not a coincidence that these are the two countries most associated with pan-Arab nationalism. Nasser's version of pan-Arab nationalism led to the first American support of his enemies in the Egyptian Brotherhood, the most notorious manifestation of which is now called al Qaeda, so you can see how the world fits together.